What is God?

[Mr.Badham]

As an atheist, I have a hard time understanding what a god might look like. Please help.

[JP Cusick]

While I would certainly agree your understanding of the multi-verse seems to give more of life to an individual, I don't think that means this life isn't enough for truth and justice to go forth even for the aborted baby, the car crash victim, etc. I think there is a real notion of being 'born again' without the multi-verse. And I have some questions about what it means to be a single individual across parallel universes as opposed to different entities, but I'm not sure we want to get bogged down there for the purposes of this thread.

It might do for a new thread topic in "Science and Religion" but it is a concept way beyond the scope of most people.

What intrigues me about the multi-verse is the meaning for humanity and for my own life.

Instead most people just want to know about God, and not much about their self.

I certainly don't think we can know everything about God or anything like that. What do you make of Romans 1:19-20 where Paul talks about God's qualities being understood from what has been made? I think of the command to love God with all of our heart, soul, mind and strength. Mind being included in there.

I agree that we can know a lot about God, and I too see it as interesting.

My repeat:
We must not be like the heathen who demand to put God under a microscope for us to view and analyze - because that is going too far.

[The Tanager]

My repeat:
We must not be like the heathen who demand to put God under a microscope for us to view and analyze - because that is going too far.

But I'm trying to pin down exactly what you mean by that. You seem to be okay with saying science points to God existing, but seem to think a developed argument of how it does so is going too far. Or are you saying science even backs up what the Bible says and we should only trust revelation? Or something else?

[2ndRateMind]

As an atheist, I have a hard time understanding what a god might look like. Please help.

I rather like Anselm's idea of God as being the best possible being one can imagine. To which I would add; and even infinitely better than that. But I would caution that this is not a definition of God, rather, it is a mere approach toward Him, and, to use a Buddhist phrase, 'a finger pointing at the moon'.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[JP Cusick]

But I'm trying to pin down exactly what you mean by that.

I can not fathom why you would try to pin down me - or try to pin down God.

People do such things and that is their business - but for myself I am content without digging too deep into the spheres which seem to be off limits.

You seem to be okay with saying science points to God existing, but seem to think a developed argument of how it does so is going too far.

It is like seeing spirits and Angels and Demons - and yet some want to capture one of the spirits so then they can dissect and scrutinize it as a science experiment - and I see that as wanting to go too far.

The heathens of science only want to mock and degrade the notion of God based on their human absurdities - and I just try not to feed into that perversion.

Or are you saying science even backs up what the Bible says and we should only trust revelation? Or something else?

I like science when it is done correctly and with valor, but I do not see much of that.

The Bible and its revelations (not the book of Revelations) are a resource to be included.

[McCulloch]

I rather like Anselm's idea of God as being the best possible being one can imagine. To which I would add; and even infinitely better than that. But I would caution that this is not a definition of God, rather, it is a mere approach toward him, and, to use a Buddhist phrase, 'a finger pointing at the moon'.

I am so glad that you enjoy Anselm's approach. But since this is not a definition of God, it is not much help.

[2ndRateMind]

I rather like Anselm's idea of God as being the best possible being one can imagine. To which I would add; and even infinitely better than that. But I would caution that this is not a definition of God, rather, it is a mere approach toward him, and, to use a Buddhist phrase, 'a finger pointing at the moon'.

I am so glad that you enjoy Anselm's approach. But since this is not a definition of God, it is not much help.

Thank you for your comment. The thing is, though, that to define something is to encompass and to limit it. And since God (conventionally) is infinitely loving, infinitely good, infinitely righteous, infinitely just, and just infinitely perfect, He cannot be so limited. So, I regress to Anselm. Just imagine the best morality you can imagine, and let that be your guide to God.

Cheers, 2RM.

[The Tanager]

I can not fathom why you would try to pin down me - or try to pin down God.

I mean 'pin down' simply in the general sense of understand. I'm trying to understand what you are saying to the best of my ability. And I'm trying to understand reality to the best of my ability. I don't see anything wrong with that.

People do such things and that is their business - but for myself I am content without digging too deep into the spheres which seem to be off limits.

I don't think it is off limits. I am trying to understand why you think it is off limits.

Earlier you said those who see God would die or go insane. I don't see an attempt at understanding using the reasoning abilities given by God as 'seeing God' like what is talked about in Exodus 33:20. I see it like what Paul talks about in Romans 1:19-20. I don't see it contradicting John 1:18 or 14:8-11. I'm confused why you think those verses speak against what I'm advocating for.

It is like seeing spirits and Angels and Demons - and yet some want to capture one of the spirits so then they can dissect and scrutinize it as a science experiment - and I see that as wanting to go too far.

The heathens of science only want to mock and degrade the notion of God based on their human absurdities - and I just try not to feed into that perversion.

Science studies the physical. Reasoning logically can take us to truths beyond physical observations. This doesn't mean we don't have limitations beyond this. It's just that the limitations aren't as limiting as some people think they are. That's all I'm advocating for. It's not mocking or degrading the notion of God.

Nor do I see how I'm feeding into a perversion. Trying to reason correctly doesn't feed into perverted reasoning any more than trying to act morally feeds into immoral actions.

[McCulloch]

The science of the "Big Bang" shows us how God created the heavens and the earth.

No it does not. The science of the Big Bang shows us about the universe a very long time ago. Big Bang makes no reference to either earth nor God.

The theory of Evolution shows us how God is actively improving life every day.

Evolution works with or without God.

Telescopes being able to look back in time some 14 billion years tells us that God is not restricted to linear space or time.

I think that has more to do with the speed of light than a supposed attribute of God.

The reality of Ghost, Spirits and Demons is proof that there is another form of life.

Ghosts, spirits and demons have not been shown to be real.

Plus the Bible prophesy fulfilled, as HERE, is a huge proof that the Father is in full command of life in this world.

Are you serious? Herbert W Armstrong's ravings about the USA in prophesy is considered controversial if not downright nutty in theological circles. You wish to elevate them to the status of scientific proof?

[McCulloch]

The Bible declares that God created the Heavens and the Earth - and that was said at least 3000+ years ago.

The writers of Genesis also declare that it took six days, that humans and all of the beasts were created on the same day, that birds preceded land animals,….

There is no reason why the universe has any beginning, and science could have discovered the universe to be infinite without any beginning, but instead having a beginning aligns with the Bible's very first verse of Genesis 1:1 " In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. " KJV

The writers of Genesis also have water and earth existing prior to the sun and moon.

As such the Big Bang and the Bible are in agreement with this.

The agreement is only superficial.

Plus the science tells that before the Big Bang there was one (1) tiny reality which was so compressed that time and space did not exist as it was like nothing there, and that one singularity is equivalent to saying one God who was the beginning of the creation.

Wow! You have made an increadible and completely unwarranted leap from hypothetical singularity to God.

[paarsurrey1]

[Replying to post 11 by paarsurrey1]

Many a person in all ages and in all regions of the world received Word of Revelation from One-True-God. God conversed with them. I understand that the "light" that Buddha received under a banyan tree was this Word of Revelation from One-True-God.
God had conversed with the humans. I don't find any reason to deny it.

[center]Light is In Formation [/center]

Without light, there is no information.

Therefore light is data.

Without consciousness, data (if it could exist of itself) is just data.

It may as well not even exist, which is a big clue as to what came first, consciousness or information.

That is one reason why I understand GOD = Consciousness, not information.

GOD does not = data.

Data is something which informs consciousness.

Thus to say 'GOD is data' is incorrect. God is not data/information. GOD is both the consciousness which creates data and the aspects of consciousness which acknowledges data and deciphers data.

It is therefore incorrect to use the analogy "GOD is light."

Is the above from science or religion? Kindly quote from one's source for useful discussion, please.
Regards