Is God a Being or an Experience?

[Sunstone]

Is god a being or an experience? I was reading a Buddhist author the other night. He asserted god was an experience, rather than a being. He went on to say people are mistaken to ascribe certain qualities to god, such as permanence and substance. Do you agree with the author? Why or why not?

 

[St Giordano Bruno]

Is god a being or an experience? I was reading a Buddhist author the other night. He asserted god was an experience, rather than a being. He went on to say people are mistaken to ascribe certain qualities to god, such as permanence and substance. Do you agree with the author? Why or why not?

I think he/she is just playing with words, as so many do making "god" such an ambiguous concept.

 

[blackout]

An experience of Being?

 

[fantome profane]

I believe there is an experience that has no name. I am not sure what purpose it serves to attach the name “God” to that experience.

 

[Willamena]

Is god a being or an experience? I was reading a Buddhist author the other night. He asserted god was an experience, rather than a being. He went on to say people are mistaken to ascribe certain qualities to god, such as permanence and substance. Do you agree with the author? Why or why not?

To me, neither, but the description of "an experience" is as good as any other. In my own words, I describe god as "reliable uncertainty" --which is something that conceivably could be said to be experienced.

Everything is information in nature. A reliable uncertainty underlies everything.

 

[Renji]

Depends on what you believe in. Some believe that God is a higher being, some believe it's an experience, some say it's energy and some do believe that God is everything......

 

[blackout]

I believe there is an experience that has no name. I am not sure what purpose it serves to attach the name “God” to that experience.

Nobody ever seems to really understand me anyway,
so to say "the God I see and experience,
is not the God you see and experience",
at least gives them a clue
that they have no "monopoly" on "God".

 

[fantome profane]

Nobody ever seems to really understand me anyway,

Nobody really understands anybody. Don't worry about it.

so to say "the God I see and experience,
is not the God you see and experience",
at least gives them a clue
that they have no "monopoly" on "God".

But does it really help you to understand you? That is more to the point isn’t it?

 

[Willamena]

Depends on what you believe in. Some believe that God is a higher being, some believe it's an experience, some say it's energy and some do believe that God is everything......

And some believe that all of the above describe a similar thing.

 

[Renji]

And some believe that all of the above describe a similar thing.

Agreed! I missed that

 

[Willamena]

Is describing something in terms of experience any more or less vague than describing something in terms of belief?

 

[fantome profane]

There are some things that cannot be described in terms of what they are like, but only in terms of what they are not like.

(I am not sure where this idea fits, but I think it fits somewhere in here)

 

[Penumbra]

Is god a being or an experience? I was reading a Buddhist author the other night. He asserted god was an experience, rather than a being. He went on to say people are mistaken to ascribe certain qualities to god, such as permanence and substance. Do you agree with the author? Why or why not?

If god is an experience, then let's just call it an experience. Let's keep language at least somewhat useful, where some words mean one thing and other words mean another thing.

Virtually every definition of "god" in the dictionary refers to a being. Although the definition is still quite loose, there's no reason to make it even more loose by broadening it to mean whatever we want it to mean.

If god is the unconscious universe, then let's just call it the universe.
If god is nirvana, then let's just call it nirvana.
If god is an experience, then let's just call it an experience.
If god doesn't exist, let's acknowledge its nonexistence.
If god is a being, then the definition remains useful.

 

[Hermit Philosopher]

Is god a being or an experience? I was reading a Buddhist author the other night. He asserted god was an experience, rather than a being. He went on to say people are mistaken to ascribe certain qualities to god, such as permanence and substance. Do you agree with the author? Why or why not?

Dear Sunstone,
What a beautiful topic to reflect upon!
Although I obviously cannot for sure know that "god" is not also a being [of some abstract, energetic sort], I feel quite certain that "god" is, at least, an experience.

The experience, as I know it, is strongly of an emotional sort, which cannot so easily be put into words, as it is entirely unrelated to our otherwise censorial understanding of "experiencing" per se.
Because of this, I more often describe "god/godliness" as a perspective.

Both in a cognitive censorial and, in a socially discursive sense, the world (man especially) seems very different through the "god-perspective", than it does from a personal point of view. And this is why experiencing "god" almost always changes man and his desires profoundly.

P.s. Catholicism however, distinguishes between the Father (God, the divine being), the Son (Jesus, It's physical manifestation as Ideal Man) and the Holy Spirit, which I think could be argued, is the "godly" experience, available on Earth.

 

[Willamena]

If god is an experience, then let's just call it an experience. Let's keep language at least somewhat useful, where some words mean one thing and other words mean another thing.

Virtually every definition of "god" in the dictionary refers to a being. Although the definition is still quite loose, there's no reason to make it even more loose by broadening it to mean whatever we want it to mean.

If god is the unconscious universe, then let's just call it the universe.
If god is nirvana, then let's just call it nirvana.
If god is an experience, then let's just call it an experience.
If god doesn't exist, let's acknowledge its nonexistence.
If god is a being, then the definition remains useful.

But 'being' is necessarily loose, because it's a social construct rather than a physical object. Ask 10 people what does "being" mean, you'll get 10 different answers, including something like "the experience of being," because we all construct the social construct uniquely.

 

[Penumbra]

But 'being' is necessarily loose, because it's a social construct rather than a physical object. Ask 10 people what does "being" mean, you'll get 10 different answers, including something like "the experience of being," because we all construct the social construct uniquely.

I'm talking about the noun. As in, "a being", not "a state of being".

 

[Willamena]

I'm talking about the noun. As in, "a being", not "a state of being".

As am I.

 

[Penumbra]

"The experience of being" is not a noun in the same way that "a being" is. In one, "experience" is the noun and in the other "being" is the noun.

For a definition of a god, "being" could be replaced with "conscious entity" if it works better. The point is that the number of ideas it could possibly reference should be made as small as possible so that the word itself remains useful.

God is love.
God is the sky.
God is an angry being that punishes you for doing bad things.
God is the universe.
When you look at a person and feel compassion for them, that's god.
God is life.
God is the creator of the universe.
God is the feeling you get when you're happy.

It's so loose as to the point of being unusable. It just makes sense to keep "god" referring to a deity. Some conscious entity with some qualifier that makes it a deity rather than a mortal.

 

[Willamena]

"The experience of being" is not a noun in the same way that "a being" is. In one, "experience" is the noun and in the other "being" is the noun.

They are both "noun" in the same way. There is only one way to be a noun. The noun way.

For a definition of a god, "being" could be replaced with "conscious entity" if it works better. The point is that the number of ideas it could possibly reference should be made as small as possible so that the word itself remains useful.

God is love.
God is the sky.
God is an angry being that punishes you for doing bad things.
God is the universe.
When you look at a person and feel compassion for them, that's god.
God is life.
God is the creator of the universe.
God is the feeling you get when you're happy.

It's so loose as to the point of being unusable. It just makes sense to keep "god" referring to a deity. Some conscious entity with some qualifier that makes it a deity rather than a mortal.

But it's only "unusable" if you don't know how to use it. It's poetry; some people make very good use of it.

 

[Penumbra]

They are both "noun" in the same way. There is only one way to be a noun. The noun way.

You seem to be using being as a verb. Or some concept that could I guess be considered a noun.

But I'm saying, why not keep "god" referring to a being? Not "the state of being" or "an experience of being", etc. We have words for those already.

But it's only "unusable" if you don't know how to use it. It's poetry; some people make very good use of it.

It's poetry that doesn't convey precise information. A lot of new age or syncretist religious concepts seem to fall prey to this issue wherein they become so vague as to the point of not actually conveying any information or usefulness.