Nature of God

[Unveiled Artist]

God is Truth (and Truth is God) wherever that leads--a supernatural conscious being, or nothing. Right now and in the foreseeable forever, there is no evidence for or against either. That leaves us with Truth and it's pursuit as the ultimate ideal--aspects of Truth being knowledge, justice, love and beauty, objective to subjective.

There are so many definitions to what Truth actually ...isknowledge, justic, love, and beauty are too broad. For example, what type of Knowledge? Christians define knowledge as the Will of God. Buddhist define knowledge as the Will, if you like, of oneself. Justice is also broad too. While most Buddhist and pagans I know value life, Abrahamic view of justice view life only valuable when that life is giving gratitiude to God. If not to God, no life (figuratively or literally). Love is too broad that the compassion that a Buddhist has for his fellow foe is the same curse Christians believe in to those "foes" who do not accept Jesus as their Lord and Savior.

That's just the extremes. Plus, not all religions see spirituality outside of regular life. So, there is no metaphysical langauge in many cultures who are religious and heavy in custums.

Yet, in all of our differences and languages, there's got to be a "nature of God". The nature of God has to be universal. That would mean it involves atheist point of view as well as a theist to agnostic to pagan.

The Law of physics does not change based on time period, culture, and geographics. I am sure "God's Nature" does not either.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

There are so many definitions to what Truth actually ...isknowledge, justic, love, and beauty are too broad. For example, what type of Knowledge? Christians define knowledge as the Will of God. Buddhist define knowledge as the Will, if you like, of oneself.

Anyone can claim imparted or revealed knowledge. True knowledge is verifiable, repeatable, objective facts and evidence. And yes, justice does have a subjective component, punishment; but the morality which it enforces is reasonably deduced to those four rights which are reasonably derived from one assumption, the near universal objective of social good order. The only ones who don't accept it are tyrants and anarchists.

Love is too broad that the compassion that a Buddhist has for his fellow foe is the same curse Christians believe in to those "foes" who do not accept Jesus as their Lord and Savior.

Forced love, is anything but. If you violate the rights of another, that is immoral, not love.

That's just the extremes. Plus, not all religions see spirituality outside of regular life. So, there is no metaphysical langauge in many cultures who are religious and heavy in custums.

All you're putting forth is emotion based faith. Reason isn't involved.

Yet, in all of our differences and languages, there's got to be a "nature of God". The nature of God has to be universal. That would mean it involves atheist point of view as well as a theist to agnostic to pagan.

That means if God exists, we would still have to honor the "truth" of atheism. The point is that absolutely no one can demonstrate that God exists or even come up with the first bit of non-hearsay evidence one way or the other.

The Law of physics does not change based on time period, culture, and geographics. I am sure "God's Nature" does not either.

So you're saying that beauty cannot be an aspect or quality of God? If a creator of the universe God exists in any way, It would have embody the spectrum from objective knowledge to subjective beauty/art/creativity, and that which lies in between.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Anyone can claim imparted or revealed knowledge. True knowledge is verifiable, repeatable, objective facts and evidence. And yes, justice does have a subjective component, punishment; but the morality which it enforces is reasonably deduced to those four rights which are reasonably derived from one assumption, the near universal objective of social good order. The only ones who don't accept it are tyrants and anarchists

When you say Truth, I think subjectively. Spirits exist; that is the truth. Is if a fact? So far, it is not. So, if you mean fact, please use that word. I understand what you mean. Everyone has their view of reality (Truth) and not everyone's view is based on what we know as-so-far reality (facts).

I have a feeling that your points are geared to a particular group of people or religion?

Forced love, is anything but. If you violate the rights of another, that is immoral, not love.

I am speaking from a Buddhist and Christian perspective. That is how they view things. Whether it is good or not, in Christian case since I am a Buddhist, is not for me t say. I am just saying the Christian's view of love is one, of many, to lead one from outside views so that they accept Jesus as Lord and Savior. Many types of love regaradles our opinions about it.

All you're putting forth is emotion based faith. Reason isn't involved.

Reason is involved in a lot of cultural beliefs. I personally don't see anyone believing in anything without reason (or it being logical, I would say rather). Just because it is not logical to John doesn't mean it isn't for Jane. John doesn't define reality nor does Jane.

My point is spirituality and cultures are interconnected. I don't see how my emotions and reasons have to do with the point I just made.

That means if God exists, we would still have to honor the "truth" of atheism. The point is that absolutely no one can demonstrate that God exists or even come up with the first bit of non-hearsay evidence one way or the other.

Which God? We have to find the nature of God first. If you mean the Christian God, then it is not universal; so, honoring the "truth of atheism" (Whatever that is?) is impossible in a christian world view.

However, I am using the word "God" for convinence not for a specific religion. All supernatural-focused religion has a definition of "God". What do they all share without using metaphysical language, no broad terms like love and justice, and sticking to the point?

So you're saying that beauty cannot be an aspect or quality of God? If a creator of the universe God exists in any way, It would have embody the spectrum from objective knowledge to subjective beauty/art/creativity, and that which lies in between

I said: The Law of physics does not change based on time period, culture, and geographics. I am sure "God's Nature" does not either.

The Law of physics do not change (two will always be two) no matter if its 256 B.C. or 2015, Cuban or Italian, from Mexico to Gana.

I am sure "God's nature" does not change either regardless the time period, culture, and geographics.

I think you're missing my points and have some harsh views that are kind of twisting the conversation to a "they are wrong" debate. I am just pointing out that the nature of God being love, justice, and beauty are too broad. I have that and I am not God. An animal has that and he is not God. God not to mean any thing of any religion. Also, the nature of God cannot be a Creator. Not all religions believe God is a creator.

That is not a common denominator.

 

[God lover]

depends on the context of discussion

The whole reply was a beauty. I really like that you included this. Thanks for the clarification.

 

[God lover]

I'm actually looking for a more personal answer

If we took out the Bible definition, Quran, Nature, Mythological, (and therological) definitions of God and get to the heart of the matter, what makes God God. (Not a person, not a being, not a force)... what makes God up to where He is defined as these things above even though they are said in different names and concepts?

God, a beauty of a subject. It sounds like you have a fair grasp of different concepts of God already. From my heart, I would say, the best and only way to get to know "God's" real qualities, would be to interact with Him/Her. (Agreed, God isn't male or female/personal bias. Lol) . IF, God is real, then there might be a way to know Him/Her... If, God is a human invention, this would be a fools errand.

My personal bias says, "pray, walk, talk, listen, with eyes open, heart open, spirit sensation, bias free (if possible)" and Yahwey said, "knock and the door shall be opened to you" that's a promise from Yahwey through His son Jesus Christ.

Best way to know, go straight to the source.

Pray ceaselessly

 

[Unveiled Artist]

God, a beauty of a subject. It sounds like you have a fair grasp of different concepts of God already. From my heart, I would say, the best and only way to get to know "God's" real qualities, would be to interact with Him/Her. (Agreed, God isn't male or female/personal bias. Lol) . IF, God is real, then there might be a way to know Him/Her... If, God is a human invention, this would be a fools errand.

My personal bias says, "pray, walk, talk, listen, with eyes open, heart open, spirit sensation, bias free (if possible)" and Yahwey said, "knock and the door shall be opened to you" that's a promise from Yahwey through His son Jesus Christ.

Best way to know, go straight to the source.

Pray ceaselessly

Thank you. I dont believe in the Abrahamic God. I do understand, rather, that each faiths definition of God pretty much is the mystic law, reiki, spirit, tao, buddhanature, brahama, or chi of life. For some its a person, some a concept, others our enviroment, while others a universal lifeforce.

If we stood from our bias (If I see people from a nonBuddhist and nonpagan perspective, for example and you, christian view), the only thing I can see these definitions have in common is that it brings believers in one motivation to grasp something other than themselves. This gives them meaning and purpose.

It cant be love. I have love and I am not just a life force, I am not the Goddess, and I am not God of Abraham. So, love is not a common deminator. It cant be a Creator. Nichiren Biddhist, for example, dont believe in a Creator and we do believe in what others may define as the Holy Spirit, the Mystic Law (Law of causility in the Lotus Sutra). So, God's nature is not a Creator.

It seems like all "God's nature traits" are traits we want, need, and/or have; so, the common link could be that God is a focu point so that we can find purpose (wants), prioritize our live (needs), and so forth.

Other that, without bias views of myself and from others, I honeslty cant figure out the nature of God. (Remember, I cant ask. God is not a Creator to many cultures. So, thats not His nature)

I am still catching up on post since my break. This question isnt a "seeking" question. I am comfortable in my faith. I am just curious in all our differences, we have Yet to talk about our similarities.

Nam.

 

[God lover]

Good to hear your reply. With all due respect I am happy for the conversation and gave you my personal perspective.

I'd like to comment on your reply to my reply. I want you to know that, it isn't in an argumentative way.

With respect.

It seems that you are not actually looking to find the real qualities of God. It appears that you want to figure out what the human word God means to people. You are attempting to define the word God within the framework of all human thoughts currently known from the deepest history on record to the widest current stream. Correct me if I'm wrong! This is how it appears to me.

If you are actually trying to know God then, perhaps you beleive everyone in history is right about God. Or everyone who thinks about God adds to the total picture. Or only the common denominators between all faiths are accurate (if there are any common denominators between them all)

But I am guessing. I know the only way to know what you beleive is to ask.

What do you beleive personally? Do you have a set beleif in God? If so what do you personally beleive?

(And/or) are you trying to know the actual God or are you trying to define the human word God?

Please don't jump to the conclusion that I am trying to get you to beleive in Yahwey. I respect you way to much for that. I am sincerely trying to understand where you are coming from.

Thank you. I dont believe in the Abrahamic God. I do understand, rather, that each faiths definition of God pretty much is the mystic law, reiki, spirit, tao, buddhanature, brahama, or chi of life. For some its a person, some a concept, others our enviroment, while others a universal lifeforce.

If we stood from our bias (If I see people from a nonBuddhist and nonpagan perspective, for example and you, christian view), the only thing I can see these definitions have in common is that it brings believers in one motivation to grasp something other than themselves. This gives them meaning and purpose.

It cant be love. I have love and I am not just a life force, I am not the Goddess, and I am not God of Abraham. So, love is not a common deminator. It cant be a Creator. Nichiren Biddhist, for example, dont believe in a Creator and we do believe in what others may define as the Holy Spirit, the Mystic Law (Law of causility in the Lotus Sutra). So, God's nature is not a Creator.

It seems like all "God's nature traits" are traits we want, need, and/or have; so, the common link could be that God is a focu point so that we can find purpose (wants), prioritize our live (needs), and so forth.

Other that, without bias views of myself and from others, I honeslty cant figure out the nature of God. (Remember, I cant ask. God is not a Creator to many cultures. So, thats not His nature)

I am still catching up on post since my break. This question isnt a "seeking" question. I am comfortable in my faith. I am just curious in all our differences, we have Yet to talk about our similarities.

Nam.

 

[God lover]

The I doesn't know every thing. Who do you believe in?
God's request is to know Him in reality and to believe in Him.
The written word is a measure or standard to assist and confirm that what is being experienced is heading in the right direction. How could any one understand the Bible without some inspired direction. It would all become interpretation otherwise.
Personal experience should be very strong.

The I doesn't know every thing. Who do you believe in?
God's request is to know Him in reality and to believe in Him.
The written word is a measure or standard to assist and confirm that what is being experienced is heading in the right direction. How could any one understand the Bible without some inspired direction. It would all become interpretation otherwise.
Personal experience should be very strong.

Hmm. Very interesting. God wants us to work with him. Or you mean, he will help us understand Him if we want to know Him?

 

[God lover]

Or we could realize that light may have existed before the big bang.

Compacted basic elements are hot, heat is not dark in open spaces.

There could have been a variety of things before the big bang. Could have... give us your best mathematics, 10 Einsteins, 3 stephen hawkings and the next 20 biggest genius' of the 21 century And get back to us on that one.

Not saying there wasn't light before the big bang. You may be totally correct. But this could be the 7th big bang! There could have been a series of sparks. And wouldn't the light have been part of the beginning out of nothing. there had to be nothing before something. Or its all existed forever in the past.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

There could have been a variety of things before the big bang.

Not true. It's called the big bang theory for reason: it isn't simply a description of a process or an isolated model of some phenomenon, but an explanatory framework. And not just your typical framework that every theory provides, but one which is intricately linked with literally everything in the universe (and the universe). If true, then there really isn't any "before" the big bang, because time began when the big bang did. It is possible that the universe expanded into space, providing that space is both infinite and eternal, but it is really better to say that space was atemporal if this is true rather than that it was eternal.
There are, of course, alternative theories (and I don't mean your standard cosmological multiverse theories as these are really part of the same universe that emerged from the big bang; it's just that some physicists find it convenient to refer to regions of spacetime which have only the big bang itself as a causal link among one another). But then there is no "the big bang" and we aren't dealing with the big bang theory. So it's not a matter of mathematics or physics or genius, but definition.

 

[Lyndon]

They don't call the Big Bang a theory for nothing!!

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

When you say Truth, I think subjectively. Spirits exist; that is the truth. Is if a fact? So far, it is not. So, if you mean fact, please use that word. I understand what you mean. Everyone has their view of reality (Truth) and not everyone's view is based on what we know as-so-far reality (facts).

I have a feeling that your points are geared to a particular group of people or religion?

Just the opposite. I don't think deism qualifies as a religion, at least not an organized one. It's merely a philosophy that promotes the use of reason, and that reason indicates that either God doesn't exist, or It doesn't interact in the universe.

And I only use the word fact in the scientific, objective sense. If something isn't a scientific objective fact, it can't an objective Truth. You can imagine a spirit, and that would be a subjective Truth, but not any kind of fact.

I am speaking from a Buddhist and Christian perspective. That is how they view things. Whether it is good or not, in Christian case since I am a Buddhist, is not for me t say. I am just saying the Christian's view of love is one, of many, to lead one from outside views so that they accept Jesus as Lord and Savior. Many types of love regaradles our opinions about it.

Love is basically subjective as well, except for the objective traits of the ones which draw out our subjective emotions.

Reason is involved in a lot of cultural beliefs. I personally don't see anyone believing in anything without reason (or it being logical, I would say rather). Just because it is not logical to John doesn't mean it isn't for Jane. John doesn't define reality nor does Jane.

My point is spirituality and cultures are interconnected. I don't see how my emotions and reasons have to do with the point I just made.

Because reason demands evidence, but revelation and the supernatural offer only hearsay. That's a deal-breaker for reason without exception.

Which God? We have to find the nature of God first. If you mean the Christian God, then it is not universal; so, honoring the "truth of atheism" (Whatever that is?) is impossible in a christian world view.

I was arguing against any Truth being associated with atheism--though it and deism are the only reasonable positions on God.

However, I am using the word "God" for convinence not for a specific religion. All supernatural-focused religion has a definition of "God". What do they all share without using metaphysical language, no broad terms like love and justice, and sticking to the point?

Truth is the default definition of God, whatever the Truth is.

I said: The Law of physics does not change based on time period, culture, and geographics. I am sure "God's Nature" does not either.

The Law of physics do not change (two will always be two) no matter if its 256 B.C. or 2015, Cuban or Italian, from Mexico to Gana.

I am sure "God's nature" does not change either regardless the time period, culture, and geographics.

I agree God nature does not change. The model for Truth doesn't change, but God and the Truth grow. Objective Truth doesn't grow, but subjective Truth, creativity and beauty, do.

[/quote]I think you're missing my points and have some harsh views that are kind of twisting the conversation to a "they are wrong" debate. I am just pointing out that the nature of God being love, justice, and beauty are too broad. I have that and I am not God. An animal has that and he is not God. God not to mean any thing of any religion. Also, the nature of God cannot be a Creator. Not all religions believe God is a creator.

That is not a common denominator.[/QUOTE]

But you are a human and are capable of the lie. Neither God nor animals lie, only humans do. A lie is the absence or avoidance of Truth. Humans are so cunning we can even create a subjective lie.

 

[God lover]

Or we could realize that light may have existed before the big bang.

If true, then there really isn't any "before" the big bang, because time began when the big bang

I think you should read in context of outhouse comment. And you should be explaining it to him.

Before the big bang means in this context, establishing one more domino before the previously assumed domino.

Let's not get distracted by clarification of terms.

If I hear thunderous bangs then they came long after the lightning. But know I should ask myself if my comment is helpful or just a distraction from the point?

Go back and read outhouse original comment. Then read the comment he was speaking to, then read my comment in context and then ask yourself. Does he need you coming to his rescue?

Before the first domino fell there was no space and time. But perhaps the first domino was slowly and banglessly tipping for billions of years before BANG! The potential energy was finally released. in my theory, the universe isn't 16 billion years old it's 216 billion years old. Yes this is a theory based on pure hypothesis, but then the laws of physics break down when we travel back in time to a singularity, which means nobody really can say what math applies to the universe at the beginning, so it's all theory at that point. Our best evidence comes from the hubble telescope.


Furthermore, this tangent is just a big distraction from the OP, which was to discuss the nature of God. Did the original comment shed any light?

Did he disprove a faith comment with his science theory? Was the faith comment a spiritual truth based in historical writing? Was it a science question warranting a physics lesson? You tell me.

 

[God lover]

Well if God is light then He existed before dark, for instance light was created after creation was in full swing. that being light from the sun, a great big fiery furnace lit after darkness was created.
But was darkness created or are our eyes only sympathetic to the light from the sun and regarding other light as dark
Fast forward and we find the temple of a new world needing no light other than the light of God.

Perhaps instead of drugs we need a hadron collider to create what was there before atoms formed and combined to create a sun

bernard (hug)

Bnabernard.

It appears you are just mixing ideas to make your statement sound rediculous.
Do you really beleive God is light in the physical sense? And it came way after the big bang and the creation of a bright fiery sun?

Tisk, tisk if this is your game.

If you are making a serious comment, I apologize for my assertion!

May I ask where you are drawing your ideas from?

 

[NathanShepard8888]

God is a personality.
The Meet Merciful.
The Holy
The Sovereign Lord
The Evolve.
The Most Forgiving
The All Knowing
The Honorable.
The Just
The All Seeing
The Appreciative
The Most High
The All Embracing
The Most Strong
The Eternal Owner of Sovereignty
The Incomparable
The Patient.

These are just some of His names that define His qualities.

 

[outhouse]

I would say, the best and only way to get to know "God's" real qualities, would be to interact with Him/Her.

Is that not subjective to personal imagination?

What do you beleive personally?

Men factually made gods, and this one is no different.

Ancient religions tapped into the human process of conscious thought to the best of their ability and explained that process in mythology. These religions are tapped into what it is to be human.

So if you seek anything by looking inward, you probably find it, no matter what your actually looking for.

 

[outhouse]

These are just some of His names that define His qualities.

Funny everyone applies to me, as much as any mythology does. Context is key

 

[Thief]

And yet this is not demonstrable in your posts. It is no assumption; it's what I observe. Whether you can isn't the question; it's whether you are. It's also not your own specifically, but all humanity. You can consider others' perspectives, but can you consider non-human perspectives while pretending that humanity doesn't exist?

Considering dinosaurs from a spiritual perspective requires putting them front and center; forget about us.

For most of the time we knew about them, it was stressed, over and over again, that dinosaurs are extinct. This was stressed in my childhood, and even now to children.

But, we've since learned things. Remember the raptors from Jurassic Park? Well, to clarify, they weren't velociraptors as the movie incorrectly asserted, but rather large deinonychus...es.

Behold, that dinosaur's true form, as we now understand it:

Spoiler: Juvenile Deinonychus

We now know. Not all dinosaurs died. Some survived: those theropods we call birds.

Birds are dinosaurs. They've been dinosaurs all along.

Spiritually speaking, the Phoenix rose from the ashes. As always. Or, as the aforementioned movie put it, "Life finds a way."

Give our prayers of thanks-giving
To Life, and John Barleycorn.
Death is a new beginning;
What dies shall be reborn.
-Damh the Bard, The Wicker Man

dinosaurs were front and center for a longer period than us.

maybe God was trying harder at the time .....to make something spiritual out of them.
oh to hell with it!
BOOM!....one large meteor.

 

[NathanShepard8888]

Funny everyone applies to me, as much as any mythology does."
You are not All Knowing, All Seeing and the Eternal inheritor, nor the Evolve.

 

[outhouse]

Funny everyone applies to me, as much as any mythology does."
You are not All Knowing, All Seeing and the Eternal inheritor, nor the Evolve.

And you cannot even figure out how to use the quote feature.


How do you know this concept is all knowing and all seeing?