The Question

In the interest of clarity I want to ask an obvious question:

What Are The Attributes Of God?

You know, the primary qualities, the "things" that God is and/or is the source of, what are they?

So far, I have Love, Truth, Wisdom, Compassion, Creativity, Life, Consciousness, Reality, Bliss (or Joy), Unity (One-ness), and of course, Mystery.

I would not be surprised to learn that I had forgotten something . . . like . . . Peace (D'oh!) so please feel free to remind me.

And by all means, please contribute your thoughts, adjust the list, fill in the blanks, ask questions, tell me if, or why, or in what manner, I may have misunderstood or, at least, miscommunicated.

Thanks,

Peace and Love,

 

There's just one: ineffability.

 

eternal mystery

 

I contend 'God' has nothing to do with anything.

Love- essentially a chemical reaction, on a non chemical level also is greatly to do with personal relationship and social expectation of a particular feeling resulting.

Truth- objective facts, things that can be empirically, rationally, and logically explained.

Wisdom- Result of subjective experiences, acknowledgement of rationaility and logic

Compassion- Completely subjective human feeling created through socialization, empathy, sympathy

Creativity- ability of the human brain (usually right side) to create abstract thoughts and percieve aesthetic value

Life- Rational condition. Humans evolved as all other species. Increased brain mass due to increases protein diet allowing us to begin questioning and making up stories for the meaning of life. You were born of natural means, you live your life in society or outside.

Consciousness- to be aware of your existence and ability to percieve outside stimuli

Reality- completely subjective perceptions of the brain.

Bliss (or Joy)- result endorphins and other chemicals entering synapses of the neural network

Unity- result of the need for humans to form bonds as to feel less alone, work towards desired goals and other reasons

Mystery, ineffability- Tool people use to claim that just because there is no reason to believe there is a god, there might be something we don't understand or cannot precieve because if such was the case it would automatically mean God in fact existed


Because happiness and creativity is a product of the mind and not some external source that does not make it any less profound. In fact it makes it infinitely more profound.

These are all magnifiscent creations of the human race, accept it as such.

 

God is everything. Not just things that our human self percieves as good, but also what we know is bad.

 

Oooh, a paradox, a meaningful meaninglessness, an objective subjectivity.

Anarchy Rules (HAHAHAHAHA!!!).

If only those things that exist physically (you know, those things you can touch, or taste, or smell, or see) are real . . .

or, rather,

If those non-physical "things" in which some people stubbornly insist on believing, are, as you seem to suggest, merely the amusing by-products of a bunch of neurotransmitters that function only to insure that this pile of meat continues to exist . . .

or,

If there is no "objective" reason to believe in those "subjective" things such as truth, compassion, creativity, consciousness, reality, (not to mention love, peace, unity, bliss, mystery, etc.) and so on . . .

or, rather,

if all non-physical aspects of reality are only validly understood when reduced to the physical process that accompanies them, rendering either absurd or meaningless whatever inherent value they may have . . .

Then meaning itself is suspect.

If that is true (truth? uh-oh!) why should I, or anyone, consider the pattern of symbols you have arranged to be anything other than a random transmission of electrons. Why should I, or anyone, consider any "meaning" that may accompany your words. Why should I, or anyone, even consider whether your thoughts are more meaningful than meaningless. Why should I, or anyone, consider that your words have more meaning than silence.

On the other hand, please consider the non-physical reality of fun, play, thought, conversation and humor.

Oh yeah, and gratitude, as in,
Thanks for not taking any of this too personally,

Peace and Love

 

As soon as one begins to speak of God, one is no longer speaking of God.

That is, unless you're referring to the blind, insecure creator deity of the Old and New Testaments. Then we can come up with all sorts of words to describe Him: jealous, vengeful, fickle, racist, needy, oppressive, etc. God says, "I created you bitches! No do what I say or pay the ultimate price! Can't you see that I love you? I created you out of love. Why won't you do what I say? I gave you free will so that you might obey me out of choice. Look, I executed Jesus for you. Can't you see that I love you?"

I think the conventional Western understanding of God is very similar to the kind of confused thought possessed by women who repeatedly enter abusive relationships.

 

According to the Vedanta philosophy of India, God has many aspects. But generally, Brahman (God) is said to exist as Saguna Brahman - God with attributes, and Nirguna Brahman, God without attributes.

There has been much disagreement among Vedantic philosophers as to which of these actually represents the Supreme. Some. like Shankara stress the impersonal Nirguna Brahman, others, Ramanuja, Madhva, Chaitanya, the Saguna Brahman, or personal God - although He is concieved of under many forms.
Others say both are aspects of One inconceivable Reality.

 

Yeah!

Please excuse me for a moment while I put my well-blown mind back together.

Now, smile politely at dualism (not that there is anything wrong with dualism as long as you remember that it is, ultimately, provisional), and then remember that all reality is a single, unified whole.

Consider your horizon. Objectively speaking, it doesn't really exist, it is merely a function of the earth's curvature. No one has ever rapped their knuckles on it, no one has ever gathered up a bucketful of horizon. But since you can see everything on your side of the horizon and nothing on the other side, your horizon is as real as anything you can see. In a very practical way, the horizon is a clear illustration of dualism, it divides your world into a duality of visible/un-visible.

Now, one could expand their horizon by going out into space until half the earth is visible and half un-visible. But no one can actually divide the earth into two halves by doing so.

So, of course, regardless of whatever dualistic perspective you use to divide reality (and it seems there are countless ways one may divide reality - yin/yang, East/West, Liberal/Conservative, old/young, potential/actual, theistic/atheistic, known/unknown, knowable/unknowable, good/bad, manifest/unmanifest, attributed/unattributed, etc.) it is always wise to remember that you haven't really divided reality into separate halves. Reality is always a single, unified whole, regardless of how you see it. The real trick, of course, is "seeing" it.

So Saguna Brahman - God with attributes, and Nirguna Brahman, God without attributes actually ARE aspects of One inconceivable Reality.

Now, what was I forgetting . . . oh yeah, excuse me for a moment while I put my mind back together.

Aaahh! . . . that's . . . Aaaah! . . .Thanks,

Peace and Love

 

Varuna, abstract all you want. My point was that what people call the functioning of God, can instead be explained by earthly means.

Meaningless provisionally, meaningless eternally, UNLESS Y O U create meaning.

Objective truth arrived by means of subjective writing or concept or ideas does not equate validity....even if it was written a really long time ago.

mmmsorry

 

So then someone can believe in God to give life meaning. Even Nietzsche admitted that Kierkegaard lived his life authentically.

 

Yes, of course. Just about everything can be explained in terms of one physical phenomenon or another. But that does not mean that reality must only be understood as a by-product of chemistry or physics or biology or any of the other physical disciplines.

My point is simple - Reality is more than merely physical. In the real world in which you and I live, there are "things" that exist that have no physical reality, or at least, their reality is not primarily physical. You are certainly free to ignore them as mere abstractions, concepts, theories, patterns of reality, significant relationships between things that do have physical reality, etc. but it is probably less than wise, if not impossible, to discount them altogether.

The paradox of your idea is this - It has no physically verifiable existence. The idea that physical, objective reality is the only reality that has any physically verifiable existence is just that, an idea. As an idea, it has no physically verifiable existence. There may be some chemical process happening in our brains whenever we have that thought, but the chemistry of that thought is not substantially any different from that of any thought. The chemistry is not the thought.

So according to your idea, should I believe in your idea or not?

Of course, I believe that your idea is a pattern of thought that actually does exist. The question is whether or not it corresponds to reality. If it doesn't, then you risk mistaking your idea for the non-existent non-reality that it seems to suggest. It is usually foolish, and sometimes even dangerous, to refuse to recognize any aspect of reality, regardless of whether or not it has any physically verifiable existence. In other words, please don't let this idea of yours come between you and reality.

That quality of correspondence between reality (of which you have created a model in your pattern of thought) and your model of reality itself is what most people call "truth." Put more simply, truth is the quality of correspondence between what is and what one says it is. Things, beliefs, ideas, theories, concepts, etc. can be true or not, but, because it is a unique, recurring pattern to which reality constantly conforms, truth itself IS a non-physical aspect of reality.

Whether it is abstract or not depends on your experience.

Who me? Create meaning? Most days, I feel lucky if I can "create" some idea of what to have for lunch. I am flattered, in fact, right now my ego has a stiffy, but . . .

I think meaning is either there or it isn't. If there is meaning to be found, then anyone who knows their way around the mythosphere can find it. Finding meaning feels quite a bit like creativity, so sometimes it may seem like it was just "made up." On the other hand, if there is no meaning to be found, then whatever one "creates" will probably be meaningless.

There is a quote from Charles Mingus, I think, or maybe it was Thelonius Monk, who said "Writing a song is easy, you just have to remember it before anybody else."

I am not quite sure what that means. But, hey, I'm a good sport so I'll play along.

It is true that ideas are just ideas, concepts are just concepts, theories are just theories, beliefs are just beliefs. But sometimes ideas, concepts and theories, and even beliefs (when approached with some care), are really good vehicles for conveying meaning. Of course, some ideas, concepts, theories and beliefs do not carry much useful meaning at all, or if they do, it is hard to find.

My guess is "written a really long time ago" refers to the classic spiritual texts, you know: The Bible, The Bhagavad Gita, The Koran, The Tao Te Ching, The Ramayana, The Dhammapada, The Upanishads, The Mahabharat, The Torah, The Talmud, just to name a few. There are more, but, you get the idea.

Traditionally these are considered really good places to look for meaning. Of course, reality is far more meaningful, in far more ways, than a dozen or so books. But since reality doesn't have a single, comprehensive instruction manual, the above books are a good place to start. As long as you don't mistake them for authoritative technical or scientific texts. Which, I believe, may have been your point.

Yeah, I know what you mean. I hope you're having as much fun as I am with this.

Peace and Love

 

One day we may be able to quantify the attributes of the God Force.....but for now, we can only intuit those attributes, or realize them after an enlightenment -- though we may not be able to verbalize what we realize.....

 

Can I ask why you are asking this question and not living it.

The greatest fool will not be able to answer that question. The wisest man on earth will not be able to answer that question. A bunch of odd mystic hippies will certainly not be able to answer that question.

Blessings

Sebbi

 

Of course you can ask why. You can ask any question that you can put into words.

So, why am I asking? Because I want to know what you think, what you know, of the attributes of God. I realize this question and its answer fit together just about as well as a cup and the ocean, but I believe it is vital to continue asking the "unanswerable" questions. If nothing else, it maintains your healthy sense of wonder regarding the ineffable mystery.

To answer the second part of your question - I am living it. Who says I am not? The greatest fool? The wisest man on earth? A bunch of odd mystic hippies?

I believe that I am conscious of, and, to the best of my ability, responsive to the reality of Love, Truth, Peace, Wisdom, Compassion, Creativity, Life, Consciousness, Reality, Bliss (or Joy), Unity (One-ness), and of course, Mystery.

It is perfectly human to have an individual point of view, another perspective. I would love to hear what yours is. Which is why I asked.

Peace and Love

 

Well since I still consider myself an atheist I'm talking about the universe here, not God per se.


I believe the universe is exactly how it should be with nothing added and nothing taken away.

I believe the greatest way to experience the mystery is to stop investing so much energy into the things that we do that we would rather not. In general reserving all the energy we are squandering, then stare at a blade of grass for a few days. Then stare at the horizon for a few more.

That is truely discovering mystery. I find the big questions to intellectual and to up in my head and not in my heart.

Blessings

Sebbi

 

We very well may be talking about the same thing. But, please, don't let me discourage you from considering the Universe. Don't let anyone discourage you from considering the Universe.

I agree.

I know what you mean. Some variation of this, this pondering of reality, is what all mystics do.

Yes! You are on to something when you can appreciate mystery.

I would have to say, however, that there is essentially no real difference between the heart and the mind, between knowing and loving. No one can say where one ends and the other begins.

It is only an idea. If it doesn't play well then just let it go.

Thanks

Peace and Love

Varuna

 

I would definitely disagree on this one.

I think that it is a fairly easy distinction to make and I learned how to make it the hard way.

I had a period where I completely neglected my emotions for a long time and was just thinking all the time.

I only realised that I had a heart that was closed up when it was already closed up and there were people knocking on the door trying to get in.

Blessings

Sebbi

 

So you never got the memo that God loves you even though you do what you want instead of what you are told? Maybe you did and you are slow...

Who is the one getting abused in this relationship. The one who does there best to provide for its creation, even though its creation doesn't like to eat the vegetables (metaphorically speaking)? I see God as more of a super patient harassed creator, who instead of giving in to childrens demands, does what is correct for them.