Nature of God

[outhouse]

Evidently, God is:

1.) That which cannot be demonstrated to exist.
2.) That which cannot be rendered believable.
3.) That which no one can agree on.

Anyone who disagrees with #3 is cordially invited to think twice about their rebuttal before they wind up proving my point for me by disagreeing.

4. Which originated in plagiarized mythology.
5. Which was only defined by men.
6 Which said definition changed to mirror cultures wants and needs
7 Cultures changed definitions often.
8 Which no evidence exist outside mythology.
9 Which no part in nature in any way can be attributed to said concept.
10 Which ancient men thought caused lighting and thunder, earthquakes and volcanos.
11 AND modern men not learning from their past mistakes murder one another over by the thousands.


Very much like primitive imagination explained their ignorance of nature through a concept using parental love and a father mother figures.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

In the scheme of superlatives.....there is only ONE Almighty.
supreme being.
Someone must greater than all others.

That someone might have a domineering attitude...... a 'male' spirit.

I do not believe the creation formed before the Creator.

I understand. The nature of God is not a Creator since that is not a universal fact that is a belief. Given all I mentioned in the OP, can you define the natuelre of God outside how we want to see God? (No Creator, consciousness, deities, person, creation, goddess, universe) Is there traits that are universal...meaning all people Know this regardless if they want to believe in it?

 

[Thief]

I understand. The nature of God is not a Creator since that is not a universal fact that is a belief. Given all I mentioned in the OP, can you define the natuelre of God outside how we want to see God? (No Creator, consciousness, deities, person, creation, goddess, universe) Is there traits that are universal...meaning all people Know this regardless if they want to believe in it?

trying to reduce God?.....not Creator?.....not a Person?

How about?.....the ability to say....."I AM!"

most people here in this life can say it.
surely the Almighty would be able.

Someone had to be first in mind and heart.

 

[outhouse]

trying to reduce God?.....

To what?, the concept is already reduced to mythology, faith, imagination, and written theology.

It doesn't exist scientifically, how much more can it be reduced ?

not Creator?.

Factually no.

Not one aspect of any part of nature can factually be attributed to the concepts.

Creation is theology and mythology.

not a Person?

Nope


Thousands have claimed, but none bear credible evidence

How about?.....the ability to say....."I AM!"

It never did that, thanks for playing.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

trying to reduce God?.....not Creator?.....not a Person?

How about?.....the ability to say....."I AM!"

most people here in this life can say it.
surely the Almighty would be able.

Someone had to be first in mind and heart.

Hey. That's what I believe. God cannot be a Creator and creation at the same time.. then be the universe, and then a goddess, and the sun, then Jesus on another day. There is a specific nature of God, and hence therefore the question.

 

[Riverwolf]

To what?, the concept is already reduced to mythology, faith, imagination, and written theology.

It doesn't exist scientifically, how much more can it be reduced ?

Well, just to be nitpicky, there's far more to matters than just the dichotomy of "scientific" and "not-scientific".

Political borders, one of my favorite examples, don't exist scientifically, either; yet, I'm pretty sure you can't deny their existence entirely, at least not without some potentially SEVERE consequences.

Someone had to be first in mind and heart.

Well, seeing that Ravens have the intelligence roughly of a 5-year-old human (which not only includes self-awareness, but is also incidentally about the age when the human brain is about 90-95% fully developed), I'm going to go OUT ON A LIMB HAHAHA and hypothesize that this first "person" to have the thought "I AM", even if without any language, was a theropod.

 

[outhouse]

Well, just to be nitpicky, there's far more to matters than just the dichotomy of "scientific" and "not-scientific".

Understood, and context is key here. My response was to theifs constant unsubstantiated rhetoric in which he never supplies any sources.

But if it is not a scientific concept, there is little to be debated with any credibility outside theology and mythology.

Political borders, one of my favorite examples, don't exist scientifically, either

True, BUT these borders are observably changing. Its not up for debate they exist.

Well, seeing that Ravens have the intelligence roughly of a 5-year-old human (which not only includes self-awareness, but is also incidentally about the age when the human brain is about 90-95% fully developed), I'm going to go OUT ON A LIMB HAHAHA and hypothesize that this first "person" to have the thought "I AM", even if without any language, was a theropod.

We also have elephants tested and passed for self awareness.


Animals have a conscious mind, its not up for debate, just limited in intellect and IQ and volume the old disc holds. After all, we are animals.

 

[Riverwolf]

Understood, and context is key here. My response was to theifs constant unsubstantiated rhetoric in which he never supplies any sources.

But if it is not a scientific concept, there is little to be debated with any credibility outside theology and mythology.

I'd argue that there's other areas where the concept of God can be discussed and debated, such as culture and psychology, but neither here nor there.

True, BUT these borders are observably changing. Its not up for debate they exist.

Exactly my point.

We also have elephants tested and passed for self awareness.

Animals have a conscious mind, its not up for debate, just limited in intellect and IQ and volume the old disc holds. After all, we are animals.

Yup. But even those limitations aren't absolute, since intelligence isn't a single thing; it's a catch-all term for several mental abilities. Different non-human animals display wide varieties of degrees of certain such abilities while being poor at others. Ravens might have the rough equivalent intelligence of a 5-year-old human, and I've heard that they might even have a... 'proto'-proto-language, but that doesn't exactly translate into the ability to do all the mental tasks an average 5-year-old human could do.

Basically, the ability to say, or at least abstractly conceive of, "I AM", isn't exactly anything special.

 

[outhouse]

I'd argue that there's other areas where the concept of God can be discussed and debated, such as culture and psychology, but neither here nor there.

Very true.

I just have those under the header of theology. But would have no problem relabeling the header for or under a specific discussion.


Its fascinating how advanced these concepts were addressed, "when" they were addressed in the theological definitions that constantly changed.

For me the "nature of god" is the nature of man. It is a 100% reflection

 

[Riverwolf]

Its fascinating how advanced these concepts were addressed, "when" they were addressed in the theological definitions that constantly changed.

For me the "nature of god" is the nature of man. It is a 100% reflection

Meanwhile, those beings that don't (traditionally) exhibit human traits, that are often called today "Primal Beings", and include such fictional but potent archetypes as Cthulhu? They're not Gods because they exhibit no human trait.

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

Do you think a cockroach can even begin to understand the nature of a man? If there is a God, He is so much above a man that we would not be as able to understand His nature as a roach can understand a man. All these people who pretend to know anything about God's nature are only fooling themselves.

 

[Thief]

Hey. That's what I believe. God cannot be a Creator and creation at the same time.. then be the universe, and then a goddess, and the sun, then Jesus on another day. There is a specific nature of God, and hence therefore the question.

So God is not able to create?
and substance is then...'self'.....starting.
science would disagree.
an item at rest will remain at rest until 'something' moves it

and dead things do not beget the living.

and God cannot interact with His creation?
that seems odd.

Let there be light!.....and that wasn't God saying it?
So then the sun was it's own creation....?

 

[Thief]

Very true.

I just have those under the header of theology. But would have no problem relabeling the header for or under a specific discussion.


Its fascinating how advanced these concepts were addressed, "when" they were addressed in the theological definitions that constantly changed.

For me the "nature of god" is the nature of man. It is a 100% reflection

but Man is not a 100% reflection of his God.

noted.

 

[Thief]

Well, just to be nitpicky, there's far more to matters than just the dichotomy of "scientific" and "not-scientific".

Political borders, one of my favorite examples, don't exist scientifically, either; yet, I'm pretty sure you can't deny their existence entirely, at least not without some potentially SEVERE consequences.



Well, seeing that Ravens have the intelligence roughly of a 5-year-old human (which not only includes self-awareness, but is also incidentally about the age when the human brain is about 90-95% fully developed), I'm going to go OUT ON A LIMB HAHAHA and hypothesize that this first "person" to have the thought "I AM", even if without any language, was a theropod.

Let's both sit on the same limb and see if it breaks.....

dinosaurs were precursors to Man.
maybe God was trying to keep the basic design of life......real simple.

but Dino proved to be too shallow in thought and not very entertaining.
So....the ape had more potential.....

 

[Riverwolf]

Let's both sit on the same limb and see if it breaks.....

As I'll demonstrate, we're not even in the same grove, let alone the same tree, LET ALONE the same limb.

dinosaurs were precursors to Man.

No, they weren't. We have fur; dinosaurs have feathers.

maybe God was trying to keep the basic design of life......real simple.

The extinct non-avian dinosaurs were, and the very much not-extinct avian dinosaurs (A.K.A birds) still are, just as biologically complex as mammals, and all other vertebrates.

but Dino proved to be too shallow in thought and not very entertaining.
So....the ape had more potential.....

COM-PUH-LEET-ELY wrong. Also incredibly outdated. (Like pretty much all popular conceptions of dinosaurs, actually).

Dinosaurs were around for two-hundred-MILLION years. That's 200,000,000. Apes, i.e., hominids, have only been around for about 25 million; 25,000,000. Dinosaurs were around for 88.5% of the amount of time that hominids were around. It also means that hominids didn't show up until 45 million years after the K-Pg extinction event, making us a pretty relative latecomer.

Mammals were around during the same time as the dinosaurs, but before the K-Pg extinction, we were little more than rodents: possums, rats, etc.

We also don't know exactly what the extent of dinosaur intelligence was, but considering the immense variety that's exhibited in mammals alone, and considering we probably have WAY less than 1% of all pre-K-Pg dinosaur species on the fossil record, and THEN considering how quickly human-intelligence evolved in us, it's entirely possible that there were several species of dinosaurs that had human-levels of intelligence.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

So God is not able to create?
and substance is then...'self'.....starting.
science would disagree.
an item at rest will remain at rest until 'something' moves it

and dead things do not beget the living.

and God cannot interact with His creation?
that seems odd.

Let there be light!.....and that wasn't God saying it?
So then the sun was it's own creation....?

Percisely. Creation is its own Creator. Something does not come from nothing. Something does not disapear into nothing. Everything is "created" from things already existed.

The Laws of nature does not work in the way it is described "literally" in many different religious texts. Especially the God said, "let there be light"....that, alone, defies the natural laws.

Are you saying science says something came from nothing?

I remember watching a science channel on t.v. (I dont watch tv so dont know the exact names) and it talked about life on our planet. It continued with we came from water and that the first atom came from a combination of specific types of energy (dont know science terms). It was quite facinating, actually. It never says we came from nothing. It doesnt describe any deity controling the reins of the universe.

We just want to have purpose of some sort. A lot find that solace in believing in a Creator. Nothing wrong with that.

 

[outhouse]

Meanwhile, those beings that don't (traditionally) exhibit human traits, that are often called today "Primal Beings", and include such fictional but potent archetypes as Cthulhu?

Which brings out the beauty of modern mythology.

There is a lot to be learned from who worships what and why.

Those born into it are generally the largest part of the population. As a human its hard to break away from thousands of years of comforting theology that is like a safety net for ones life.


My journey here did not happen overnight. I think my education here is what sealed the deal, in part by looking at the logical mistakes of some theist. But also learning that all the things I thought about people creating mythology were true, all the way back to the beginning of humanity.

 

[outhouse]

Do you think a cockroach can even begin to understand the nature of a man? If there is a God, He is so much above a man that we would not be as able to understand His nature as a roach can understand a man. All these people who pretend to know anything about God's nature are only fooling themselves.

See, I see those blindly following mythology they have no education and I don't think they are foolish which is a typical theist response. Instead, I feel sad that wont open their minds to see the truth right in front of them.

Bud im outside the pen looking in at those not free, and its just sad.

 

[outhouse]

but Man is not a 100% reflection of his God.

Better go back and read your books.

Man was made in "OUR" image, this is a left over from a time when they worshipped a family of deities. This is not up for debate, this is what happened.

And it doesn't have to be 100%, because these ancient primitive men, factually attributed nature that did not understand to the god concepts.

Gods are men, gods are nature, but until you open your mind to exactly how these multiple cultures created monotheism from polytheism, your in for a rude awakening.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

trying to reduce God?.....not Creator?.....not a Person?

How about?.....the ability to say....."I AM!"

most people here in this life can say it.
surely the Almighty would be able.

Someone had to be first in mind and heart.

God is not a person. He is not a He and not one to "say", if you like, "I Am". Some people find solace when they know they have a Creator. Even if I wanted a Creator that doesn't mean I will find that in nature. It's one thing to believe something is a whole 'nother thing to know something is true. Belief in God, deities, and Creators are beliefs not facts. So, anyone can believe in anything he or she wants to and it would be true only because that is how belief works. It's subjective.

Facts are not beliefs. There is nothing in nature that says anything about a Creator. It's not written in the stars and it's not scribbed in sand. It is what we want to see in life, nature, creation, etc that makes meaning to what we know with our five senses. However, if you take us out of the picture, nature is just that. We need to accept that we are not special. The Buddha says that we need to be comfortable with life and death. We need to get over that hump of wanting to live forever. Accept what it is.

A lot of people believe they will go back to the Creator. That's alright. To say that is a fact rather than a belief makes it more difficult to understand why some people cannot understand the difference between the two. We do not live for ourselves. If we understood that we individually, aren't the end all, be all, we hopefully see other peoples "perspectives" or beliefs rather than facts and truths. If it is God, and no one can find the core nature of this God and atheist do not believe in the force behind life it is Not universal.

Why can't theist understand beliefs are not facts? I don't now. Why can't we step out of our worldview to see others, I don't know. I dont know about other countries, but in America it seems to be lacking that holistic nature of open to other worldviews.

Anyway, God is not a fact. It's a belief. Why is it mixed, I dont know.