what exactly is "God"?

[3bob]

Shall we kick around "God" for a bit?  (Quote found on the internet)

 

"...This is for those who are very much hurt by the idea that God is neither good nor evil, that he is beyond good and evil. Traditional God is described in this way: before creation there was only one God, and there was nothing else; no space, no time and no matter. Let us suppose that in this situation God asked himself this question: am I good? If in this situation it was possible for God to know with certainty that he is good, then of course he is good. But if this was not at all possible, then God cannot be called good. Those who will opt for the affirmative here should also explain by what process God could have come to the realization that he is good, because we all agree that at that time there was no one else, nothing else, other than God.

If I claim about myself that I am good, then I am also claiming that I am the negation of that which is not good. That, which is not good, is the other, and I am not the other. I am the negation of the other, and the other is my negation.

But if we claim about God that he is good, then where is the other of whom God is the negation? This is because before creation God was one, and there was no one else other than God. So for God to be good, he will have to be his own negation. For God to be good he will have to contain within himself his own other. This can be expressed in the following way: God is the principle that represents all that is good and at the same time he is the principle that represents all that is not good. God is the affirmation as well as the negation at the same time. So either we will have to say that God is both good and not good. Or we will have to say that God is neither good nor not good. But to say that God is good will be philosophically naive and immature..."

 

Edited November 4, 2017 by 3bob

[Marblehead]

That is why there is the concept of being beyond good and evil.

 

[Lost in Translation]

God is Mystery. God is beyond description. Any attempt to describe what God "is" or "isn't" is destined to fail miserably.

 

I struggle with this. I want very much to believe in a loving Sky-Daddy, but I don't think it works that way.

[Geof Nanto]

From Meister Eckhart…..

 

Meister Eckhart's theology knows a "Godhead" of which no qualities, except unity and being ¹, can be predicated; it "is becoming," it is not yet Lord of itself, and it represents an absolute coincidence of opposites: "But its simple nature is of forms formless; of becoming becomingless; of beings beingless; of things thingless," etc.

 

 Union of opposites is equivalent to unconsciousness, so far as human logic goes, for consciousness presupposes a differentiation into subject and object and a relation between them. Where there is no "other," or it does not yet exist, all possibility of consciousness ceases. Only the Father, the God "welling" out of the Godhead, "notices himself," becomes "beknown to himself," and "confronts himself as a Person." So, from the Father, comes the Son, as the Father's thought of his own being. In his original unity "he knows nothing" except the "suprareal" One which he is. As the Godhead is essentially unconsious so too is the man who lives in God.

 

In his sermon on "The Poor in Spirit" (Matt. 5 : 3), the Meister says: "The man who has this poverty has everything he was when he lived not in any wise, neither in himself, nor in truth, nor in God. He is so quit and empty of all knowing that no knowledge of God is alive in him; for while he stood in the eternal nature of God, there lived in him not another: what lived there was himself. And so we say this man is as empty of his own knowledge as he was when he was not anything; he lets God work what he will, and he stands empty as when he came from God." Therefore he should love God in the following way: "Love him as he is: a not-God, a not-spirit, a not-person, a not-image; as a sheer, pure, dear One, which he is, sundered from all secondness; and in this One let us sink eternally, from nothing to nothing. So help us God. Amen." 31

 

Note

 

1.       "Being" is controversial. The Master says: "God in the Godhead is a spiritual substance, so unfathomable that we can say nothing about it except that it is naught [niht ensi]. To say it is aught [iht] were more lying than true."

 

(from C G Jung,  Aion  p193)

[3bob]

all identified as only this or that particular being and or form under temporal life and death will pass away, but that temporal life and death which is under the Supreme Being also passes away...and then the freedom and joy of Spirit knows itself without doubt.

 

edit: reworded and removed heavier sounding connotation, namely the god of death.

Edited November 4, 2017 by 3bob

[Nungali]

God is the deified ,  collective, local,  Superego .  ...   well,  that's how they start off .

 

Everyone just agreeing on an accepted code of behaviour ; mores and taboos, doesn't seem to work .

 

A concept with some 'ooomph' attached appears to be needed before peeps take notice and, more or less, adopt it .

[Nungali]

....   and of course, the 'religious connection' is via one's personal Superego ;   The 'God contact' ,  'Christ Consciousness ' , Kether : Tiphareth   interaction, etc .

 

It can be shown to be tripartite ; or 3 in 1  -  those energies being similar to the astrological energies of

 

                 Uranus

 

 

Neptune                    Pluto

 

 

 

(In the Macro )

 

reflected in  'Id' components  ( those forces or 'drives' that are modified via the superego { via the Mercury Sun connection }  )

 

 

 

                         Mercury

 

 

                           Moon

 

Venus                                      Mars

 

Under the similar dynamics of

 

 

                         Dao

 

 

 

Yin                                         Yang

 

 

With the Sun, centrally, as the main ego dynamic, in conjunction (through Mercury) with the Moon  ( Sun and Moon conjoined - conscious and unconscious  ( with its three 'orbiting ' drives )

 

( In the Micro )

 

with above and below regulated through Jupiter / Saturn  'gateway' .

 

and emerging at  the Sun Moon 'personality, out through the 'Earth Sphere' , i.e. 'the persona '   - all the above dynamics in interaction with the environment.   Which is where 'learning' ( micro feedback to the macro ) takes place and originally formed those mores and taboos and God concepts in the first place ... in a 'bio-feedback loop'  ..... after a looong time .

 

Ie, it created itself  ;     God created Man but Man also created God    

               

            

 

Edited November 4, 2017 by Nungali

[Gerard]

There are many gods. Each for every plane. Do the Math. As infinite as the Tao is.

 

As as to your question: being capable of creating an entire Universe but there are also variations between them, that is some are capable of greater creating capability (ability to manipulate the Qi, Yin-Yang, 5E and Bagua) than others. This is dependant on level of accumulated good karma.

Edited November 4, 2017 by Gerard

[Emera]

It does not matter if you believe in the existence of God or not. It is simply enough to keep the verdict open. A seeker of truth believes nothing.

 

If there was such a God, it would lack definition because it encompasses all qualities. How can it fit in a book? But some say it is mysterious and can fit in a single breath. 

 

I think that all religions are just attempts to describe this. It is, and is not. It is what it is. 

 

Quote

The Tao that can be told of is not the eternal Tao; The name that can be named is not the eternal name. The Nameless is the origin of Heaven and Earth; The Named is the mother of all things.

 

[3bob]

Emera, Have you also noticed in the quote above that its author reached a verdict so to speak, in other words no doubt tied to conflicting beliefs derived from only doing mental gymnastics regarding Tao?  And one might ask how is that possible - well it is possible through direct experience as repeatedly alluded to in the text.  (Btw, I'd add that a discussion on meanings related to belief and its sister faith is a big one and can not be discounted or dismissed out of hand)

Edited November 4, 2017 by 3bob

[9th]

Quote

Now, it is such a bizarrely improbable coincidence that anything so mind-bogglingly useful could have evolved purely by chance that some have chosen to see it as the final proof of the NON-existence of God. The argument goes something like this:

 

"I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."

 

"But," says Man, "the Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves that You exist, and so therefore, by Your own arguments, You don't. QED"

 

"Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.

 

"Oh, that was easy," says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and gets himself killed on the next zebra crossing.

 

-  The Hitchikers Guide to the Galaxy

 

[Emera]

18 hours ago, 3bob said:

Emera, Have you also noticed in the quote above that its author reached a verdict so to speak, in other words no doubt tied to conflicting beliefs derived from only doing mental gymnastics regarding Tao?  And one might ask how is that possible - well it is possible through direct experience as repeatedly alluded to in the text.  (Btw, I'd add that a discussion on meanings related to belief and its sister faith is a big one and can not be discounted or dismissed out of hand)

 

It's just the author's bias. But real seekers can change their model of reality at whim. Such mental flexibility can break people's minds - holding contradictory thoughts in the same head ;).

 

But the main point, as I take it of that statement is -

 

Quote

The Tao that can be told of is not the eternal Tao;

The Dao the rabble call Dao is not the eternal dao. That means it exists outside of the limits of their comprehension.

Quote

The name that can be named is not the eternal name.

Because how can you speak it, the mystery?

 

Quote

The Nameless is the origin of Heaven and Earth; The Named is the mother of all things

Humans call the named the mother of all things. But of the nameless???? A mystery ;).

Edited November 5, 2017 by Emera

[Emera]

17 hours ago, 9th said:

 

Rick and Morty "Don't think about it :P" You can never really prove the existence of something - you can only disprove. Human logic only works in false - not false logic. That is why science, not sciencism -  the religion of science - has hypotheses and theories.

 

On the record, we have not yet able to prove or disprove the existence of god or of the pasta monster god thingamjig.

Edited November 5, 2017 by Emera

[Michael Sternbach]

God is the "zero point" which existed before creation began. So in this sense, yes, God is beyond "good and evil", the split-up into positive and negative forces, or into the forces of construction and the forces of destruction.

 

"Before" is a bit incorrect though, because it implies a time flow. But in fact, time started flowing when the universe began, so, rigorously, there was no "before".

 

Also, since God is timeless, "he" still exists today (no matter what Nietzsche has said).

 

Time and space - and everything else that has ever been and will ever be created - exist within God. It is not the other way around.

 

From another perspective, God is the Great Attractor or omega point (Teilhard de Chardin) towards which the created world evolves, so in this sense, "he" is indeed the constructive force - the "good" - per se.

 

Of course, for creation to unfold, an interplay of constructive and destructive forces is needed.

 

Edited November 5, 2017 by Michael Sternbach

[Marblehead]

I have heard from some Buddhist thought that the universe does not have a beginning - that it has and will always exist.  No gods needed.

 

[9th]

9 hours ago, Emera said:

Rick and Morty "Don't think about it :P" You can never really prove the existence of something - you can only disprove. Human logic only works in false - not false logic. That is why science, not sciencism -  the religion of science - has hypotheses and theories.

 

On the record, we have not yet able to prove or disprove the existence of god or of the pasta monster god thingamjig.

 

I'll pass that along to Douglas Adams for ya.

[thelerner]

I kinda think God is the big YES!  Can't be explained or intellectualized, only experienced. Usually in deepest silence. 

[Fa Xin]

7 hours ago, Marblehead said:

I have heard from some Buddhist thought that the universe does not have a beginning - that it has and will always exist.  No gods needed.

 

Or that Gods are the manifestation of the “all”. 

[Michael Sternbach]

7 hours ago, Marblehead said:

I have heard from some Buddhist thought that the universe does not have a beginning - that it has and will always exist.  No gods needed.

 

 

This conception is tantamount to Fred Hoyle's Steady State model in modern cosmology. Nothing is in a hurry in that kind of universe. That goes well with Buddhist equanimity.

 

Hoyle did not deny that the galaxies are drifting away from each other (as evident from their red shift), but thought of it as more of a local phenomenon rather than as the result of a Big Bang. However, for keeping the universe from thinning out, new matter has to be continuously created. Which is, in principle, in agreement with ancient alchemical theories, still put forward by some contemporary natural philosophers.

[3bob]

14 hours ago, Emera said:

 

"...But the main point, as I take it of that statement is -

The Dao the rabble call Dao is not the eternal dao. That means it exists outside of the limits of their comprehension.

Because how can you speak it, the mystery?..."

 

 

I do not agree with your summation and I'd say neither does the meaning given in the T.T.C. per chapter 21,

 

 "...How do I know the ways of all things at the beginning? By what is within me."

 

and that is mind blowing for Spirit knows Spirit, or more to the context of T.T.C., Tao knows Tao!  

Edited November 5, 2017 by 3bob

[Emera]

Id then say it doesn't matter if I'm right or wrong because I am not attached to belief.

[Michael Sternbach]

Expanding on my previous post:

 

While the Steady State model may capture certain aspects of the cosmic truth, nature's processes are generally moving in continuous cycles (as especially Daoists should be quick to admit).

 

In this regard, Conformal Cyclic Cosmology is very interesting - one of the latest theories, proposed by none other than Roger Penrose, co-founder of the Big Bang theory, together with Vahe Gurzadyan. According to CCC, the universe will continue its expansion, although after something like  10¹⁰⁰ years, all matter will have either turned into electromagnetic radiation (light, basically) or been sucked up by black holes. And even the black holes will evaporate eventually.

 

Once that process is completed and only light fills the universe, something mind boggling (but mathematically rigorous) happens: Time and space expand into infinity. Metaphysically, it isn't a far stretch to say that the universe has once again been dissolved into Divine consciousness. (Though, when I confronted Penrose and his colleagues with their theory's metaphysical implications on a congress, they told me that such speculation is outside their scope - well, fair enough. A few people in the audience were sympathetic with my thoughts, however.)

 

This infinite expansion is, according to CCC, equivalent to infinite contraction. Mind you, the universe in this model doesn't gradually contract, as in the Big Crunch theory. Rather, there is a direct transition from the infinitely big to the infinitely small - the extremes touch one another seamlessly. So there you have another Singularity as point of departure for another cosmic expansion, that is, once again, a Big Bang followed by another aeon of existence.

 

While CCC speaks of previous and future aeons, I am not sure if this is entirely correct. It seems to me that,these consecutive universes would be separated from each other by infinite spans of time. Or maybe they could be said to exist simultaneously within Divine consciousness? In keeping with the notion held by some metaphysicists that, ultimately, there is no time, and everything occurs simultaneously.

 

Be that as it may, CCC is rather close in outline to the Hinduist theory, according to which the universe - after an incredible number of years - relapses into a state of chaos (Pralaya) and returns to Brahman, just to be born again, in endless cycles.

 

Penrose is adament that it is not the same old universe getting "replayed" again and again, but that there is actually a series of  consequtive universes. Is there any room for an evolutionary process from one universe to the next? In other words, is there some "karmic" information passed on from one of its incarnations to the next?

 

An approximation to this within the framework of CCC may be the assumption that the gravity waves produced by colliding black holes in the late stages of a universe "inform" the structuring of matter in the subsequent one. These gravity waves are theorized to leave circular traces in the cosmic microwave background. In fact, such circles have been observed, however, cosmologists don't agree with each other as to their meaning.

 

On aforementioned congress in 2012, I also asked Penrose if it might be possible to look into the previous aeon via the cosmic microwave background, even though I was aware that physicists model the beginning of the universe as a state of total entropy, thus it would seem that no information could have survived the Big Bang. Penrose seriously doubted it for the same reason, however, more recently, he seems to have changed his mind, as in 2016, he and Gurzadyan published an article discussing the idea of information panspermia from one aeon to the next, that is, information being passed on to our universe by highly advanced civilisations existing in the later time of the previous aeon.

 

Personally, I would think that there should be some kind of "genetic code" at work, seeding a subsequent universe. In what way (or ways) this might take place, however, is an open question to me.

 

I am not sure if Hinduists likewise assume there to be some kind of information transfer from one universe to the next. It would surely be a nice parallel to human beings processing karma left over from previous lifetimes in their current incarnation.

 

Any Hinduists here who would like to say something about that?

[Lost in Translation]

11 hours ago, Michael Sternbach said:

"Before" is a bit incorrect though, because it implies a time flow. But in fact, time started flowing when the universe began, so, rigorously, there was no "before".

 

I've always thought of this analogy:

 

Imagine a large painting, maybe a scenic view ten feet high and twenty feet wide. God is the painter. The painting is creation, and it's "done." The brushes are put away. All is good.

 

Now, imagine the left side of the painting is "before." The far left is the beginning. The right side of the painting is "after." The far right is the end. You, me, and everything else are bits of paint on the canvas. We're conscious paint! Yay! We imagine that we are moving, and thinking, and doing. We imagine that we have control, and can affect things. But we're already painted. If the red stroke that is me meets the blue stroke that is you, is that my doing? How absurd! And when the red stroke that is me comes to and end, because we've moved along to another part of the painting, does that mean I'm dead? Again, how absurd.

 

But this is just an analogy of mine. I'm sure it reflects the truth of the matter about as correctly as a child's coloring book does.

 

My two cents.

[3bob]

1 hour ago, Emera said:

Id then say it doesn't matter if I'm right or wrong because I am not attached to belief.

 

well we could run around and around the mulberry bush...

 

Anyway I'd say if one has not put away certain doubts then that is not such a great feeling and in cases like that it does matter, namely and more so if it is a gnawing feeling which can't really be brushed off, dismissed or discounted no matter how hard one trys if one is being  gnawed upon at various levels form the inside-out or the outside-in, or both...

[3bob]

11 hours ago, Marblehead said:

I have heard from some Buddhist thought that the universe does not have a beginning - that it has and will always exist.  No gods needed.

 

 

MH, As far as gods (or heavenly type beings or deities go)  the historic Buddha recognized and also honored them in and for their place...for example during his great battle with Mara he importantly recognized and honored the Earth/goddess as his witness.  I'm not a Buddhist but one can read of this example and so many more in their also well recognized and honored texts that have been carefully passed down for 2500 something years.