What is a real God?

[blü 2]

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

What is your evidence that God originated energy and not vice versa?

 

[stvdv]

That's a relief.

Good to know for me

 

[ERLOS]

What is your evidence that God originated energy and not vice versa?

Well, I don't know where energy originated. Or the four forces. What's your guess? Genuine question.

 

[ERLOS]

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 really real...

Thimgs like faith healing do happen. All sorts of strange things happen in the world.

(Post edited)

 

[Apologes]

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.

That's a given... In my view, God not only exists in the full sense of the term (rather than just a thought in people's heads in which case it's not even a case of any thing like God existing but rather just the concept being present in someone's consciousness) but that God is metaphysically (if not even logically) necessary.

Such a view is more or less predominant in all the major monotheistic religions which borrow from the ancient philosophers and assert God to not just exist as a thing that is but to be the ground of all that is. Given your comments in this paragraph (and others in the rest of your post) you don't seem to be on the same page with the theists on even the concept of God.

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.

What does "testing" the existence of God have to do with your original question? Even if the existence of God were completely unverifiable it wouldn't have any impact on God actually existing or not, rather it would affect the rationality of believing in God (if it would even do that).

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.
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.
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?

What is there to not understand? When someone does something for you, you ought to express your gratitude. When you see something beautiful it's natural to express awe. Those things are a form of worship, what do you even take worship to be if not things like that?

 

[`mud]

The word salad of thoughts,
and no olives within.
The question is, `gods` or reality ?
Eden or life, life or death ?
Death or afterlife ?
Oh...forget it, there's nothing there to go to,
and nothing there waiting,
we will merge with the Cosmos,
some time eventually.
Join you there.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

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

That is why you need to find your own conclusions behind their language.

Them: God is real. He exits. (claim of objectivity)

My question: What do you mean by god?

Them: You know. Love. Justice. If you believe in him, you would know

My question: But if god is objective, I would not need to believe he exists; I would know. Does god only show himself to believers?

Them: Yes. If you practice from our sacred book. Particpate in our culture. Etc. You will know god.

My question: So let me ask again. What is the nature (godness) of god?

Them: ........

So what they make an objective claim. Beliefs are not objective by their definition. Their explanations are subjective. God exists within their subjective experiences via culture and/or personifications of sacred text. Beliefs, by definition, are from the psych. They are formed by our upbringing and puting together how we see the world.

When you look at it from a historical, phsyiological, psychological, cultural studies view, god exists but not as a man in the sky. He cant be separated from the people. Draw your own conclusions and go from there.

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

How do you know this to judge if he is really present or can you look behind what they say and see god present in their reality whether communal view or individual?

If not from your own conclusions, how can you judge whether they are actually answering your questions? What criteria do you have to go on to decide this?

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?

Thats just personal preference not a necessity. If I spoke of one of many gods who created the universe etc, why not say thank you?

How many times? Depends on how grateful he is from living. Some people are really grateful. Others express it in a more relaxed way. Some use their own body and go to temples to connect with god. Others worship as a unit to make god (the sense of god) present among them.

Its a pesonal preference.

You are asking for ojectivety for a topic that is strictly subjective.

 

[blü 2]

Well, I don't know where energy originated. Or the four forces. What's your guess? Genuine question.

My instinct is for a fundamental monism: that at Time Zero of the Big Bang, there was only one thing, which on the present state of our knowledge we might call mass-energy; and that everything in the universe ─ dimensions, matter, forces, the energy of the vacuum, the works ─ are either forms of mass-energy or properties of it. This would mean, for example, that time exists because energy exists, not that energy exists within time, thus removing the problem of beginnings. It is, of course, only hypothesis, but as far as I can tell, uncontradicted.

Thimgs like faith healing do happen. All sorts of strange things happen in the world.

No argument from me; but all within nature. I don't believe in magic, the alteration of reality independently of the rules of physics, just by wishing.

 

[blü 2]

That's a given... In my view, God not only exists in the full sense of the term (rather than just a thought in people's heads in which case it's not even a case of any thing like God existing but rather just the concept being present in someone's consciousness) but that God is metaphysically (if not even logically) necessary.

But if something is real then it has objective existence, and that existence is established by satisfactory demonstration. By 2018 July we have not one authenticated demonstration of a real god ─ and far worse, we don't even have a definition of a real god such that if we found one, we could tell it was a real god.

Such a view is more or less predominant in all the major monotheistic religions which borrow from the ancient philosophers and assert God to not just exist as a thing that is but to be the ground of all that is. Given your comments in this paragraph (and others in the rest of your post) you don't seem to be on the same page with the theists on even the concept of God.

Quite right. As I've said repeatedly, I have no idea what a real god could be. Imaginary gods, no problem.

What does "testing" the existence of God have to do with your original question?

As above: to be real, to have objective existence, is to be demonstrable.

Even if the existence of God were completely unverifiable it wouldn't have any impact on God actually existing or not, rather it would affect the rationality of believing in God (if it would even do that).

I don't read it like that. The Higgs boson could not be said to be real until the LHC provided the satisfactory demonstration of its objective existence. Only then was it real. Or, going the other way, phlogiston, the lumeniferous ether, and so on, were real in their respective ages, ie demonstrated to the satisfaction of best opinion, and ceased to be real when the contrary was demonstrated. So for a god to be real ...

What is there to not understand? When someone does something for you, you ought to express your gratitude. When you see something beautiful it's natural to express awe. Those things are a form of worship, what do you even take worship to be if not things like that?

Those things are a form of worship? Well, if they are, even so, how many times must you say Thanks or Wow? I couldn't be more grateful to my wife for the time years ago when she instinctively stopped our daughter stepping onto the road into the path of a fast-moving bus; but I didn't worship her. I love her memory, but I don't worship that either. So how does the difference arise with gods?

 

[BilliardsBall]

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]?

When I think a person is good, I think they have love, and I believe Jesus is eminently qualified on that score.

 

[blü 2]

When I think a person is good, I think they have love, and I believe Jesus is eminently qualified on that score.

What has that to do with the OP?

 

[ERLOS]

My instinct is for a fundamental monism: that at Time Zero of the Big Bang, there was only one thing, which on the present state of our knowledge we might call mass-energy; and that everything in the universe ─ dimensions, matter, forces, the energy of the vacuum, the works ─ are either forms of mass-energy or properties of it. This would mean, for example, that time exists because energy exists, not that energy exists within time, thus removing the problem of beginnings. It is, of course, only hypothesis, but as far as I can tell, uncontradicted...

The forces, the cosmological constant, the proton/electron mass ratios, the excess of neutrons over protons, the velocity of light ... etc? All latent in this all pervading mono-energy? I'm not scientific enough to quite get my mind around it. So what was the Big Bang, if all this stuff was already there?

 

[blü 2]

The forces, the cosmological constant, the proton/electron mass ratios, the excess of neutrons over protons, the velocity of light ... etc? All latent in this all pervading mono-energy?

That's my guess. On top of that is the possibility that there is indeed a multiverse or overarching physical environment beyond our universe which provides or influences our rules and which generated the Big Bang ─ branes and such. But that's all afterdinner armchair chat. Garçon, two more armagnacs here!

 

[`mud]

And when everything becomes nothingness again, what will be left ?

 

[ERLOS]

That's my guess. On top of that is the possibility that there is indeed a multiverse or overarching physical environment beyond our universe which provides or influences our rules and which generated the Big Bang ─ branes and such. But that's all afterdinner armchair chat. Garçon, two more armagnacs here!

Ah, oui! Merci. Branes? Multiverse? Do people still do branes? I thought that had been 'put behind'. For surely you speak M Theory?

Sounds more like the Vedas (edit: Sorry: Upanishads) all the time: Brahma breathes out and all things come into existence, Brahma breathes in and they return to non-existence ...

 

[ERLOS]

And when everything becomes nothingness again, what will be left ?

The mono-energy? Hang on ... the ... the ... Brahma (= God)?

 

[`mud]

Ahhh...Nirvana...the end of everything's beginning, where Brahma begins.
The `void` of nothingness where `God` is born, and will eventually vanish.

 

[ERLOS]

Ahhh...Nirvana...the end of everything's beginning, where Brahma begins.
The `void` of nothingness where `God` is born, and will eventually vanish.

Eventually even Brahma will vanish. But for now it'll do ...

 

[ERLOS]

Surely there is greater than human intelligence in all this?

Yes. DISEMBODIED intelligence.

The alternative: human is the highest intelligence in the cosmos

Leave it with you ...

 

[dfnj]

What is your evidence that God originated energy and not vice versa?

God is the word we use to represent the cause of the creation of all the finite amount of energy in the Universe out of nothingness. Do you have an objective explanation on how the law of conservation of energy was violated at one moment in the history of time?