What is a real God?

[blü 2]

I suppose if this being demands we worship them as a God and threatens to flood the world to kill all life on the planet if we don't and provides proof they are capable of such a feat, you might want to consider accepting them as a God.

We might want to work out what to do by protecting as much of the status quo as we can. But our essential task would be to gain its knowledge. The fact that churches have no science of miracles, no active research, no articles in respected journals on how to cause miracles, suggests that not even churches think God is really real.

 

[blü 2]

They are not the same. Each are defined by person, people, and culture.

So what's an example of a real god, a god with objective existence?

By definition of culture, yes his status is given by to him by humans. Most if not all believers in deity/god say god is a mystery. You cant explain something to another if you cant define it yourself.

That seems to work well enough for imaginary gods. It doesn't work for real ones.

What exactly are you asking that believers can give you answers for when they cant or dont want to describe him themselves?

Only what I've already said. And if the answer is, I don't know, then it would be reasonable just to say so. Then the question to such a person would be, surely an understanding of the object of your worship is not just desirable but necessary? Otherwise, how would you know what you're actually talking about?

 

[blü 2]

The below quote is what an Indian Sage said about "the Divine" and "Bliss". You are free to accept this wisdom or to reject it. It does makes clear that we have to search/find ourselves

Thanks.

A god in order to be real must exist in nature. If not, the best a god can be is imaginary. A god who, as in your example, can only be explained by analogies and metaphors, is a god that is not described or understood in real terms, hence has all the appearance of being imaginary.

 

[stvdv]

17 jul 2018 stvdv 018 15

Thanks.

A god in order to be real must exist in nature. If not, the best a god can be is imaginary. A god who, as in your example, can only be explained by analogies and metaphors, is a god that is not described or understood in real terms, hence has all the appearance of being imaginary.

If you feel love for a woman, it does not exist in nature. It is a feeling in the heart. And that is real. I and the scriptures talk about that fact. The Bliss I experience is real.

I never bother if God exists or not. For me all that counts is "Bliss feeling in the heart". If you get Bliss by searching for God then that is your way. It does not work for me.

God in Veda's is described, by the Saints, as "Sat Chit Ananda", meaning "Being Awareness Bliss". This is all knowledge I need about God. You have other definitions.

I don't look for "a man with a beard" so to speak, as you state "A god in order to be real must exist in nature". Love feeling in the heart, is the closest you will get IMHO.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I don't know. Hence this thread.
If I were in that position, I'd reply, I understand your question but I don't know the answer ─ I can give no coherent account of what a real god, or real godness, could be.

A believer can give you any answer if you dont have criteria to which you can tell the difference between a real-god answer or an unrelated answer.

God is definedby culture, communication, and emotions. Outside of observation and experience, I wouldnt know what a god is. Ive asked the same question, what is the nature of god, with my criteria being if believers can describe the nature of how they see god without sacred scripture, I can see what they have in common and relate it to the psyche of needing comfort and providing oneself answers to the universe even though life has no inherit person.

As for Pagan gods, there is stil a seperation or they wouldnt be called gods nor seen in any religious way in worship. In other words, they can worship a pencil if everything if gods didnt have a special place. If gods are everything, I see it as gratitude being the core of the religion and ritual or so have you being the act of interaction.

Since Pagans (Hindus etc) and Christians and Bahai are human, I see no difference in regards to how gods are defined (the reason not specific gods) for themselves.

Its cultural and individual.

Unless you have an idea or criteria youd know if believers and I are answering your question, I dont see how your question can be answered.

Its like my asking what the nature of god and if someone said ZigZat, how can I tell the difference if they are right or wrong. I need some idea or criteria to which their answer can fit my question.

 

[Deidre]

I think one of the most remarkable things about Jesus, at least from the NT story, is that he found the will to forgive his enemies. That was his ultimate ''super power.'' That was and still is the hardest thing to believe. Because that type of forgiveness is pretty difficult.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I've defined what I mean by 'real' in the OP. That definition is coherent and covers the question I'm asking here.

How would you know if the answer relaets to your OP; because after I reda your P before I replied the first time, I couldnt get an idea of what you aer askng at teh core since gods that destroy are not the sole nature of gods.

Maybe specific which gods you are referring to, then then i can get an idea. So far, gods are defined (nature of them) by culture, communication, and emotions. Culture being the top one of all gods. The other two give or take the rate of importance.

Outside of that, I wouldnt know the godness of gods. I can make observations of what gods have in common based on observation and believers testimoniesa and to some sacred scripture, but anything superntaural I see no relationship to that and what the godness of gods are. There is to much culture to which without understanding that, supernatural or not, there is no understanding of the gods godnessess.

Aka start with culture

 

[PureX]

I disagree. Reality was there before I was born and reality will be there after I'm dead. Just by posting here you demonstrate that you think external reality exists, and that you can know about it via your senses,'

"External reality" exists as an idea in your mind. And when your mind is no more, you will know nothing of existence. And before your mind could cognate the idea of existence, you knew nothing of it then, either. So making statements about what exists apart from your own cognitive idealizations of your own limited physical experiences as if you could know this is just 'blowing silence', as the jazzmen say.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

When I thing of imagination, I think of something fake or made up not something that exists but originated by the brain and its interpretation of how it observes the outside and inside world and place and understanding of its environment. Im speaking of the latter not the later not the former.

So what's an example of a real god, a god

Take Hindu vs Christian Vs Pantheist

From what I gather, Brahma both creates and destroys; energy

Christian god is another interpretation of energy/spirit in that instead of full body and cultural interaction its a personified feeing (holy spirit) of connection to self and others. So, if someone is born again, their view of life changes in relation to scripture.

They personify scriptural understanding and inpersonate it within them to create an separate god to which,through unexplained experiences, they can appreciate the good things as blessngs and the negative experiences as being tested among other definitions.

It does depend on the denominations too

In my experience as a pantheist, and sure others can relate, there isnt a divine force. Destruction and creation is nature itself. I dont refer it to god, but your definition (how did you come up with that if you dont know the nature of god?), nature does that too.

That seems to work well enough for imaginary gods. It doesn't work for real ones.

Imaginary are fake. Psyche gods are real but not tangible. So, experiencing what its like to talk to a dragon is imaginary. Emotions are not. Everything intangible is from the human pscyche. Whether its imaginary depends on whether that existent feeling is not congruent to what we know of reality at present.

For now, gods are based and defined by culture. Not imaginary just you are looking for an origin and definition of something imaginary (or supernatural?) that can be explained by natural means.

Only what I've already said. And if the answer is, I don't know, then it would be reasonable just to say so. Then the question to such a person would be, surely an understanding of the object of your worship is not just desirable but necessary? Otherwise, how would you know what you're actually talking about?

Lots of believers do say they dont know. They say god is a mystery. God is greater. No one can define god. Because he is god, we chose not to define him. You can only know him by culture (Eucharist; Hindu rituals; Interaction with earth as pagans before-modeling the past-or so forth.)

They dont know. They say they know because of the experiences (love, interconnection etc) they get from god; but to explain the godness of the source, a christian told me I must be born again. Bahai said I can only know through their prophets. Hindu said I can only know through culture. Pagans (polytheistic kind) one needs to believe-have some idea they do exist-and reflect that interaction from non christian, muslim, and jewish beliefs to understand teh godness o the gods .That, and neopaganism has a different gist than how we understand gods from a deific point of view.

I answer each post individually; so, I dont know if I already answered you in another post or not.

 

[Earthling]

Obviously an imaginary god can motivate particular groups to act in ways that otherwise they might not ─ whether marching into the arena to die as martyrs, or planting bombs on trains, or invading the holylands, or building schools and hospitals. Not that religion is necessary to do these things, not that religion is often used as an excuse for barbarity, but simply that ─ as the Tanakh records ─ it reinforces the social cohesion of tribes, not that sports teams don't do the same thing. But if we've evolved to find gods useful in various circumstances, that doesn't make them real, give them objective existence.

Leading to the question, who would choose to worship a superscientist? The real task would instead be to learn what the superscientist knows and we don't. Indeed, the failure of believers to use scientific method so as to discover how to perform miracles, or to demand that the armed services prepare to deal with supernatural attack, may suggest to you, as it does to me, that believers in some sense know gods are imaginary, are social focuses for eg group cohesion, aspiration and so on.

But that's not the point of this thread. Here I want to see if believers have a coherent account of a real god. So far no luck.

I pretty much agree with all of that until you say so far no luck. I've given you the dictionary definition, the simple most basic application, examples, corrections ... it don 't get no better than that, but you mention luck. Luck is a god. Isaiah 65:11 (Th e KJV sucks, you might as well ask the cat) A modern translation: "But you men are those leaving Jehovah, those forgetting my holy mountain, those setting in order a table for the god of Good Luck and those filling up mixed wine for the god of Destiny."

 

[Windwalker]

You misunderstand. If God is real, then God is a distinct being with objective existence. If God is imaginary then God can be anything we want.

Who is making this the criteria? Why if God is real does that make God as "a distinct being"? I very much see, in the sense of experience, God as very real. Yet, I do not imagine God to be "other" to me, except only in the most poetic sense. To me, to make God "a distinct being", turns God into a yeti or something. That's not God. That's a cartoon.

Unless you're saying that 'God' is a synonym for 'everything', in which case I prefer to say 'everything' since that's nice and clear; and then ask you why anyone would want to worship everything as such.

Yes, but worshipful it is! To touch the Face of Reality, is sheer power and Beauty. It is radiant and full of joy, light, free, etc. In the light of this, there is nothing but an overflowing gratitude for Life and Being itself. Life is worship.

But here, is the trick you don't see in dividing up God and the world, and the separation of the worshipped and worshipper. Rather instead is a paradox to consider. This statement is absolutely true. "The worship, the worshiper, and the worshiped, those three are not separate."

To be real, a thing has to have objective existence, to exist independently of the concept of it in any brain.

But this does has objective existence outside our conceptions. It is in fact *real* reality. It the reality you see and touch everyday, but you see it in a particular way, dulled and limited by the constructs of your own mind. When your eyes are opened, then you see the same reality you've always seen right there before you, but now you see it in a wholly different light of mind. You see a brilliance that was not there before, now shining out of everything that is.

You want proof that exists? The proof is already there. You just have to change the colored glasses you're looking through in order to see it clearly. You have to take them off.

Otherwise its only existence is as something imagined by a brain.

I don't imagine the sky I'm looking up at and seeing God.

'Art' is an abstraction, a human judgment, not a real object

Art is an expression of the human soul. It's not some mental abstraction.

This is where you need to tell me how God can be distinguished from mass-energy. Once again, if God is a synonym for mass-energy, I prefer to say mass-energy, and ask why anyone would worship it.

You don't see absolute exquisite Beauty in nature? When I behold this, when you really behold this, it tends to drop you to your knees in Awe. I can't imagine not seeing anything... anymore.

 

[blü 2]

If you feel love for a woman, it does not exist in nature. It is a feeling in the heart. And that is real.

More accurately, it's the product of various biochemicals of your brain which are reacting to particular stimuli, and causing you to act in particular ways in response to that biochemistry. None of which makes it less fun.

I and the scriptures talk about that fact. The Bliss I experience is real.

If bliss is the goal you're after, then who can argue? I wish you well.

 

[blü 2]

A believer can give you any answer if you dont have criteria to which you can tell the difference between a real-god answer or an unrelated answer.

I don't yet have a useful answer to test that hypothesis.

That is, no one has to this point (a) asserted the objective reality of God and (b) told me the objective test to distinguish God from anything else (the superscientist being the example in hand).

That appears to support the conclusion that believers in a real god don't know what real thing they actually believe in. Still, the thread's not over yet.

 

[blü 2]

When I thing of imagination, I think of something fake or made up

Okay, to avoid saying 'imagination, consider a concept generated in one's mentation with no real counterpart ─ and call it, an 'i-concept' for short.

Take Hindu vs Christian Vs Pantheist

As far as I can tell, they're all hypothetical. They're not real. They don't have objective existence hence they don't have objective real qualities. They just have such attributes as people like to wish on them.

As I said, I have no difficulty with imaginary gods ─ they can be anything you want. It's real gods, gods with objective existence, gods that aren't i-concepts, that I don't grok.

 

[blü 2]

I pretty much agree with all of that until you say so far no luck. I've given you the dictionary definition, the simple most basic application, examples, corrections ... it don 't get no better than that, but you mention luck. Luck is a god. Isaiah 65:11 (Th e KJV sucks, you might as well ask the cat) A modern translation: "But you men are those leaving Jehovah, those forgetting my holy mountain, those setting in order a table for the god of Good Luck and those filling up mixed wine for the god of Destiny."

But the question I've asked in thjs thread is this: if Yahweh is real, has objective existence &c then [he] has objective qualities. What is the objective quality that distinguishes [him] as God, or a god? What, in reality (rather than in imaginings and hypotheses and cognac and cigars after dinner) is godness?

And the answer isn't in what you referred to.

 

[blü 2]

Who is making this the criteria? Why if God is real does that make God as "a distinct being"?

Are you saying that God isn't sentient? If [he]'s not sentient then [he]'s an it, not a [he].

And you appear to be rejecting the idea that 'God' is a synonym for 'every real thing' or 'mass-energy', though I'm far from clear what you could have meant before if not those.

I very much see, in the sense of experience, God as very real. Yet, I do not imagine God to be "other" to me

So God, you say, doesn't have objective existence, isn't real, has no provenance but your own mentation?

If that's what you mean, that's fine, but it's not what this thread is about. This thread is about the concept of a real god, real in the sense of having objective existence, and my inability to make any sense of that concept.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

That is, no one has to this point (a) asserted the objective reality of God and (b) told me the objective test to distinguish God from anything else (the superscientist being the example in hand).

There is no objective reality to the godness nor god. Believers say this too. It's all dependent on culture and personal experiences.

The best way to understand this is go beyond the claims and put the unspoken pieces together as well. Additional research.

That appears to support the conclusion that believers in a real god don't know what real thing they actually believe in. Still, the thread's not over yet.

No. Just means believers take culture, emotions, and their interpretations of the world and find within themselves something greater or interconnected to answer questions about their place on earth. God is "the answer".

Unless you have an idea of what their answers "should be" it will be the same. It's subjective. It's cultural. It's based on experience.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

God (supernatural ones) is not objective.

Okay, to avoid saying 'imagination, consider a concept generated in one's mentation with no real counterpart ─ and call it, an 'i-concept' for short.

The psyche. It's real like emotions but can't be proven objectively only seen eternally (someone crying or someone elated from prayer) and internally (depression or deep sense of conviction)

Many god religions are I-concepts. Others are we. Both subjective.

As far as I can tell, they're all hypothetical. They're not real. They don't have objective existence hence they don't have objective real qualities. They just have such attributes as people like to wish on them.

Objective existence isn't at all always tangible. It's only objective on that god does exist on reality. Its subjective because the godness is dependent on culture and experiences. Talk to any gods believer. So far either their experiences are private (Pagan and Hindu) so that gives their experiences a definite necessity to understand the gods. Cultural. Pagans and Hindus have highly cultural definitions of the gods they believe in.

As I said, I have no difficulty with imaginary gods ─ they can be anything you want. It's real gods, gods with objective existence, gods that aren't i-concepts, that I don't grok.

What are real gods? Believers tell you their godness is defined as X and X does exist subjectively and not fake but you tell them to produce something they clearly don't believe in.

Some gods are I concepts. Some are we. Some are abstract. Others are isolated deity concepts. Real concepts not imaginary ones. Made existent by culture and experiences.

I mean the only people I can think of that has objective evidence of God are pantheists and some neopagans who consider the physical earth as "god." Outside that, got to go deeper.

 

[Jumi]

But not the experience of something real, something with objective existence ─ which is what I'm asking about.

It's real.

If it didn't have any physical form to it, it wouldn't be a real god ─ it would only exist in imagination. Such a god is not the subject of my question.

You have set your own limitations then and they're even a bit unconventional.

So if God is real, [he]'s actually a superscientist, you're saying ─ there's no real quality 'godness'. Is that right?

That's not what I'm saying at all. It seems you have predetermined ideas and want to guide everything I say toward those, isn't that right?

 

[Into the Night]

If we ever encounter a particularly powerful being who can do things we can’t – create universes, destroy worlds, read thoughts, restore the dead to life, convert water to wine, become invisible, act remotely, grant wishes &c – what test will tell us whether that being is God (or, a god) or not?

What, in real terms, is ‘godness’? What real quality does God have that a superscientist doesn’t? What objective test must we apply to resolve the question?

In interesting question, and one that I've already thought about. It comes down to what would be convincing evidence.

Let's just assume that Jesus Christ, for example, came up to you, shook your hand, and told you who he was.

Would you believe him? What if he performs what could only be described as miracle. Would you believe him then? It is said that even Satan can perform miracles. Perhaps it's just some old Joe that happens to hold some greater technology.

Science cannot answer this question. It is one for the world of philosophy and logic. It comes down to the circular argument.

It is quite commonly believed that the circular argument is a fallacy, but it is not. Only the failure to recognize one for what it is becomes the fallacy. The other word for the circular argument is 'faith'.

Since all theories begin as arguments of faith, even scientific ones, faith holds more importance than most people give credit for. It takes a certain amount of faith to even bring a theory forward, develop a null hypothesis for it, and test it to make that theory one of science. Once established as science, a theory is no longer a simple faith argument. It has gone beyond the simple realm of the circular argument and has these test against the null hypothesis to stand on as well.

While no theory can ever be proven, a theory of science is required to be falsifiable. The theory that the person shaking your hand is in fact a God is not one that science can answer. Such a theory is not falsifiable. You must judge according to your own faith and understanding of the personality of Jesus Christ (or whatever god you might be shaking hands with, if he is a god at all).

The power of faith is not a trivial thing. It encompasses most of what we do. Even what we judge to be 'reality' requires a certain amount of faith.