God as an immortal 'being'

[imhereforyou]

For your own point of view, is it absolutely necessary for God to be this supreme being of everything that's immortal?
In other words, does God need to be something more that we can't understand, perfect and incapable of being flawed, or can it be something (or a series of somethings) that were entirely mortal and flawed, not all powerful and all knowing like many claim, that was simply more technically advanced than anything we've seen before or since?
Why or why not?

[Checkpoint]

[Replying to post 30 by steveb1]

The universe came to be as science says it came to be. Or the universe never came to be, because it is, like God, eternal by nature.

How does science say it came to be?

[steveb1]

[Replying to post 30 by steveb1]

The universe came to be as science says it came to be. Or the universe never came to be, because it is, like God, eternal by nature.

How does science say it came to be?

Big Bang or a series of Big Bangs.

Or eternal fields of quantum potential.

https://infidels.org/library/modern/mar ... acuum.html

https://science.howstuffworks.com/dicti ... g-bang.htm

[shnarkle]

For your own point of view, is it absolutely necessary for God to be this supreme being of everything that's immortal?
In other words, does God need to be something more that we can't understand, perfect and incapable of being flawed, or can it be something (or a series of somethings) that were entirely mortal and flawed, not all powerful and all knowing like many claim, that was simply more technically advanced than anything we've seen before or since?
Why or why not?

Yes, for me, God is not exactly immortal, but rather eternal.
"Immortal" connotes a mortal being who has, by whatever means, passed into immortality; whereas "Eternal" connotes a being who has been always existent in an "eternal Now", never having been a mortal being to begin with.

Other essentials for my God-definition are:

God is real, but not a creator, intervener, or judge

God has no power, if by power is meant the ability to create, maintain, and intervene within the physical cosmos. God's only "power" is God's ability to transform persons from within - as a living, loving Presence in the soul.
God has no power of miraculous physical intervention.
And I see that as a virtue, not a flaw.

God is not an object of intellectual/scientific/philosophical knowledge, but rather of direct personal experience, as in mystical union and "gnosis". Since experience trumps faith, faith-about, and faith-in, then experience of God does, too.

At base, humans are not separate from God, according to the principle that, at base, the Atman is not separate from the Brahman, or in the sense that (as 2 Peter states), we are to become partakers or participants in the Divine Nature.

So "God" includes both the infinite Divine Awareness and Divine Being and our own limited awareness and being. This can be realized spontaneously, or through the hundreds of "lenses" or meditative, contemplative methods that have been designed specifically to attain God as an object of personal experience.

I was with you until the last sentence. I don't think these methods are designed to attain God objectively anymore than the atman attains brahman. There is no division between atmanbrahman. There is nothing to attain. Meditative or contemplative methods reveal what is already there.

[steveb1]

For your own point of view, is it absolutely necessary for God to be this supreme being of everything that's immortal?
In other words, does God need to be something more that we can't understand, perfect and incapable of being flawed, or can it be something (or a series of somethings) that were entirely mortal and flawed, not all powerful and all knowing like many claim, that was simply more technically advanced than anything we've seen before or since?
Why or why not?

Yes, for me, God is not exactly immortal, but rather eternal.
"Immortal" connotes a mortal being who has, by whatever means, passed into immortality; whereas "Eternal" connotes a being who has been always existent in an "eternal Now", never having been a mortal being to begin with.

Other essentials for my God-definition are:

God is real, but not a creator, intervener, or judge

God has no power, if by power is meant the ability to create, maintain, and intervene within the physical cosmos. God's only "power" is God's ability to transform persons from within - as a living, loving Presence in the soul.
God has no power of miraculous physical intervention.
And I see that as a virtue, not a flaw.

God is not an object of intellectual/scientific/philosophical knowledge, but rather of direct personal experience, as in mystical union and "gnosis". Since experience trumps faith, faith-about, and faith-in, then experience of God does, too.

At base, humans are not separate from God, according to the principle that, at base, the Atman is not separate from the Brahman, or in the sense that (as 2 Peter states), we are to become partakers or participants in the Divine Nature.

So "God" includes both the infinite Divine Awareness and Divine Being and our own limited awareness and being. This can be realized spontaneously, or through the hundreds of "lenses" or meditative, contemplative methods that have been designed specifically to attain God as an object of personal experience.

I was with you until the last sentence. I don't think these methods are designed to attain God objectively anymore than the atman attains brahman. There is no division between atmanbrahman. There is nothing to attain. Meditative or contemplative methods reveal what is already there.

Agreed - as a matter of semantics. The "attainment" = realization of what was there all the time but to Which we were blind. Good point.

[shnarkle]

[Replying to post 34 by steveb1]

I was with you until the last sentence. I don't think these methods are designed to attain God objectively anymore than the atman attains brahman. There is no division between atmanbrahman. There is nothing to attain. Meditative or contemplative methods reveal what is already there.

Agreed - as a matter of semantics. The "attainment" = realization of what was there all the time but to Which we were blind. Good point.

I agree it might as well be a form of blindness, but I'm inclined to see it as more of a form of ignorance; intentional ignorance. The biblical account of Adam and Eve hiding from God comes to mind. There's this poignent paradox in their eyes being opened yet simultaneously being closed to the divine in and all around them. They run and hide and the inertia forces them out of paradise.

They are the image of God yet in looking away from God they no longer reflect God's image. In looking to the world, they reflect the world.

[shnarkle]

For your own point of view, is it absolutely necessary for God to be this supreme being of everything that's immortal?
In other words, does God need to be something more that we can't understand, perfect and incapable of being flawed, or can it be something (or a series of somethings) that were entirely mortal and flawed, not all powerful and all knowing like many claim, that was simply more technically advanced than anything we've seen before or since?
Why or why not?

The fact is that there is much that isn't known. It's just simply a mystery, and in order for us to make sense of it we need to go out and figure out what's going on. This is how we grow and develop. If we don't have that mystery in our lives, we won't be bothering to look beyond what we know, and our lives will atrophe. That's why the mystery of the transcendent is necessary. It gives us the challenge to go beyond our own limitations. It makes us more adaptable, more flexible, stronger, etc.

[For_The_Kingdom]

For your own point of view, is it absolutely necessary for God to be this supreme being of everything that's immortal?

Yes. It is absolutely positively 100% necessary for God to be a supreme being of everything that's immortal. It is necessary for a necessary being to exist. There is just no other way around it.

In other words, does God need to be something more that we can't understand, perfect and incapable of being flawed, or can it be something (or a series of somethings) that were entirely mortal and flawed, not all powerful and all knowing like many claim, that was simply more technically advanced than anything we've seen before or since?
Why or why not?

This kind of touches on the Modal Ontological argument. A God that is mortal and flawed and not all powerful would not be a god of necessity...but, a God immortal God is necessary, rendering a mortal god as contingent as you and I.

As long as we can conceive of a necessarily existing God, then a God must exist...and yes, I am "MOA" baiting..hey, you brought it up, not me

[shnarkle]

For your own point of view, is it absolutely necessary for God to be this supreme being of everything that's immortal?

No, and this isn't really my point of view, but it makes sense to me. God isn't a being, nor even the ground of being or existence. The origin of being is where one looks to find God, and the origin of being cannot exist.

In other words, does God need to be something more that we can't understand,

Something more is just more of something, and it doesn't make sense for God to be some thing. Things can be understood or not. It doesn't really matter because things or stuff regardless of how perfect these things might seem are never going to be something that can match up to our best ideas of God. No thing comes closer in that something and nothing seem to come about simultaneously. We have things and we have the absence of things, and nothing comes closer to God than nothing.

technically advanced than anything we've seen before or since?
Why or why not?

If by this you mean advanced techniques, I don't think of God as actively doing anything except causing everything to be done so it isn't as if it could be advanced. If you meant to say "technologically" advanced then I would again say it doesn't make any sense for God to become technologically advanced as this would seem to suggest a God that isn't a god at all, but becomes just a better version of whatever it is already. I supposed you could call these versions "god 2.0, 3.0" etc. As some piece of technology advances to a point where we are in complete awe of it, then for all practical purposes it might as well be a god.

Some piece of technology that allows us to become immortal could also be an example of a type of god; a god that allows us to become something approaching gods ourselves would be a superior god.