What is a real God?

[stvdv]

My eyes can't see any `gods

I told you, if you have only 2 eyes, you can't see "Gods"

but my mind can invent them,
and then I can imagine them.
And.....then I grew up and reality came in,
imagination wasn't needed anymore.

Imagination is just fantasy. I never do that. That is unreal.

This shows a girl who has her "third eye" opened

 

[dfnj]

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?

Your definition of God is "out there". Many people believe God is a spirit that comes from within as much as "out there".

God is more like a Jungian archetype. A projection of our ideal self in terms of humanity.

Your insistence of having an "objective test" is simply meaningless with something that is purely subjective.

You don't have to respond to my post. As usual, I suspect you will just continue to convince yourself you are absolutely right about everything and anyone thinking differently is just wrong by definition.

 

[MonkeyFire]

You will know when he shows you.

 

[blü 2]

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.

Then here it is again.

For something to be real, it must have objective existence. which is to say, it can't just be imaginary.

Or put it this way: reality is the sum of things with objective existence, the same thing as 'nature', the same thing as 'the realm of the physical sciences'. So for a god to be real, the god must be present outside of one's imagination and within reality / nature / the realm of the physical sciences.

Because there's nowhere else for it to be ─ the alternatives sometimes proposed, such as 'the spiritual realm' or 'the higher reality' or 'a higher dimension' can't be distinguished from the imaginary by any objective test.

Maybe specific which gods you are referring to, then then i can get an idea.

Any god which is claimed by its followers to have objective existence, to exist outside of imagination. Correct me if I'm wrong but I understand that includes the Abrahamic god, the pantheons of Greece / Rome, and of the Scandinavians, and Persians and the Hindus and so on; I'm hard-pressed to think of any god which is proclaimed by its worshipers to be imaginary.

So my question is addressed to anyone who thinks their god has objective existence: what is the real quality of 'godness' that distinguishes that being from a human, or a frog, or (in particular here) a superscientist?

No one has offered an answer so far, as you'll have noticed.

 

[blü 2]

It seems you have predetermined ideas and want to guide everything I say toward those, isn't that right?

I'm asking a specific question within a specific context, just as I said in the OP.

What real quality, objective quality, does a real god have that defines [him] as a god, that distinguishes a god from a superscientist?

 

[blü 2]

Would it really matter if you decide to call this being a "superscientist" considering how this same being would still be what theists choose to call "God"?

So you're saying that there's no difference between God and a superscientist, that there's no specific quality of 'godness'?

If so, I thank you for a good clear answer.

Then ask, Why would anyone want to worship a superscientist?

(As I said earlier, if you meet a superscientist, the top item on your agenda after survival is, How do I get to know what [he] knows? But no church that I'm aware of pursues any such program.)

 

[blü 2]

The nature and reality of God is beyond languaging. But not beyond experience.

That is, God exists in imagination, in mentation, is an emotional experience, certainly not a being with objective existence.

When you speak of "everything" or "mass-energy", you are referring to physicality, the material universe.

Yes, of course. I'm talking about things that have objective existence, are not simply imaginary.

While the material universe is not separate from God, it does not define what God is.

As I understand it, you have no definition of God useful to reasoned enquiry (ie such that if we found a candidate we could determine whether it were a real god or not), but if you in fact have such a definition, please state it clearly, because I've never encountered one.

But instead of saying what doesn't define God, I'm trying to pin down what does ─ because if God is real, has objective existence, then God has a real description. And if God isn't real, is just imaginary, then it doesn't matter ─ God is whatever one cares to imagine God to be.

 

[blü 2]

I would say hallmarks do NOT include mere miracles but: super-powered love, super-powered emotion (I don't expect higher beings to evolve past emotions like Spock) and super-powered knowledge, like knowledge of and sovereignty over future events.

But that doesn't address the question, which is ─

If God is real, has objective existence, what real quality is 'godness', the thing that distinguishes God from a superscientist (or superartist, or in general any being with knowledge, skills and powers far beyond our own).

Or is God just a superscientist / superartist like any other superscientist / superartist? In which case, as I keep asking, why worship [him]?

 

[blü 2]

if a being does wish to be God then all it needs is anyone else to believe it, too. Done and done.

So there's no intrinsic quality of godness, just a status wished or deemed on the subject by one or more onlookers.

Okay. That's clear.

 

[blü 2]

God is the supreme being. God said, Let there be light.

But there was no light.

So God said again, Let there be light!

But there was still no light.

Then God said, Let there be light ─ please.

And there was light.

(Trad.)

 

[blü 2]

My favourite counter question is: What objective test can Harry Potter employ to resolve the question about JK Rowling?

Pindarello dealt with this very point in 1921 ─ see Six Characters in Search of an Author.

But that aside, there's no demonstration that can rebut solipsism, or that we exist only as things imagined or dreamt by a superbeing, or that we're elements in a Tron game, or that we're mice in a superscience experiment &c. (I'm reminded of Earth as a computer built to find the answer to the meaning of life, the universe and everything in Douglas Adams' Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. This, you recall, arose from dissatisfaction with the previous answer, 42.)

As I think I've mentioned to you, I address such matters by assumptions, which have to be assumptions because none of them can be demonstrated without first assuming it's correct: that a world exists external to the self, that our senses are capable of informing us of this world, and that reason is a valid tool. The reassuring thing about them is that anyone who posts here must already agree with the first two, and fingers crossed maybe with the third.)

 

[blü 2]

This shows a girl who has her "third eye" opened

Chapter 1 in Favorite Tricks for Young Magicians (Chicago 1907)?

 

[blü 2]

Your definition of God is "out there". Many people believe God is a spirit that comes from within as much as "out there".

That's fine. Spirits are imaginary, in that they lack objective existence, no?

Your insistence of having an "objective test" is simply meaningless with something that is purely subjective.

It's not meaningless when the claim 'God is real' is made. If God is real then the question is entirely relevant.

You don't have to respond to my post. As usual, I suspect you will just continue to convince yourself you are absolutely right about everything and anyone thinking differently is just wrong by definition.

If you think God has objective existence, then by all means set out a reasoned reply to the OP. If you think God is simply the product of one's mentation, then no need to do that.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Then here it is again.

For something to be real, it must have objective existence. which is to say, it can't just be imaginary.

Or put it this way: reality is the sum of things with objective existence, the same thing as 'nature', the same thing as 'the realm of the physical sciences'. So for a god to be real, the god must be present outside of one's imagination and within reality / nature / the realm of the physical sciences.

Because there's nowhere else for it to be ─ the alternatives sometimes proposed, such as 'the spiritual realm' or 'the higher reality' or 'a higher dimension' can't be distinguished from the imaginary by any objective test.
Any god which is claimed by its followers to have objective existence, to exist outside of imagination. Correct me if I'm wrong but I understand that includes the Abrahamic god, the pantheons of Greece / Rome, and of the Scandinavians, and Persians and the Hindus and so on; I'm hard-pressed to think of any god which is proclaimed by its worshipers to be imaginary.

So my question is addressed to anyone who thinks their god has objective existence: what is the real quality of 'godness' that distinguishes that being from a human, or a frog, or (in particular here) a superscientist?

No one has offered an answer so far, as you'll have noticed.

Problem is, the only people I know that thinks god is objective is pantheist and probably some NeoPagans. Most god believers understand god to be subjective, based on experience, and exists through their experiences, their rituals, culture, books, and like.

Ask a god believer to describe what exactly god is. He or she may say it cant be described; its an essence; its greater than our human noggin; we are lower than god, and so forth. It cannot be explained. Jews dont even attempt to define god. Muslims (and jews) use specific names for god to denote his importance. Yet, god has no explaination.

Gods existence isnt objective because they would have some idea of what god is, looks like, and acts independent of their beliefs.

It is not objective as in tangible. Imaginary is something thats fake. Beliefs come from the psyche, how we raised, and from our environment. These things make up a real god among believers with whom or what connects believers together in worship.

Emotions are real but they arent tangible. They arent objective but we are still learning about emotions because they one, do exist and two, we see how it affects people.

God beliefs are the same way as emotions.

The question you ask may be apropriate for a pantheist who believes all physical things-earth, rocks, people, etc-are god; but not god believers regardless their religion, has some sort of mysticism or importance to their god and gods. They wouldnt be gods if that were false.

But you are asking the wrong questions. Got to go deeper to understand their views, find whats in common, relate it to how we know reality that is not always science focused, and draw your own conclusions.

 

[blü 2]

Problem is, the only people I know that thinks god is objective is pantheist and probably some NeoPagans. Most god believers understand god to be subjective, based on experience, and exists through their experiences, their rituals, culture, books, and like.

Just so, BUT it's almost never phrased that way. If it were, I wouldn't be putting this question out there,

Ask a god believer to describe what exactly god is. He or she may say it cant be described; its an essence; its greater than our human noggin; we are lower than god, and so forth. It cannot be explained.

But once again the background is that God is nonetheless present in reality.

But you are asking the wrong questions. Got to go deeper to understand their views, find whats in common, relate it to how we know reality that is not always science focused, and draw your own conclusions.

No, I'm asking the right questions for the problem I perceive, namely the irreconcilability of the god of religious practice with a god who has the objective existence claimed for [him] ─ a point I take it we agree on.

 

[stvdv]

Chapter 1 in Favorite Tricks for Young Magicians (Chicago 1907)?

You missed the point

 

[Apologes]

So you're saying that there's no difference between God and a superscientist, that there's no specific quality of 'godness'?

If so, I thank you for a good clear answer.

Then ask, Why would anyone want to worship a superscientist?

(As I said earlier, if you meet a superscientist, the top item on your agenda after survival is, How do I get to know what [he] knows? But no church that I'm aware of pursues any such program.)

There is no difference between God and a superscientist when so defined. They both refer to the same thing. The question why you'd worship that being moves away from mere theism into some religious form of it.

More information would be needed then. For one I don't see one universal standard for what makes something worth of worship as different religions worship their deities for different reason. (Maybe it's mere gratitude, awe, hope, desire or something else entirely.) Take me, a christian, as an example. Suppose we found that the same being I described in my previous post also happens to be a triune one, had instructed Abraham, Moses and other great figures, had become incarnate as Jesus of Nazareth and died on the cross for our sins and rose from the dead on the third day and basically comforms to every Christian doctrine I embrace. Would I suddenly stop worshipping this being because you'd prefer to call it a superscientist rather than God? Hardly.

 

[blü 2]

You missed the point

That's a relief.

 

[blü 2]

There is no difference between God and a superscientist when so defined. They both refer to the same thing.

Fine.

The question why you'd worship that being moves away from mere theism into some religious form of it.

You thereby raise the question that gods may exist independently of religion ie independently of any believers.

That would mean they can exist independently of the concept of them in any brain, that is, they'd have to have objective existence.

The true test of objective existence is satisfactory demonstration (exactly as the Higgs boson case shows). This is the potato too hot for any religion so far to pick up.

I don't see one universal standard for what makes something worth of worship as different religions worship their deities for different reason.

I'm not conscious of worshiping anything. I'm therefore curious about why some folk are drawn to the idea. Maybe the place to start is a clear statement (from someone else) of what worship actually entails.

(Maybe it's mere gratitude, awe, hope, desire or something else entirely.)

Interesting suggestions. I've been grateful, awed, moved by aspiration, filled with deep respect for some human, but how that crosses over to worship, at least as I understand worship, is unclear to me.

Take me, a christian, as an example. Suppose we found that the same being I described in my previous post also happens to be a triune one, had instructed Abraham, Moses and other great figures, had become incarnate as Jesus of Nazareth and died on the cross for our sins and rose from the dead on the third day and basically conforms to every Christian doctrine I embrace. Would I suddenly stop worshipping this being because you'd prefer to call it a superscientist rather than God? Hardly.

But why worship it in the first place? You may feel gratitude, or be impressed by marvels, but how many times do you need to say Thanks or Wow?

 

[ERLOS]

...What real quality does God have that a superscientist doesn’t? What objective test must we apply to resolve the question?

Let's find a superscientist who can not only decipher but originate energy and the four forces of the standard model?