The Nature of God: Exploring the Concept of a Higher Power

[olde drunk]

What is the nature of "GOD"?

these threads get lost debating whether or not there is a god. to me that is a circle jerk because we all debate based on our individual beliefs,

let's assume there is a 'higher power'. what is s/he/it's nature??

 

[jammieg]

One of the reasons I don't like God questions is because my trying to suppose what does God think only seems to reveal my vaste ignorance in that God to me is going to be a reflection of what I value most or the way I like to view the world in a practical sense, and would like to think of things and that is a reflection of growing up in a world as a hairless monkey where there are so many fantasies to choose from and so many think they are the true fantasy and it shouldn't be any surprise that nobody really knows.

The nature of God to me is to throw me into hell so that I might enjoy trying to overcome it and appreciate heaven and hell more so when I eventually get there, and in the process learn that both are necessary and that it's the end of one or the other that's really miserable. A feast day after day is just a meal, but when you're starving it is the most memorable banquet as if you've never eaten before, but then how often do people starve themselves so that they can have a such a grand experience?
The reason for this type of perception is probably that our brains are geared in such a way that we seek the path of least resistance in all things, but we also have a region probably called aggression that craves strife and taking control of things that seem out of our control- and this might be the perception of hell, and so sometimes our lives can be going just fine but we get angry about something anyway for no apparent reason but later on we see this as silly and it's because that bit of emotion needs things to tax it so that when it overcomes those things we might feel like we are in heaven, I mean if we didn't have such a strong drive to control the external world would we really have gotten so far out of the trees?

Basically, I think the whole perception of God is likely somekind of mental projection of the struggle between the physical parts of the highier brain or all knowing area and the primal lower brain or emotional driving force that "feels alive" the more one's emotions are stimulated, to the point that the more emotionally stimulating a commercial is the more people will go out and buy it, in essence more emotionally stimulating means more truthful, and so people fight for fun. On another crackpot notion I suspect that just before people are about to get killed they have flashbacks of their entire life because it is the lower primal brain giving up all control and the highier brain taking over in a last ditch attempt, kind of like an ostrich sticking it's head in a sand hole to avoid danger- the cerebral hemisphere's when probed with an electric current can remember everything in one's life it seems and that is strange.
Still I choose to believe in a highier power far beyond what I think.

 

[Kerrie]

the term "god" is used loosely i believe for the energy/power that is responsible for life's existence...i feel the nature of god is merely the different forms of energy and science is the scope we use to understand "god"...

 

[olde drunk]

Kerrie

that's as good an answer as i have ever heard.

now, does this source care about our actions and issue rules of behaviour?? or, does it turn us loose so that it expands through our experiences??

peace,

 

[Pseudonym]

Whatever God is, He holds the power of existence. I didn't make myself, as far as I know!

 

[nightlight]

let's assume there is a 'higher power'. what is s/he/it's nature??

Here are my two cents toward the $64,000 question.

God is to you what you are to your cells. Immortality of religions is re-coding/unfolding of the fragile pattern of self (now encoded in your brain) into a more durable form in the hierarchy of outer networks (social networks, eco-webs; the sub-nets of the overall network, "God").

 

[Kerrie]

Originally posted by olde drunk
that's as good an answer as i have ever heard.

now, does this source care about our actions and issue rules of behaviour?? or, does it turn us loose so that it expands through our experiences??

peace,

actions/issues/rules/code of conduct are boundaries set by human beings to contain control...as it is necessary to an extent, but should not be confused with the energy that the physical laws governs our our universe...

 

[Elledan]

Gods are like ink-blots. In the shapes formed by ink-blots, humans are able to recognize a variety of objects. In the end, however, it's just ink.

 

[olde drunk]

i mix a little science into my logical view of our world.

if everything physical is really energy, why couldn't we create ourselves? being an energy essence, why can't we create our physical existence.

i believe i exist, beyond physical, in my mind not my brain.

now, how was my energy spawned? hmmm, is god an energy gestalt?

i honestly do not believe that there is an objective answer. i look to discuss our subjective views (ink blots) so that we may stretch our minds and consider alternative ways of explaining the universe, god, ourselves.

peace,

 

[nightlight]

Originally posted by Elledan

Gods are like ink-blots. In the shapes formed by ink-blots, humans are able to recognize a variety of objects. In the end, however, it's just ink.

You could say the same about you being "really" nothing more but an ink-blot-like image of a particular arrangement of atoms and fields. Obviously, there is something missing -- the higher order patterns which make that particular arrangement into "you". Unless one insists on viewing the world through a particular pinhole, the same goes beyond the patterns making up individual.

 

[waheed]

The question " the nature of God? " is simply appealing to imagine something... Now whatever I will imagine will be derived some how from my experience. Since I never seen something like "God", So simply I will make an explanation from the knowledge which is not related to the matter... Just like after studying mathematics, I try to consider something related to Biology etc. So the question which is raised, we don't have the required knowledge to address it.

So Why then people knowing this addresses it, It is actually they use to this word "God". This fellow had shaped our history etc. And we are so much use to it that it will take time to ignore it. But again the question remains unanswered " what is the nature of God? ".

The explanation from my side is, It is the generalization of all with which we can associate the word "good"( totally subjective definition) ,that is why the God of different religions and sections of different religions are different, because every individual has some what different definition for the word "good", since the word "good" will be addressing his wants and needs.

 

[Elledan]

Originally posted by nightlight
You could say the same about you being "really" nothing more but an ink-blot-like image of a particular arrangement of atoms and fields. Obviously, there is something missing -- the higher order patterns which make that particular arrangement into "you". Unless one insists on viewing the world through a particular pinhole, the same goes beyond the patterns making up individual.

Don't be silly.

Through the interactions between the elemental particles out of which the universe is composed all forces arise. Organisms exist because their existence is favoured by entropy. Biological neural networks are a side effect, leading to 'living' organisms, which are not fully subject to causality.

Thing is that organisms (living or passive) are very much real, while 'gods' are just shapes ignorant individuals see in the 'clouds' of physics.

 

[phoenixthoth]

a few people explore these issues here:
http://207.70.190.98/scgi-bin/ikonboard.cgi?;act=SF;f=17

note, i would say, primarily the sticky on "the nature of God" and the quotes in later posts.

 

[olde drunk]

thank you phoenix

interesting site, was a quick visit and i will return.

a question or obsevation popped into my head. no one here mentioned 'devinity'. interesting.

with thought, aren't we all devine and living in a state of grace? i can not envision a higher power giving existence on any other basis. it would be grossly unfair(un-god like) to create one person living in the hell of a 3rd world ghetto and create another as king of england.

logically, the higher power creates and turns us loose to frolic in the universe. an all everything god would be unjust within such a senario. so we must be the ones that choose the nature of this, our current playground.

wow, almost time for recess!


peace,

 

[phoenixthoth]

Originally posted by olde drunk
interesting site, was a quick visit and i will return.

a question or obsevation popped into my head. no one here mentioned 'devinity'. interesting.

with thought, aren't we all devine and living in a state of grace? i can not envision a higher power giving existence on any other basis. it would be grossly unfair(un-god like) to create one person living in the hell of a 3rd world ghetto and create another as king of england.

either answer to that question leads to logical problems. why is it that a quantum mechanics person can so gleefully say that large scale intuition and large scale laws need not apply to quanta yet people have a hard time accepting that the same applies to both answers lead to more questions. well, my answer is simply "sometimes."

logically, the higher power creates and turns us loose to frolic in the universe. an all everything god would be unjust within such a senario. so we must be the ones that choose the nature of this, our current playground.

we have some choices, albeit few. i think it's as impersonal as gravity. certain consciousnesses are "pulled" toward or "resonate" with certain domains and whatever "laws" the true universe operate on, if any, are fair in that no one is above the law. but, then again, aleister crowley once wrote "DO AS THOU WILT SHALL BE THE WHOLE OF THE LAW." there is quite a bit one can say about this quote but let it suffice for now to say that his methods were purposeful deception and he wants the casual passerby to read this as "do as thou want..." The True Will in his paradigm is the same as the "true self" in the paradigm over at universal sight is the same as The Self in David Hawkins' paradigm. (David Hawkins was the person who wrote those quotes on the nature of God.) the sublation of the ego has a lot to do with it; it mutates what the Will or Self expresses as itself and Its will through an expression of free will. when the ego is sublated, you'll find that what you have left once the layers are peeled back would pretty much match common law anyway. unfortunately, common law and following it in itself doesn't seem to help one sublate the ego.

 

[olde drunk]

phoenixthoth

there have been many wise people on this Earth and there are a ton of wise, pithy, sayings. i love them all and prefer personal, subjective explanations. sadly, in school we are so lazy that we hate the teacher who asks us to give our take on shakespear or some such. it's easier to just take notes and let s/he tell us what was meant.

my interest in quantum theory, philosophy and metaphysics is and has been to improve my day to day life. if it don't pass muster in my world, i doubt it's application overall.

my interpretation of crowley is an affirmation of freewill. regarless of the god, matrix, higher power or gestalt we are created to go out and explore the universe. our frewill includes deciding the where and how of our birth. again, my practical mind says that this is the only logical explanation.

why do so many texts and philosophies encourage sublimation of the ego? without ego we would not survive the birthing process or want to be born to begin with. i am not saying that we should be egotistical(believing we are better than), but that we should have full faith and confidence in our own abilities to create and enjoy this and the next moment.

we need a healthy ego and at the same time we must understand that we are no greater or lesser than any other ego we encounter. perhaps the eastern cultures have a better understanding of self and that when they use the term they are referring to self importance. we lump it all into ego. the path, IMHO, is to accept the world and myself while having complete confidence that what i am doing (no matter how meaning-ful or -less) is exactly what i should be doing.

oops, back to god. slight rephrasing, 'does god need a nature' or 'have a nature'? the longer i play with this the less i believe s/he/it cares about it's nature(LOL).

peace,

 

[phoenixthoth]

why do so many texts and philosophies encourage sublimation of the ego? without ego we would not survive the birthing process or want to be born to begin with. i am not saying that we should be egotistical(believing we are better than), but that we should have full faith and confidence in our own abilities to create and enjoy this and the next moment.

i think that the letting go of the ego is not something i would necessarily advocate or say is better than not letting it go. i think that rather than kill the ego, one, imo, should, as you mention later, have a "healthy" ego. the one reason to sublate it is that it is the source of the inner duel, imo, that people encounter. a battle of various drives and impulses in a complex network/pattern; in short, the antithesis of inner peace. the less ego plays a part the more peace, i would say. however, having thus advocated myself the letting go or nonattachment to ego, i would say also that one typically would or could use it to communicate with others and function in this (3+1)D universe. it is possible to have sublated the ego to such a degree that one is simply seemingly totally absent and catatonic yet completely and utterly at peace. one finds it difficult to resume "normal" life at that point and it can take years to fully function again. if one resumes 4D life, if one has a mind to or a drive to for some reason(s), then one uses the ego as a tool or vehicle much like the body is itself a tool or vehicle. so it probably sounds like the choices are these: inner peace with no hands or inner conflict with hands. it's not that extreme. one can simply choose when to and when not to use the ego; it doesn't get killed nor does it retaing ultimate control over one.

we need a healthy ego and at the same time we must understand that we are no greater or lesser than any other ego we encounter. perhaps the eastern cultures have a better understanding of self and that when they use the term they are referring to self importance. we lump it all into ego. the path, IMHO, is to accept the world and myself while having complete confidence that what i am doing (no matter how meaning-ful or -less) is exactly what i should be doing.

i can relate to that. there is probably confusion on the casual passerby's part here on what we mean by "ego" for we're lumping into one frued's ego, the concept of conscious self or what i call the "little self" (though that's ego + body), and the concept of egotism which is conceitedness. when you have the feeling/confidence that you're doing what you should be doing then i believe that it is quite possible that you are acting according to crowley's law: doing what thou wilt. painful and arduous as it is at times, sometimes you are "meant" to learn certain lessons, lessons your Will/Self/True Self has decided you should learn. the logical problems crop up when one ponders if it is just you who is doing what you should be doing or if everyone is according to some grand design or plan. questions arise like why didn't God come down from heaven and prevent this or that "tradgedy;" there are a million questions. as trivial as an explanation and as unsatisfying as it is, what i think might be true is that God is not bound by nor subject to any human notions, which are limited, such as tradgedy. so while the extermination of six million people seems to us to be exactly what SHOULDN'T be happening, to God, which admittedly I don't understand, may view it more like a father who sees his child cry after dropping his ice cream on the ground. as ridiculous as that sounds, perhaps it is because God knows that our true selves, aka our souls, persist beyond the body and persist beyond suffering.

oops, back to god. slight rephrasing, 'does god need a nature' or 'have a nature'? the longer i play with this the less i believe s/he/it cares about it's nature(LOL).

if it does 'care' about anything, it is in a way completely different from how humans care about things. i feel strongly that God is about love and peace though not exactly human style love. it may be as foreign to us as the 'love' a moth has for a flame or the 'love' a negative charge has for a positive charge. the thing is that It doesn't need to care about It's nature for It is omniscient and so It is fully self-aware. there need not be a self-discovery process like we humans go through if we have a mind to. so i would say that It doesn't need a nature but it has a nature. to play on words a bit, a pantheist might say It is nature and that is so though not the whole story for nature is not the totality of all that is (unless it is).

 

[Omni]

let's assume there is a 'higher power'. what is s/he/it's nature??


God is all knowning, loves, hates, creates, destroys, condems, wise, jealous, mean, gentle, spiteful, generous, kind, hypocritical, obnoxious, gives, takes, happy, angry, impatient, patient, greedy, philanthopist, sadist, caring. Basically, God is HUMAN with a clear case of psychophrenia...

 

[phoenixthoth]

wrong

 

[Omni]

Wrong? read the bible...

 

[phoenixthoth]

any such protrayal, whether it be yours or someone else's is incorrect. sorry to dissapoint you. for one thing, there are humans who have transcended all those "negative" traits and if there is a God then it must have, too. is that conditional really hard to believe?

i have this thread called "ask a stupid question, get a stupid answer" over at my discussion board just like this one. here was one question and one answer:
***
q: how does one know that they're following the objective directive and not just what the ego drives tell you to do?

a: My ego used to be old enough to drive, but it was caught speeding one too many times and lost it's licence. Not only did it loose it's licence, it was thrown into juvinile detention with orders, never to be released. So what ever else is talking to me and telling me what to do is certainly not my ego, that I can be sure of.
***
more cannon fodder for you

 

[Omni]

I'm not dissapointed, to dissapoint me I would have to have read your reply and believed that I was wrong (which I don't). The only person who can know to have trascended all negative traits would be the person, the self, not you, unless you believe you have trascended these and therefore you are speaking from experience. And if they had trancended these traits how would they know they had, for to know that you have trancended evil you must know what evil is and therefore the potential of that trait is still within you. Getting back to the origonal post about he nature of God, why wouldn't God have these negative traits, he created them after all.

 

[phoenixthoth]

does everything that is potential manifest?

does the creation and creator always have exactly the same traits?

 

[Omni]

No but it has the potential to and that's my point. In order for something to be truly transcended the potential must be eliminated because he or she just might have. How do you know that a Buddhist monk or Jesus Christ for that matter, when having accidentally stood on a thorn didn't say to himself "oh damm it" or something worse. The answer is you don't, why because these are thoughts that only the beholder of these thoughts knows. A person may appear to you to have tracended either by action or words but the opposite could be happening in his or her mind, that's why so many get sucked into these cults and things whereby a person can portray themselves as above and beyond all else, but deep down be thinking of their bank balance. Damm, sorry phoenixthoth and anyobne else, that last comment wasn't meant as an offence but as an opinion. Damm, did I say Damm?

 

[phoenixthoth]

is speaking an evil act, then?

 

[jammieg]

Phoenix I've been thinking along the lines you type but what you said makes a lot more sense and agree with it, the difference between a fool and a brave man very much depends on who is observing the fool or the wise...and that they end up making things better without dying and killing. It's possible that the super ego has always been pushing the envelope of the cerebellum or self and testing the waters for someone or much more likely many to lead or show the way, but it makes me wonder if the way were so shown could a person follow it without faith and make things far worse? I think so, I think this is why a person has so much difficulty getting what they want out of life until they can prove they can weild such things justly, that is that they can give it away freely in actions without expectation of return and they do in fact understand what is for the better. Perhaps that's the whole point, one has to make leaps of faith into the unknown based on what they figure is right and if they pass they get a milk bone and if they fail they are set back to learn from their mistakes, but the harder one tries the more mistakes they make because it could be the highier brain taking over a bit of control so that we might have heavier mental weights to lift, strange theory, if true then one should be able to ask god or whatever for guidance and the way will reveal itself in mysterious ways and one will likely never know if it's true or not or perhaps they will want to know too much and get smacked down, I think my part if any is to keep on theorizing the possibilities and throwing them into circulation and listen closely to everyone and try to learn from them and dismiss the one's that don't make sense and refine what does, but then I probably can't change anyone but myself so I'm trying to find my way and in doing so it help others. My support for this so far is only what I've witnessed, that my employers test me for drugs and often people think I'm on drugs but I've only tried them once or twice and yet meditation is like smoking marijuana and using imagination is like LSD and speed is like concentration and willing oneself to move faster but it takes lots of effort and practice and it's easier to live in a "birdhouse", but if one only takes the easier way where does it lead? I don't really know that except I've tried both and found that it's better in the long run to be able to will oneself to relax or focus in whatever situation than use an external device...the philosophical practice of doubting everything is like getting drunk to me and I drink too much.
It's good to give one's brain a rest or risk a sprain.
Another crackpot theory is that the highier brain is a symbiotic being that exist in all of us and was long referred to as god and it carries life onward through some spirit force, after all 90% of the universe can't be seen so who knows, but this is out there and it seems more likely that it was fabricated to make death easier to bare, I guess I'll now for sure when I'm dead so intend to play hard and leave a beautiful ******* corpse.

 

[phoenixthoth]

Phoenix I've been thinking along the lines you type but what you said makes a lot more sense and agree with it, the difference between a fool and a brave man very much depends on who is observing the fool or the wise...and that they end up making things better without dying and killing. It's possible that the super ego has always been pushing the envelope of the cerebellum or self and testing the waters for someone or much more likely many to lead or show the way, but it makes me wonder if the way were so shown could a person follow it without faith and make things far worse?

rather than have blind faith, i, when standing where you may be standing right now, had "positive skepticism" with emphasis on SKEPTICISM. I've never been a blind faither in my whole life (including now).

I think so, I think this is why a person has so much difficulty getting what they want out of life until they can prove they can weild such things justly, that is that they can give it away freely in actions without expectation of return and they do in fact understand what is for the better.

that's my understanding of the process. i would like to point out though that one isn't wielding anything but themselves; a finding and unleashing of one's true self. but the true self is covered by layers and layers of society, and judgement, and others' ways one has been indoctrinated to conform to. on this path, there are no rules or obligations or requirements to be yourself.

Perhaps that's the whole point, one has to make leaps of faith into the unknown based on what they figure is right and if they pass they get a milk bone and if they fail they are set back to learn from their mistakes, but the harder one tries the more mistakes they make because it could be the highier brain taking over a bit of control so that we might have heavier mental weights to lift, strange theory, if true then one should be able to ask god or whatever for guidance and the way will reveal itself in mysterious ways and one will likely never know if it's true or not or perhaps they will want to know too much and get smacked down,

the intellect is a tool, no more no less. the idea is to maximize the effectiveness of that tool (ie not with blind faith) yet also realize it, like all tools, has its limitations. do you honestly expect this 'lever' called your intellect to be able to lift the heaviest 'thing' in existence? the harder you try to lift this, the stronger you may become; either that or the lever will crack and perhaps break down but you won't lift the weight with that lever. however, there are other tools, i believe embedded in the subconscious, actually i call it the higher self, which exists in a 'plane' without mentation. it has been said that once the student is ready, the master appears. meditate on who that master might be because it sure ain't myself! if you don't like my discussion board that i link to in my signature, i would recommend reading the three books by david hawkins about nonduality, God, the ego, et al. in my paradigm, he was getting all of his material not from figuring it out with his intellect but from his higher self which has a higher perspective.

I think my part if any is to keep on theorizing the possibilities and throwing them into circulation and listen closely to everyone and try to learn from them and dismiss the one's that don't make sense and refine what does, but then I probably can't change anyone but myself so I'm trying to find my way and in doing so it help others. My support for this so far is only what I've witnessed, that my employers test me for drugs and often people think I'm on drugs but I've only tried them once or twice and yet meditation is like smoking marijuana and using imagination is like LSD and speed is like concentration and willing oneself to move faster but it takes lots of effort and practice and it's easier to live in a "birdhouse", but if one only takes the easier way where does it lead?

see i knew your ultierior motive for asking about the birdhouse and i responded accordinly, even if you weren't aware of it at the time (though i think you were). i can tell that you want the doors to open just by saying "open sesame" but it doesn't work that way. then again, how do you know they're not already open? i enjoyed the other response which was that a bird doesn't need a roof because it sits on its eggs. if anything, the eggs are you and the bird protecting the eggs is your higher and true selves. i would eschew drugs but that's not "a mandate from God," it's just personal experience; hey, we're wacky enough without 'em anyway, right?

I don't really know that except I've tried both and found that it's better in the long run to be able to will oneself to relax or focus in whatever situation than use an external device...the philosophical practice of doubting everything is like getting drunk to me and I drink too much.

i feel the same thing but i drink in moderation like the europeans.

It's good to give one's brain a rest or risk a sprain.

yes! meditate or sleep when you get over-taxed and do the opposite when you're bored; that's my unsolicited advice that you already know.

Another crackpot theory is that the highier brain is a symbiotic being that exist in all of us and was long referred to as god and it carries life onward through some spirit force, after all 90% of the universe can't be seen so who knows, but this is out there and it seems more likely that it was fabricated to make death easier to bare, I guess I'll now for sure when I'm dead so intend to play hard and leave a beautiful ******* corpse.

well, what if there is no life after death but there is existence after death? check out max tegmark's ensemble theory of everything. http://alephnulldimension.net/toe.pdf . it may prove to be true that we are just in truth purely logical, perhaps fuzzy logical, self-aware structures (SAS's) whose essences exist on a purely platonic level like a form. so while the physical form of phoenix will die, maybe the platonic, abstract form of phoenix won't. so if one can manage to transfer the seat of their consciousness to that realm now, then maybe death won't be so hard. if you dig on my discussion forum under "reality" you'll see a topic called "on the nature of reality" which was all of this higher self's writings. it is referred to there as "the true reality" and i wrote it before reading about tegmark's theory.

 

[Messiah]

If god exists, who created him?

 

[THANOS]

Nothing ever was created.

 

[Messiah]

Originally posted by THANOS
Nothing ever was created.

I quite agree, but those who think the Universe was 'created' attribute it to a deity. If everything which exists was created, then the deity must also have been created, preceeded by an infinite lineage of ancestry.

 

[olde drunk]

Messiah

If you remove the quality(measure) of time there is no creation.

We always were and always will be. we only need a beginning if we want to view reality in a linear fashion(time).

peace,

 

[jammieg]

Thanks for the advice phoenixthoth, I was getting too weird, I prefer to think of everyone as my teacher though because the only person I can really change is myself and on second thought Hitler didn't seem to earn any special right to weild knowledge, maybe he was convinced he too was doing the necessary evil.
Maybe God simply finds it better to have something going on than nothing and we are some very small spec of something going on in a vaste sea of somethings, I find it hard to imagine this could be all there is not with so many stars. Wouldn't it be strange if all this time prayer really did work and scientist said ah ha it's a way of communicating to the highier brain and religious people said ah ha they finally got it in their own way. The only trouble being that one's own god is whatever they pretend it to be, so if they imagine a god that is generous and moral from the bible they will have a good guide and if they imagine a god that sees fit to kill others for some greater good they will have a different sort of guide and if they imagine a god that helps them crack codes they might get a free trip to the padded fun room.