It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

God In a Few Words or More

page: 1
8
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 1 2013 @ 12:30 AM
link   

God in a few words or more.




“God's only excuse is that he does not exist”

Stendhal


It is impossible to have faith in something that doesn’t exist. In order to have any faith in anything there first must be something to have faith in. This something must first manifest in some form or another and be experienced through the senses before faith is given to it, thereby permitting the mind to conclude that it wasn’t a product of its own imagination, but an idea outside itself where it might seek enough emotional and intellectual comfort to be convicted upon—a metaphysic.

To help explain better—it is conceivable that J. R. R. Tolkien couldn’t have possibly created in his imagination an Orc and then believe it wasn’t he who imagined it. The idea came not from without, but within. Therefore it goes without saying that Tolkien would be unable to have faith in the existence of an Orc outside his imagination without knowingly contradicting himself. He knew Middle Earth and its inhabitants were a tale of his creation.

But what of the child who, after devouring the lore of Middle Earth with a fervent fancy and the curiosity of innocence, believes in the existence of the orc despite never sensually experiencing one in his life? Despite the absence of the Orc from the realities of the child’s sensual world, what is this something he nonetheless finds faith in? What truly is the Orc?

It is painstakingly clear (maybe even unnecessary to point out) that the child derives his understanding of the Orc from Tolkien’s very words, being led to imagine the Orc’s nature by the guiding hand of written prose. In due course, it is simply a matter of taste whether or not to have faith that such beings may persist outside of the words of these tales, once the child has inclined to seek the comfort of his own conviction or uncertainty. As it shows, the object of faith in this instance is not an actual Orc, but the very words produced by the artful expression of Tolkien’s mind, the only physical manifestation of the Orc to be found. The faith here is in words.




In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.


There are many accounts of theophany (the appearance of a deity to man) throughout various scripture. It would be scribed (in words of course) that God has manifested as a burning bush, as angels, as avatars, as storms, earthquakes, volcanoes, visions and as a man named Jesus Christ. However, the most obvious manifestation of God, and one we can confirm, is the direct conduit through which every believer experiences Him: namely, in the words, sentences and rhetoric of the bibles, the prophets and the priests. The deities evolve with the literature they populate. Our faith here is not in a being called God, for there never appears to us a being called God as it is described, but its a faith in a hope that the scripture, it’s words, and the metaphysical axiom “God exists” is indeed true. These are what people pray to. It is fitting then that Jesus is the incarnation of the divine "logos", the "Word of God", the "alpha and the omega" and every letter in between; that is the only place he, The Lord of the Old Testament, Vishnu of the Bhagavad Gita, the orcs in the Lord of the Rings, can be experienced enough to have faith in. The faith here is once again in the words.

It is fathomable that without the religions, without the scripture and without the rhetoric of the priests, the ideas that might arise from the word God and the words expressed about the idea, through their disuse, would eventually cease, leaving in its wake the the loss of faith in such words, or acceptance of another idea, some other words representing the universe, to take up their place in the intellectual and emotional comfort of one’s mind. In fact, as bibles close permanently in the minds of some as being too soft a footing to use as a foundation, we often see a switch to another explanation of reality, another metaphysical axiom to base the inductive nature of their humanity upon.

But no matter what we name the universe, reality, the law of laws, when we have faith in an idea not of our own creation, perhaps for the fear of transitioning through nihilism to achieve it, we are pledging our trust to someone else’s pile of words, artistically constructed into a specified order through which we can follow mentally someone else’s train of thought. They have gone through the dreadful task of interpreting the data; w therefore trust, through reason, emotion, or a combination thereof, in their interpretation of it, in an idea suitable to our tastes from which we can generate further ideas, conducts and language, a solid trunk from which to grow the branches of our own culture.

If one was to imagine that in two thousand years Tolkien’s tales survived and were regarded as truth of some pre-apocalyptic age, many would fearfully await the return of Sauron. The Gods of recent and old are linguistic metaphors, concepts through which we describe the chaotic unknown, that which language cannot yet fully grasp, a placeholder that serves its purpose in the event we cannot find an explanation, as a pillar of cloud and fire would appear as a god to one who has never seen or heard of a volcano.

It seems we all know deep down, but humbly don’t admit it, that God, the Universe and Reality, are mere superficial variations of the same idea philosophically expressed and imposed by an interpretive community (Stanley Fish). Nothing changes if we call it this or that. It is simply a matter of intellectual and emotional tastes. We choose positions and lean a certain way for the sake of comfort and joy, for the ease of intellectual burden. But it is on us to have faith in these words, to choose wisely these gods and remain the child to the orc; or perhaps to, from the data received through ones own experience, emotions and reason, become like Tolkien himself, know that they are tales, but be the Word itself, and create worlds in the only place where we find our gods, in a few words or more.

Thank you for reading,


edit on 1-6-2013 by LesMisanthrope because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 1 2013 @ 02:09 AM
link   
reply to post by LesMisanthrope
 



Your post is very well written, but your idea on God seems to contradict itself, if I am understanding you correctly.

It seems like you are saying that the concept of God is and has been created by the minds of men. For your example, you say that Orcs, Middle Earth, and Sauron were all creations of Tolkien's imagination. However, if that's true, then that also points to your own existence being the creation of someone else's imagination, correct? Wouldn't we call that figure God and wouldn't he be just as real as your consider Tolkien?

You are a figment of God's imagination, that is why you can't explain how you came into existence anymore than Sauron or an Orc would be able to explain how and why they came to exist in their own world.



posted on Jun, 1 2013 @ 02:27 AM
link   

edit on 1-6-2013 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 1 2013 @ 02:56 AM
link   
reply to post by LesMisanthrope
 


In mysticism, you are invited to come and meet the author of this work of creation himself, and you are given precise instructions on where to go and how to get there. Depending on your eagerness and dedication, and the weight of the load (of attachments) you carry, your journey may be relatively swift, or it may take a lifetime or more.

Faith is required initially to embark on the journey, but along the way there are signs and indicators that you are making progress in the right direction. At any point in time, you are free to quit pursuing your objective. It is a very personal and individual endeavour, with the only pressure to persist coming from within yourself.

This probably fails to address the points in your post, but I wanted to make some type of reply to your well articulated opening statements. I will stay tuned.



posted on Jun, 1 2013 @ 03:35 AM
link   
reply to post by LesMisanthrope
 


Dear LesMisanthrope,

So basically you are saying that it is possible for people to believe things to be true because someone else told them they are true. Yes, that is possible. Now, the Christian bible has a self check, it says that for someone to be a prophet they can NEVER be wrong. Let me ask you a question. 2,000 years ago the bible predicted that it would be spread to every part of the world (it has) when they didn't even know how big the world was and had no printing press. It then said that once it had spread throughout the whole world that people would fall away from the church (they are). Do you not find this interesting at all? Please tell us what Orc accurately predicted.



posted on Jun, 1 2013 @ 03:37 AM
link   
reply to post by MaryStillToe
 


Thank you for reading.



It seems like you are saying that the concept of God is and has been created by the minds of men. For your example, you say that Orcs, Middle Earth, and Sauron were all creations of Tolkien's imagination. However, if that's true, then that also points to your own existence being the creation of someone else's imagination, correct? Wouldn't we call that figure God and wouldn't he be just as real as your consider Tolkien?


I'm not sure how you arrived at that conclusion, but I don't think my example points to me being anything other than the one reading Tolkien's words. It seems to be a rather large leap to infer from reading some words in a book that we are the ideas of God. But if I understand the language and your metaphysics, I can interpret your statement as meaning the exact same thing as me saying I'm a product of the universe. We're talking about the same thing but in a different language.

But to make myself more clear, it involves a faith in the very words and propositions that state that here first is a God, and not faith in God as such, or as something we have experienced outside of the language that describes to us what God is. This assumption is based on your metaphysics, the whole promise of "God exists", and is a matter of taste or indoctrination, and not the fact of the matter, nor something you creatively contrived. This faith in a God, derived only from scripture or priestly rhetoric, is at best and in truth, faith not in God, but only in the language and words he exists within.



posted on Jun, 1 2013 @ 03:42 AM
link   
reply to post by AQuestion
 





So basically you are saying that it is possible for people to believe things to be true because someone else told them they are true. Yes, that is possible. Now, the Christian bible has a self check, it says that for someone to be a prophet they can NEVER be wrong. Let me ask you a question. 2,000 years ago the bible predicted that it would be spread to every part of the world (it has) when they didn't even know how big the world was and had no printing press. It then said that once it had spread throughout the whole world that people would fall away from the church (they are). Do you not find this interesting at all? Please tell us what Orc accurately predicted.


I don't find it interesting at all. I cannot find any particular interest in the words in the bible, save perhaps for its lyrical beauty.

What I am showing is that faith is not in a God, but, as in your case the scripture of the bible, the faith is only in the words, the only place God is seen to manifest.


edit on 1-6-2013 by LesMisanthrope because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 1 2013 @ 03:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by LesMisanthrope


But to make myself more clear, it involves a faith in the very words and propositions that state that here first is a God, and not faith in God as such, or as something we have experienced outside of the language that describes to us what God is. This assumption is based on your metaphysics, the whole promise of "God exists", and is a matter of taste or indoctrination, and not the fact of the matter, nor something you creatively contrived. This faith in a God, derived only from scripture or priestly rhetoric, is at best and in truth, faith not in God, but only in the language and words he exists within.


God exists by not existing. Until you find nothingness you will be full of ideas and have only an idea about what the word 'God' means.
edit on 1-6-2013 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 1 2013 @ 03:51 AM
link   
reply to post by Itisnowagain
 





God exists by not existing. Until you find nothingness you will be full of ideas and have only an idea about God.

The exact same could be said of nothingness.



posted on Jun, 1 2013 @ 03:55 AM
link   
There are also two very instinct differences between the inspiration of A Orc, and the inspiration of A God.
One is directly aimed at our way of life. The other inspiration is not.

Since we know that the inspiration of the Orc is a fiction who wont effect our lives. There is a different aspect with the inspiration of God. Who is directly aimed at each and every one of us. The inspiration of God creates a uncertainty prinsiple we cant dismiss.
edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 1 2013 @ 03:58 AM
link   
reply to post by LesMisanthrope
 


Thingness and nothingness go together to make what this is. Thingness is easy to spot but nothingness is hiding - it is the unseen. It is always present but it can never be seen but when discovered it is written about - that is why books like the bible will out last any fiction.
What is uncovered is real - it is the only real and that is why God persists.

A problem arises when people only have ideas about God is.
edit on 1-6-2013 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 1 2013 @ 04:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by LesMisanthrope
reply to post by AQuestion
 





So basically you are saying that it is possible for people to believe things to be true because someone else told them they are true. Yes, that is possible. Now, the Christian bible has a self check, it says that for someone to be a prophet they can NEVER be wrong. Let me ask you a question. 2,000 years ago the bible predicted that it would be spread to every part of the world (it has) when they didn't even know how big the world was and had no printing press. It then said that once it had spread throughout the whole world that people would fall away from the church (they are). Do you not find this interesting at all? Please tell us what Orc accurately predicted.


I don't find it interesting at all. I cannot find any particular interest in the words in the bible, save perhaps for its lyrical beauty.

What I am showing is that faith is not in a God, but, as in your case the scripture of the bible, the faith is only in the words, the only place God is seen to manifest.


edit on 1-6-2013 by LesMisanthrope because: (no reason given)


Dear LesMisanthrope,

As in my case, lol. You are sadly mistaken as to my reasons for believing and it is shame that you do not associate predictability with anything. Do you listen to stock brokers who are never right? We do not accept the Norse gods because we have been into space and the earth does not sit on the back of a turtle. If observational facts don't impress you then you are in denial or are anti-scientific method. Please tell me what you would accept as a reason for believing in God. Is there any reason you would accept that there is one?



posted on Jun, 1 2013 @ 04:29 AM
link   
reply to post by LesMisanthrope
 


Dear LesMisanthrope,

Hey, you cheated. You asked a question, I answered a question, it is just who I am. You did not tell us what Orc has accurately predicted.



posted on Jun, 1 2013 @ 04:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Itisnowagain

Originally posted by LesMisanthrope


But to make myself more clear, it involves a faith in the very words and propositions that state that here first is a God, and not faith in God as such, or as something we have experienced outside of the language that describes to us what God is. This assumption is based on your metaphysics, the whole promise of "God exists", and is a matter of taste or indoctrination, and not the fact of the matter, nor something you creatively contrived. This faith in a God, derived only from scripture or priestly rhetoric, is at best and in truth, faith not in God, but only in the language and words he exists within.


God exists by not existing. Until you find nothingness you will be full of ideas and have only an idea about what the word 'God' means.
edit on 1-6-2013 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)



God exists by not existing?

God must exist if God exists. God can not be not existing and existing at the same time.



posted on Jun, 1 2013 @ 04:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by spy66

Originally posted by Itisnowagain

Originally posted by LesMisanthrope


But to make myself more clear, it involves a faith in the very words and propositions that state that here first is a God, and not faith in God as such, or as something we have experienced outside of the language that describes to us what God is. This assumption is based on your metaphysics, the whole promise of "God exists", and is a matter of taste or indoctrination, and not the fact of the matter, nor something you creatively contrived. This faith in a God, derived only from scripture or priestly rhetoric, is at best and in truth, faith not in God, but only in the language and words he exists within.


God exists by not existing. Until you find nothingness you will be full of ideas and have only an idea about what the word 'God' means.
edit on 1-6-2013 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)



God exists by not existing?

God must exist if God exists. God can not be not existing and existing at the same time.

Look right now at what is going on right here and now at the only thing that can be said to be real. There is what is seen - what is appearing presently and there is also what is seeing the appearance - or that is what would be the logical conclusion but look and see if you can see what is seeing.
Can the seer be seen? Can the seer be said to exist if it cannot be seen. Existence appears to exist but non existence is seeing it. Remember that appearances cannot see - they are seen.
God is the unseen presence.
edit on 1-6-2013 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 1 2013 @ 05:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by LesMisanthrope

But to make myself more clear, it involves a faith in the very words and propositions that state that here first is a God, and not faith in God as such, or as something we have experienced outside of the language that describes to us what God is.


Yes, that is also how I see it, but I do not regard it as a barrier to accepting the possibility that there is a way to confirm for oneself the existence of metaphysical realities.

For me, the proposition that God exists is an hypothesis, though one I am prepared to spend quite some time testing and investigating. Why would anyone have a problem with this?



edit on 1-6-2013 by mysticnoon because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 1 2013 @ 05:02 AM
link   
I enjoyed the OP. Thank you for your thoughts.

My idea is very similar, and can be summed up quite simply. God is real, it is attraction. It is not conscious of itself. It does not make choices. This is the beauty and gift of consciousness and life. The ability of choice.

Pertaining to the idea about nothingness, its pretty much what my intuition says about God. It's yin-yang. It's balance. Soul's are real, and probably eternal. I believe death is entering a dream. This dream lasts what seems to be eternity, because time is warped to the observer. I believe a soul can rest, or is recreated inside another conscious being. Life is a continuous test of self. We're all here together, and alone at the same time.

The universe is a big place. Most likely, bigger than we can fathom.

This is my favorite subject, for what it's worth.



posted on Jun, 1 2013 @ 05:05 AM
link   
reply to post by mysticnoon
 


Dear mysticnoon,



Yes, that is also how I see it, but I do not regard it as a barrier to accepting the possibility that a way exists to confirm for oneself the existence of metaphysical realities. For me, the proposition that God exists is an hypothesis, though one I am prepared to spend quite some time testing and investigating. Why would anyone have a problem with this?


If one defines God as the sentience of the universe then are we not part of God and how can we deny there is sentience in the universe. By the way, I do not think we are in disagreement. I know exist and have not met a person who told me they were convinced that they did not exist. What if God only existed for a second as the sentience of the universe? If you were the only self aware being and only existed for a moment then you would be God because a rock cannot be god.



posted on Jun, 1 2013 @ 05:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by LesMisanthrope
reply to post by MaryStillToe
 


Thank you for reading.



It seems like you are saying that the concept of God is and has been created by the minds of men. For your example, you say that Orcs, Middle Earth, and Sauron were all creations of Tolkien's imagination. However, if that's true, then that also points to your own existence being the creation of someone else's imagination, correct? Wouldn't we call that figure God and wouldn't he be just as real as your consider Tolkien?


I'm not sure how you arrived at that conclusion, but I don't think my example points to me being anything other than the one reading Tolkien's words. It seems to be a rather large leap to infer from reading some words in a book that we are the ideas of God. But if I understand the language and your metaphysics, I can interpret your statement as meaning the exact same thing as me saying I'm a product of the universe. We're talking about the same thing but in a different language.

But to make myself more clear, it involves a faith in the very words and propositions that state that here first is a God, and not faith in God as such, or as something we have experienced outside of the language that describes to us what God is. This assumption is based on your metaphysics, the whole promise of "God exists", and is a matter of taste or indoctrination, and not the fact of the matter, nor something you creatively contrived. This faith in a God, derived only from scripture or priestly rhetoric, is at best and in truth, faith not in God, but only in the language and words he exists within.


I am a bit confused. What did your original post ultimately conclude?

In the first paragraph above, you said we were talking about the same thing in a different language. If that is true, which I doubt, I would interpret your OP as meaning that faith and belief are two very different things. Where belief requires no proof of existence, but rather "real" faith can only occur when a deeper understanding is obtained from a personal experience, not reading or hearing about someone else's experiences.

However, in the next paragraph, you said, first one has to have faith in the very words and propositions that state there IS a God... then at the end of the same paragraph you say faith in God derived from scripture or priestly rhetoric is NOT faith in God, but only faith in written doctrine. It seems to be a bit of double talk that alludes that any written account of a "God" or a creator figure that ever existed is the creative work of an author and should be treated similar to the imagined characters and places in Tolkien's works. Or in other words, God simply can't exist because the very idea of "God" comes from words and doctrines, which can't be relied upon as factual in the first place, is that correct?

I am curious to know if either of my interpretations are correct or if I totally missed what you were trying to say.



edit on 1-6-2013 by MaryStillToe because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 1 2013 @ 05:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by LesMisanthrope
reply to post by Itisnowagain
 





God exists by not existing. Until you find nothingness you will be full of ideas and have only an idea about God.

The exact same could be said of nothingness.



Nothingness and absolute non-existence are self-annihilating because of any consciousness that may turns its awareness in its direction. Be cause in the previous sentence I called the non-existence "it" that instantly violates the purist characteristics of a non-existence, by my claiming it exists.

Can you imaging being omniscient and omnipotent and realizing that in order to be true to the definition of omnipresent you have to "go there" into the absolute non-existence to also exist there? Oh yah, that's what causes the existence of the ONE Singularity. Infinite spherical implosion. Never mind.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join