What do you think God is?

[jupiviv]

I'm sure this question has been asked countless times here before, but bear with me. :)

What I think is if God can be described, he takes on a form and therefore, becomes finite. Therefore, to give a description of God is to destroy his infinitude("God is dead" - Nietzsche). It follows, then, that he cannot be rendered higher than any of us finite beings.

Hence, the only description of God is that he cannot be described.

[Blair]

It's actually easy.

God is whatever you define god as. There you look for it, you will find god.

The trick is, there are different qualities of God. Only the purest is worth finding.

[jupiviv]

It's actually easy.

God is whatever you define god as. There you look for it, you will find god.

The trick is, there are different qualities of God. Only the purest is worth finding.

But that's my point. If we 'define' God, would he remain God?

[Blair]

You define God. As your experience pans out, you will identify what 'god" is.

[DHodges]

If you use words that you refuse to define, then no one knows what you are talking about.

[jupiviv]

If you use words that you refuse to define, then no one knows what you are talking about.

I'm not 'refusing' to define God. I am saying that it is impossible to define him, and I gave my reasons.

[DHodges]

A word without a definition does not refer to anything in particular.

Perhaps you should consider using "the Infinite" (or something like that) instead of "God," which has so much religious baggage attached to it.

When you say "God," people are likely to have some particular god in mind (e.g., Jehovah or Allah).

[Iolaus]

So then, Hodges, you must find the following phrase useless:

"The Tao which can be named is not the real Tao."

[David Quinn]

I'm sure this question has been asked countless times here before, but bear with me. :)

What I think is if God can be described, he takes on a form and therefore, becomes finite. Therefore, to give a description of God is to destroy his infinitude("God is dead" - Nietzsche). It follows, then, that he cannot be rendered higher than any of us finite beings.

Hence, the only description of God is that he cannot be described.

The trouble is, you are reaching this conclusion on the basis of describing God to be infinite.

In other words, you are positing a reason for why God cannot be described - namely, that it is infinite. On what basis have you concluded that it is infinite? Is it based on your own understanding of what God is? If so, then you are utilizing a kind of inward description that your mind has managed to access, which makes the notion that God cannot be described rather misleading.

The key to understanding God's nature is knowing how to determine what it must be, logically speaking. Once that occurs, the next step of directly realizing its nature becomes obvious.

So then, Hodges, you must find the following phrase useless:

"The Tao which can be named is not the real Tao."

It is useless for those who do not understand it. And very, very few people understand it.

-

[brokenhead]

So then, Hodges, you must find the following phrase useless:

"The Tao which can be named is not the real Tao."

It is useless for those who do not understand it. And very, very few people understand it.

Yet surprisingly many make this claim that very, very few people understand it. Clearly, the implication which is supposed to be inferred is that the utterer of the saying is among those select few with the proper knowledge and interpretation. I suppose the rest of us just have to take your word for it, since we are incapable of said understanding.

[David Quinn]

No, the implication is that the common understanding of that saying - namely, that the Tao cannot be known and talked about - is misguided. It also makes Lao Tzu, who after uttering the saying promptly proceeded to write a good deal about the Tao, look like an idiot. Not that anyone notices.

-

[Ryan Rudolph]

God is that which is present in the mind when the ego/delusion has vanished. It is logical, sane and directed by truth. It is a finite presence, illuminated for the duration of the person's life, and then it is extinguished.

In my opinion, the word 'god' is misleading, as the word's history and present contemporary use is very dark. A better philosophical term for "god" would simply be the "Rational Mind" or the "Logical Mind"...

Less confusing, and less likely to be misunderstood for what most people think of when they think of the word "God" such as Savior, King, Infinite Consciousness, Life afterlasting, and the ecstasy people feel when these words are combined with their bizarre traditions.

[Robert]

Less confusing, and less likely to be misunderstood for what most people think of when they think of the word "God" such as Savior, King, Infinite Consciousness, Life afterlasting, and the ecstasy people feel when these words are combined with their bizarre traditions.

It can be useful sometimes to use the term God, especially when dealing with Xians - at least since we can define what we mean by the word using logic and reason, it forces the religious minded to attempt to define what they mean by the concept. I'd like to see more atheists use the word God in this context as a way of redefining our understanding and (maybe) bridging the gap between those who 'seek' that aren't too far gone and who've stopped thinking.

I recently had this kind of situation with my born-again Xian brother and his Xian wife, where all they can come up with as a counter argument is that I'm arrogant in attempting to use my own thinking mind to define God. As they see it, human reasoning isn't good enough to understand what God is. This kind of argument is nothing new, it's the joker card for any kind of serious discussion on the topic (a bit like the 'conversation stopper' Sam Harris talks about).

[brokenhead]

I recently had this kind of situation with my born-again Xian brother and his Xian wife, where all they can come up with as a counter argument is that I'm arrogant in attempting to use my own thinking mind to define God. As they see it, human reasoning isn't good enough to understand what God is. This kind of argument is nothing new, it's the joker card for any kind of serious discussion on the topic (a bit like the 'conversation stopper' Sam Harris talks about).

Is Christian really so long a word that you cannot spell it out? Using X for Christ makes it seem like you are spelling-challenged. Christ is a shorter word than Robert, yet you do not sign your name with an X, do you? It is like a mild repugnance, such as when people say "n-word" for "nigger," when everyone knows they mean "nigger." If you do not have the respect to spell it correctly, do you have the respect to discuss God, let alone define God?

You fail to make a distinction in your post between discussing something and defining it. Human reasoning is plenty sufficient to discuss and have insights about God - it is why you were born with intelligence, and it is one of the highest purposes to which you can put it. But at the same time, would you try to "define" people you know, instead of discussing them? Do you "define" your brother, for instance? Yes, I can see that you do - he is an "Xian."

So I take it you are okay with it if people who have a passing familiarity with you define you instead of actually trying to get to know who you are?

[Robert]

Is Christian really so long a word that you cannot spell it out? Using X for Christ makes it seem like you are spelling-challenged. Christ is a shorter word than Robert, yet you do not sign your name with an X, do you? It is like a mild repugnance, such as when people say "n-word" for "nigger," when everyone knows they mean "nigger." If you do not have the respect to spell it correctly, do you have the respect to discuss God, let alone define God?

Really? Is it that big a deal? I don't mean to use it in a derogatory way. If I signed my name R on a message board, would you think that's repugnant?

You fail to make a distinction in your post between discussing something and defining it. Human reasoning is plenty sufficient to discuss and have insights about God - it is why you were born with intelligence, and it is one of the highest purposes to which you can put it. But at the same time, would you try to "define" people you know, instead of discussing them? Do you "define" your brother, for instance? Yes, I can see that you do - he is an "Xian."

Well, he's a Xian, Christian, when we talk together on these kind of topics. I mean, he's the one who's defining himself through his own description of his beliefs and his faith, and he's happy to do so. Good for him. I don't like to put him in any kind of box like you say I'm doing, but when he defines himself as such, I think I'm justified in describing him as such.

We can have conversations about God, he tells me what he thinks and I tell him what I think. He calls me an atheist and I call him a Xi, Christian. Where's the problem? Does it really matter what the labels are? I think we'd agree that labelling can be a problem.

So I take it you are okay with it if people who have a passing familiarity with you define you instead of actually trying to get to know who you are?

What makes you say that?

[brokenhead]

Really? Is it that big a deal? I don't mean to use it in a derogatory way. If I signed my name R on a message board, would you think that's repugnant?

R could stand for Repugnant, yes.

All seriousness aside, you do not x out anything else, so doing it when referring to Christians as Xians stands out.

We can have conversations about God, he tells me what he thinks and I tell him what I think. He calls me an atheist and I call him a Xi, Christian. Where's the problem? Does it really matter what the labels are?

No, not if that is mutually understood in the discussion, and you say it is.

What makes you say that?

I try to address it in the other thread.

My view is that one can understand God, but that this is a personal activity and not a completed act. If it were a competed act, then you could possibly define God. But as one's life on this pale is not yet completed, I think any understanding of God one has must be a dynamic thing. What I am saying is that one's relationship to and understanding of another person necessarily grows and evolves. If you do not view God as a person, I suggest that one's relationsip to and understanding of any abstract concept is similarly dynamic. This is at odds with the concept of "definition," is it not?

[Robert]

My view is that one can understand God, but that this is a personal activity and not a completed act. If it were a competed act, then you could possibly define God. But as one's life on this pale is not yet completed, I think any understanding of God one has must be a dynamic thing. What I am saying is that one's relationship to and understanding of another person necessarily grows and evolves. If you do not view God as a person, I suggest that one's relationsip to and understanding of any abstract concept is similarly dynamic. This is at odds with the concept of "definition," is it not?

I don't see how it's at odds. By defining something and having an understanding of that something isn't necessarily problematic. Like your example of knowing someone, you know them well enough to define them as best you can in a given moment, but you know full well that some day your definition might not be accurate any longer. It doesn't mean you've lost your understanding of the person, just that the definition no longer completely fits.

The same with your own definition of yourself. In ten years, maybe your life will have changed dramatically and you'll look back on the current you as someone quite different. Or maybe not. It's still you though, in a sense, you're fixed and unchanging despite all the causal alterations that you will have undergone. A perfect God.

[brokenhead]

My view is that one can understand God, but that this is a personal activity and not a completed act. If it were a competed act, then you could possibly define God. But as one's life on this pale is not yet completed, I think any understanding of God one has must be a dynamic thing. What I am saying is that one's relationship to and understanding of another person necessarily grows and evolves. If you do not view God as a person, I suggest that one's relationsip to and understanding of any abstract concept is similarly dynamic. This is at odds with the concept of "definition," is it not?

I don't see how it's at odds. By defining something and having an understanding of that something isn't necessarily problematic. Like your example of knowing someone, you know them well enough to define them as best you can in a given moment, but you know full well that some day your definition might not be accurate any longer. It doesn't mean you've lost your understanding of the person, just that the definition no longer completely fits.

The same with your own definition of yourself. In ten years, maybe your life will have changed dramatically and you'll look back on the current you as someone quite different. Or maybe not. It's still you though, in a sense, you're fixed and unchanging despite all the causal alterations that you will have undergone. A perfect God.

OK. I don't really sense a disagreement here. If we want to define God, it must be a dynamic definition.

I am just reacting to the notion of a definition as a fixed thing. To me, the word connotes a perfected state, or something static.

[David Quinn]

"Whoever believes that the All itself is deficient is himself completely deficient." - Jesus

-

[brokenhead]

"Whoever believes that the All itself is deficient is himself completely deficient." - Jesus

-

Thanks, David. Could you at least give us a general idea? Matthew? Mark?

[David Quinn]

Thomas: 67

-

[Blair]

I am just reacting

Therein lies your "problem".

[jupiviv]

Hi David,

The trouble is, you are reaching this conclusion on the basis of describing God to be infinite.

I thought that was the universal definition of God? :)

In other words, you are positing a reason for why God cannot be described - namely, that it is infinite. On what basis have you concluded that it is infinite? Is it based on your own understanding of what God is? If so, then you are utilizing a kind of inward description that your mind has managed to access, which makes the notion that God cannot be described rather misleading.

God/Tao/the All is infinite because he has no beginning or end. Anything which does not have a beginning or end cannot be described. As you said, one can only reach a purely abstract understanding of him.

The key to understanding God's nature is knowing how to determine what it must be, logically speaking. Once that occurs, the next step of directly realizing its nature becomes obvious.

Yes, and also what he must not be, logically speaking.

[brokenhead]

I am just reacting

Therein lies your "problem".

I liked you better when you were the Artist Formerly Known As.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

No, the implication is that the common understanding of that saying - namely, that the Tao cannot be known and talked about - is misguided. It also makes Lao Tzu, who after uttering the saying promptly proceeded to write a good deal about the Tao, look like an idiot. Not that anyone notices.

-

Lao Tzu made that statement to tell the readers that the following was only a gesture in the general direction of God. One can point at God, but one can not put their finger on God, so to speak.

Yes David, I know that you knew that - my comment was for the benefit of jupiviv and people who don't understand.