Why call the great mystery 'God'?

[illykitty]

There's obviously a lot of mysteries in nature and our cosmos... But what is this "great mystery"? Is there even such a thing?

Also, I feel myself being filled with awe when looking at nature, the cosmos, how we came to be... But I wouldn't label it a great mystery or god. It is at this moment, something we do not understand and maybe even if we knew everything, we'd still wonder if there is a force or meaning behind it... But perhaps there is none.

I'm agnostic but I need something more, I can't say what exactly perhaps something inexplicable (that won't even be able to be explained), to to think in such terms. What makes one believe there is more to it than just what is?

This is my thought salad for this subject anyway. Hopefully it is somewhat coherent.

 

[Tumah]

You take the laws of existence to come from a being you call G-d then? Even though laws doesn't mean that in a scientific sense?

No, I am referring to scientific laws. The laws of thermodynamics. These are laws that govern out universe. We don't live in a chaotic system. Gravity always pulls in the same direction and never turns into orange juice. We are governed by logic.

Also, I'm sure plenty of people would debate if the Tanakh is logical.

The fact that its words are understandable implies that it is logical, even if the concepts are foreign.

Just bear in mind that science would have no use if human logic were enough by itself.

Its exactly the opposite. Without logic, science would not work. How could we figure out how gravity works if today it pulls me to the earth and tomorrow it makes orange juice? Science aims to understand the specific logical reasoning behind how a system works.

 

[Ouroboros]

If God were just another name for it, wouldn't that make it subject to all the questions concerning 'God'? I mean, I know pantheists don't really believe 'God' is a being or entity, but many people do.

Many people do believe God, as a concept or subject, also means that "he" must be a being or entity. But there's history of people and philosophers with different views of what God is meant to represents. Just look into process theology, Spinoza, and many others. Just because the majority uses the word "God" in one and only one specific way, doesn't mean that there's other thoughts and uses in history. It's the "entity" God-believers who's been the loudest and taken the front of most discussions of religion, theology, and faith, so it's a good idea to start digging into undercurrents and alternative views to get a wider understanding.

Since there's a huge variety of views, then when you use the term "God", be more specific of what kind that you personally are thinking of when you use it. In your post, you assumed that everyone see the word God to represent the specific kind that you were thinking of. But it's like saying "good food". What is good food? It depends on the person. Can I ask the question, "why call hamburger good food?" To me, perhaps, I don't think it is, or maybe I do, but "good food" is subjective, just as the word "God" is subjective.

And another thought, Herclitus used the word God (or rather Theos) to describe his pantheism, 2,500 years ago, before the Christian monotheistic idea got a hold of Europe. So who's to say that the word must be used in the Christian tradition only?

 

[The_Fisher_King]

There is nothing that G-d can't do (I think that is the correct apophatic expression of the concept)

That's still saying something about God.

 

[Desert Snake]

The word 'god' doesn't have any special atribute that the others words don't have and also the same limitations, like context and agreement.

If that were the case, then the argument/position, presented in the OP, would be arbitrary, and there actually wouldn't be 'mutual understanding', since the word 'god' has no specific meaning, /according to you.

I didn't get this.. how come MY use of the word aiming "easier mutual understanding" is something unlikely to be?!? (I noted that you suppressed the 'easier'. What was your intent by doing so?)

Of course it would be unlikely, according to your position. In fact, it would be completely meaningless, since you claim that the word could basically mean anything.
'Mutual understanding', of a word that essentially has no meaning? How?

good

good day.

 

[JoStories]

I think you should read the context in which that statement was made.

I did and if you don't want to answer, simply don't.

 

[JoStories]

I think you should read the context in which that statement was made.

Furthermore, you said and I quote: "There's a G-d. He tells people what to do. A lot of people mess up a lot. Some don't. The end." And the title of this thread is about the concept of the great mystery which some people call God. I asked you how you know there is this God and how you further know that "he" tells people what to do. But again, if you don't want to answer, just don't. The end.

 

[JoStories]

I really don't know much of anything about Taoism, but the sense of awe is a response like any other emotion, not God Himself.

I would strongly disagree with you. When I meditate on what you would call God and look for the lessons in my life and what they mean, I am often awed. The sense of awe is something I attach to the concept of what I consider to be God. It is, at least from my path's POV, what enlightenment means. Awe that then leads to an understanding of what God is.

 

[JoStories]

You take the laws of existence to come from a being you call G-d then? Even though laws doesn't mean that in a scientific sense? Also, I'm sure plenty of people would debate if the Tanakh is logical. Just bear in mind that science would have no use if human logic were enough by itself.

I would be one of those who would argue that the Tanakh is far from logical. The 6000 year old earth, that rabbits chew their cuds are two of what I consider mistakes but, IMO, there is much more that I found to be illogical in my study of the faith and the text. For example, I found politicians that felt that anything that was written as a 'rule' or 'law' in the Tanakh should be made illegal in this country. Therefore, according to this man, the eating of shellfish, similarly to SSM as little ago as a decade, should be made illegal. And Jewish scholar Barry Levy wrote: "the textual integrity of every biblical book should be extremely important to those interested in either the Hebrew Bible or classical Jewish thought." Levy also writes that "Despite the popular, pious-sounding assumption that the Torah text is letter-perfect, frequent and extensive discussions by highly respected rabbinic leaders demonstrate that they, in some measure similar to modern scholars, were concerned about its true textual state; some of them even tried to clarify known textual doubts and to eliminate many troublesome inconsistencies and illogic." From the book B.

 

[JoStories]

The fact that its words are understandable implies that it is logical, even if the concepts are foreign.

Simply being understandable, from a etymology POV, in no way proves logic. I could say the following: Tomorrow I shall dive bomb my rabbit hole and come back as an ostrich. It is understandable, albeit crazy talk but understandable nonetheless. This does not mean it is logical, which clearly it is not.

 

[Tumah]

That's still saying something about God.

Its expressed negatively.

 

[Tumah]

I did and if you don't want to answer, simply don't.

There is no question to answer, because your question has nothing to do with what I wrote. I never said mine was better than yours nor did I attempt to make that argument. In fact, in the post you quoted me on, I was giving a synopsis of the Tanach (which you can tell, by reading the previous posts). You appear to be asking me a question unrelated to my synopsis of the Tanach.

 

[Tumah]

Furthermore, you said and I quote: "There's a G-d. He tells people what to do. A lot of people mess up a lot. Some don't. The end." And the title of this thread is about the concept of the great mystery which some people call God. I asked you how you know there is this God and how you further know that "he" tells people what to do. But again, if you don't want to answer, just don't. The end.

Again, you should go back and read the context my statement was made. I was responding to Riverwolf's question

Can you understand the whole Torah and what it means with just the first few chapters?
​

To which I replied with a synopsis of the Tanach that is already clear from the first few chapters of the Book.

Your question of how I know there is a G-d, is both irrelevant to the topic of this thread and irrelevant to my response to Riverwolf. The topic of this thread is not questioning the source of knowledge of G-d's existence, but the difference between the OP's understanding of some great mystery and posters understanding of G-d. Your question is simply not appropriate here.

 

[Tumah]

Simply being understandable, from a etymology POV, in no way proves logic. I could say the following: Tomorrow I shall dive bomb my rabbit hole and come back as an ostrich. It is understandable, albeit crazy talk but understandable nonetheless. This does not mean it is logical, which clearly it is not.

The sentence structure is logical. It is perhaps not rational. But the structure of the statements fit a logical sequence. At an appointed time, you will perform a certain action and subsequently change your shape.
As opposed to if I said, "Tomorrow orange juice fish upwards covering black who?"

 

[JoStories]

The sentence structure is logical. It is perhaps not rational. But the structure of the statements fit a logical sequence. At an appointed time, you will perform a certain action and subsequently change your shape.
As opposed to if I said, "Tomorrow orange juice fish upwards covering black who?"

Ok, I can concede that point to you however, I still found a goodly part of the Tanakh to be illogical in my study and please keep in mind that this was not a passing fancy of study but a part of my progress toward my PhD. I don't mean the allegorical parts of the books but rather the outright logic of a good part of it. For example, since you have brought up science in this thread, how does it appear logical that two people could have single handedly populated the earth? Agreed it may be read as allegorical but if so, then why not just say truth and not some fanciful story?

 

[Lyndon]

Actually Tumah, the OP relates to the Tao and how it relates to God and the great mystery. Since you seem to have little understanding of Tao and Taoism, it would appear you are the one that's taking the thread off topic IMHO.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

I'm agnostic but I need something more, I can't say what exactly perhaps something inexplicable (that won't even be able to be explained), to to think in such terms. What makes one believe there is more to it than just what is?

Humans tend to look for meaning and patterns, it could just be that. Sometimes perhaps it's wishful thinking, really WANTING there to be something more.
For example I tend to believe in space aliens because I think it's an exciting idea.

 

[syo]

It seems that a lot of people have a sense of wonder and mystery from being alive. A sense of wonder and awe toward the universe. Let's call this the great mystery, and am I wrong to say many theists define this mystery as God?

My question is why call the mystery God? Lao-tzu did not believe we could speak of the great mystery in any truthful terms, and merely called it the Tao to call it 'something'.

The mystery might really exist, or it might be something of our perception, and actually void of any 'suchness'.

What makes me an atheist in spite of accepting the Tao, is I do not call the mystery a god. I do not believe the ideas of gods do the mystery justice. I believe the mystery and the universe are much greater than these concepts.

That is my question for you friends: what causes the mystery to be called god, and people to attach all these human terms and conceptions to the unfathomable?

God is essence and we call the essence God because it is unique.

 

[The_Fisher_King]

Its expressed negatively.

Right, but the point is that it is possible to say things about God, to use concepts and words to get some grasp of who or what God is (or is not) and is capable of (or not), whether one does so apophatically or cataphatically. My earlier question, whether God is capable of destroying Herself - or incapable of destroying Herself - therefore has some sense to it.

 

[Kueid]

you sure like fallacy don't you.

If that were the case, then the argument/position, presented in the OP, would be arbitrary, and there actually wouldn't be 'mutual understanding', since the word 'god' has no specific meaning, /according to you.

wow.. where did I said that the word doesn't have an specific meaning? you'v pulled that from where? are you trying to be smart? cause you are failing really bad.. also, 'rhetoric questions'

Of course it would be unlikely, according to your position. In fact, it would be completely meaningless, since you claim that the word could basically mean anything.
'Mutual understanding', of a word that essentially has no meaning? How?

affirming the consequent

ps: Don't bother to reply, cause.. whatever..