What is God?

Opposition to Forever Edger remarks. More about this below.

Not something. Not some and not thing.
Initial acceleration requires only »not«, also a situation from which it can arise. Mathematically, for example, 0. The basic presupposition is therefore »not«.

It's bordering on the unimaginable / inconceivable. However, the body&mind way of thinking does not exclude this, but includes it. Science excludes it. The religions generate their power with it. With inclusion, science and religion are brought together. It is no longer possible to exploit someone with it.

Most people think corporeal. This has something to do with the mental conception of what is imagined, such as what a word refers to. The body&mind thinking differentiates here clearly into corporal and mental. This makes it possible to detect the own thinking and also the thinking of others. This starts with the imagination of "God". The Bible says: "God" is spiritual (mental) and not corporal. But most people imagine "God" corporeal in their minds. See Forever Edger.

Forever Edger used nouns. Nouns are corporal in the mental imagination.
Grandfather / Creator / "God" are nouns and also corporal.
»move« is an verb.
movable is an adjective.
"God" is not a Creator or a Grandfather or a Grandfather rocks.
"God" = verb / adjective.
Don't be fooled.
So, a little correction: In the beginning there was »to accelerate«.
And yes, all other before is inconceivable, because = »not«.
Do not = not.
Do = move.
If the inconceivable is not accepted, then the attempt is made to turn unreality into reality. This is what esotericism does, and also religion and spirituality when they mislead.
Accept the inconceivable. or you will be mislead.
What we do know is that there is no motion without prior acceleration. What else we know is that the whole universe exists only because of motion. Without movement no universe. So in the beginning there was an acceleration, an accelerate. But the best is yet to come, because physical acceleration is also deceleration. That means that with it only arises, but also perishes. → the concept of "God".
»to accelerate« = simple: »to move« = or: »to make« = or: »to create«.
No move = not.
With initial »to accelerate« arised space and time.
space = corporal
time = mental
Time is no more than change.
But consider: the point of view is important. One result ist not always valid, but only in this specific point of view.

When you look closer, all what is associated with "God" or "gods" is in fact something »move«.

Yes, you can think further coporal, but than you think masculine and not feminine.
See here: Think in body&mind instead gender=sex?
The point of all this is just to be aware of how you think. No differentiation in good or bad. No compulsion to change your own thinking. It's just about becoming aware.

 

In the last ten years of my observations, I have encountered many scientists who were close to it, but not in it. The science forbids to go this way because of its conceptuality. Science excludes the incomprehensible and leaves it to religion (original wording by Wolf Singer, Max Planck Institute for Brain Research, in 2012). Religion takes advantage of this. We live in a body-centered world.

What many still do not know: Science has already come to an agreement with religion. Everything that is tangible and comprehensible belongs to science. Everything that is incomprehensible belongs to religion. The time when science uncovered religion, so to speak, is long gone.
The science can explain only what was after or shortly after the big bang, not before. What was during and before, science leaves to religion.

And now I come with a new point of view, which connects science and religion. It is not a good time for the evil tricks of religion. But it is not a good time for science either. Neither science nor "God" is the savior of mankind or nature or all life. Much more, in comprehending the new view, another view is opened, with which the Big Bang theory and "God" is doubted. Because, no one says that the new view is actually true. It is only logical. If there was no Big Bang and no creation by "God" (initial to accelerate), then it is invalid.

The "God is not" view is only a transition. It helps to look behind many things in this present world. The next view is that "move" has always been, that is, without initial to accelerate, which is equally incomprehensible. The present point of view in this current world is "archic" (from ancient greek "ar" / "ra"), also with origin / beginning. See Big Bang and "God" as the creator. The "ar" is present in patriarchy, monarchy, hierarchy, ... and in many many many many many words not so clearly [like "pre" and similar and also in "or(igin)]. Remember: space = body. time = change.

Most people don't want anything to change, or only to their advantage, but never to their disadvantage, or in other words, to their own advantage and to the disadvantage of others. These people are body-centered. They always want to possess more and thereby have more might. However, the most powerful might is the one without possession → without "ar". In this context, "ar" simply explained: one puts himself above others or puts others below himself - The hierarchy. But it also applies when someone subordinates himself to another, such as "God" or sience.

 

As I said, the question is beyond my pay grade, but maybe I can at least clarify the concept a little and weed out some of the nonsense. i think any discussion of God must start with some consensus on what it is we're talking about. Theologians tell us that God is ineffable, but there at least is some common understanding of what a god is and what some of the distinguishing characteristics of a deity are.

God(s) are a sub-species of invisible superhuman higher powers thought to influence or control aspects of nature. Others thought to perform that function are impersonal forces like mana, wakan, orenda, etc.; spirits which animate each thing in nature; totems, or particular sacred objects thought to be connected to groups; fetisehes, or sacred objects adopted by individuals; and departed ancestors. In each case, relationship with the sacred force or entity is viewed as a means of gaining a measure of understanding and/or control over nature or the unknowable and human destiny. The earliest religions seem to have been, respectively: pre-animism (forces), animism(spirits), totemism, and ancestor worship. Virtually every known society of prehistoric and ancient times seems to have believed in one or another of these supernatural entities. (Historian Will Durant reported of a tribe of pygmy atheists living in the jungles of the Congo. He got that info from nineteenth century sociologist William Graham Sumner, who apparently got it from anonymous travelers. Be that as it may, those atheist pygmies, if they ever existed, have faded into the mists of history.) From this, it is reasonable to conclude that there is some source of powerful attraction for humans to belief in supernatural actors.

The two leading explanations of this are : (1) supernatural intervention: these supernatural entities are communicating their existence to humanity via certain gifted individuals (shamans; prophets) or (2) human needs: humans in general; or humans have developed these beliefs to satisfy powerful and/or sociological psychological needs. Neither of these explanations seems to fit well with the notion that god(s) are anything like acceleration. That concept seems closest to the "pre-animist" view of impersonal forces (mana, orenda, wakan, etc.) But the latter could be at least invoked or used by shamans for human ends. I can't see how God=acceleration serves that purpose.

 

Thanks MeAgain for the tip. Ken Wilbers was not read by me. However, he seems to make the mistake of creating a concept, an order, categorization, lines and levels. This ends up in a "body", as well as the need for control. This is the wrong way.

It is mentioned by me only very reluctantly, but ... the thing with the "move", people have already come on it before: The Kybalion (available online). But be careful, it's very esoteric. It is avoided by me.

@Tishomingo, the "consensus" you mentioned at the beginning is with me: imagine there was no motion. Without motion no communication. That results in the fact that - even if something would already "exist" - the one knows nothing of the other, as well as each knows nothing of itself. No motion: no atoms, no constructs, no arrangement, nothing. In the quantum level it becomes obvious: without motion = nothing. The next thought: How does motion arise? Assumed from 0 to 1. with an acceleration. "Physical" acceleration is however also 1 to 0. "God" therefore not only the creator, but also the destroyer. What arises with acceleration from 0 to 1? "Space" and "time" come into being - the "space-time". Space for motion. Time for variation.

Ken Wilbers is to be contradicted insofar as an explanation with lines and levels leads to a body-focused way of thinking. Lines would be compatible insofar as they are points of view. Infinitely many ways of seeing. None is to be equated with another. It always depends on the point of view and the own point of view, as well as on how something is regarded and with what it is compared. It is much more diverse than it can ever be described, not even by any concepts like Ken Wilbers. These are always just the examples - of which there are countless since Lao Tzu - that go astray and wander. This can be very impressive, but as said, it leads astray, makes dependent, is fundamentally wrong.

The "pre-animist" you mentioned and similarly are basically - as with Ken Wilbers - about making a differentiation. Basically, it's part of the point of view mindset - body&mind mindset.

So, let's go back 1,000,000 years. The human being differentiates: tangible / intangible. Tangible = Body. Intangible = Mind (Ghost). Fog (or Breath [Prana]) = mind. At this time there is still missing a " comprehensible ".

100,000 years back: Fog is still intangible, but comprehensible. So something new is added (no level). Everything what is not comprehensible = ghostly = the work of "Gods". But at this time breath (oxygen) is furthermore not tangible and not comprehensible.

Present: Everything what is not explainable by the science = ghostly /phenomenal = the work of "God/s". But at this time "not" is not tangible and not comprehensible.

So we have at present a differentiation:
tangible - intangible - comprehensible (explainable by the science) - not comprehensible (not explainable by the science).
With this, many point of views (for discussions / explanations) are possible, like:
---
tangible = body
intangible = mind
---
tangible = body
intangible = body
comprehensible (explainable by the science) = body
not comprehensible (not explainable by the science) = mind
---
tangible = body
intangible = body
comprehensible (explainable by the science) = body
not comprehensible (not explainable by the science) = "God"
---
tangible = body
intangible = body
comprehensible (explainable by the science) = body
not comprehensible (not explainable by the science) = mind
not = ? ("God"?)
---
tangible = body
intangible = body
comprehensible (explainable by the science) = body
not comprehensible (not explainable by the science) = body
not = mind
---
tangible = body
intangible = body
comprehensible (explainable by the science) = body
not comprehensible (not explainable by the science) = mind
not = not
---
... and many more.
In considering that in the bible is written: "God" = spiritual (mental).
So, thats are not levels, but few point of views.

Influencing (religious) "God" is possible insofar as "God" is understood as the present motion and variation. This can be influenced by specific behavior (and thinking). However, in the religious ("God", omnipotent) and scientific ("Big Bang", causality) concept the one in each case always stands above.

"Atheism, in the broadest sense, is an absence of belief in the existence of deities." (wikipedia)
That is incompatible with the body&mind-thinking, because of the point of view: "God" = motion / acceleration. "God" is also only an another word for ... . The question is then: "exist" »move«? Or is the question about "existence" a feint?

"Agnosticism is the view or belief that the existence of God, of the divine or the supernatural is unknown or unknowable." (wikipedia)
That is also incompatible with the body&mind-thinking, because it is knowable with few point of views.

 

Once again, a concept that has no relation to understandings of "god(s)' since the concept was first introduced in human history or prehistory. God is admittedly ineffable, but the notion of God=acceleration is simply quirky, as is the idea of acceleration divorced from something to accelerate. Nonsense on stilts, as the late Jeremy Bentham would say! This is an important and interesting topic, but trying to pursue it in the context of an OP that completes its eccentricity by being posted on the "Personal Development" thread isn't likely to attract normal participants.

 

A reasonable position, especially when accompanied, as Gervais does, with a dedication to truth, justice and other high ideals (Are those mere human "inventions", or maybe discoveries?) Gervais doesn't tell us what this God is that he doesn't believe in, but I sense it may be something like the traditional Dude in the Sky of Abrahamic theism. Unfortunately, it's hard to see this entity apart from the baggage of traditional theism. Some scientists manage to embrace a devotion to God, but it may be different from the God worshiped in Southern Baptist or Pentecostal churches, or the mosques of Mecca and Tehran. .
https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/newsweek/science_of_god/scienceofgod.htm
Frankebberry (2008). The Faith of Scientists, In Their Own Words
Russell Stanard, ed, (2000). God for the 21st Century
Paul Davies, (1992). The Mind of God

But perhaps less austere and unworshipful than our OP's.

 

If we want to continue this discussion, I wonder if it wouldn't make sense to move it to the Philosophy/Religion forums where people interested in such things would be likely to look.

 

@Tishomingo , it is never a good idea to say something is bullshit because it is not understood. Your expectations are very high. They can only be disappointed. No "solution" is presented to you - at least by me - that you would "like". That's not how it works. The one presented by me is a tool by means of which a completely new perspective on everything can be taken. However, as it seems, you have not even touched this tool, because you already do not like its look. It is not about (mental) aesthetics. It's not about pleasing. And it is not science.

You can also approach it from a different direction: Everything that has been called "God" by anyone so far or that is attributed to "God" = is any of these without "move"? All is with "move". Even the destruction of "move" causes (physical) acceleration (deceleration). And to make it clear again: not ordinary acceleration, but physical acceleration, and at the beginning (if "God" or Bigbang = true) initial acceleration.

"move" is something ubiquitous / omnipresent.
Without "move" = not.

Different views can be assumed, each of which presupposes a distinction. So it is not about the precondition what "God" means, (also because "God" is simply a word for [whatever]), but between what is "distinguished".

not - be.
still - move.
not - accelerate - move.
make - be.
create - be.
particle - motion.
body - mind.
...

Let's assume: "God" or Bigbang = true.
So a conception with beginning (and end?).
What was before the beginning?
From the beginning until today was "move".
Before the beginning there was no "move".
After the end there is no "move".
A concept without end means a perpetuum mobile. So that "move" never decreases after it was set in motion.

How was it set in motion? With an acceleration. This can also have been a jump (0→1).
In german is a origin a "Ursprung" (Ur-Sprung) - translated to english like ar-jump. "Ur" translated like "first". "Ar" like archaic. Also the first jump. The first "move".

make or be?
There is a dictum: It is not important what you are, but what you make.
make = move (mind).
be = still (body).

All with "ar" is without "move" and in the most cases past.
- archaeologic
- archaic
- archiv
it is former "move".

Hierarchy (hier-ar-chy) tries to realize an immovable construct, a ranking (ra-nking). [see "ar" (epic) and "ra" (enclitic)].
ar = still, stiff, fixed
anar(chy) = not fixed, movable, flexible. → an-ar = without ar.

So far up to here.
Another possible discussion would be: without "God" or Bigbang. Also withou origin (and end).

If your thinking tends not to be flexible, try feminy. There it is about not thinking in man/woman anymore, but in body&mind (masculine/feminine).
Think in body&mind instead gender=sex?

 

Addendum:

Quantum Level
Only a position or a direction is observable.
Both »are« only with "move" and »not« without "move.
Without "move" no position as well as no direction.
But no anti-position or anti-direction.
Simple »not« / »non«, but actually »without«.

Without "move" = no Big Bang, no "God".

Black Hole
Black holes are up to a certain level only a compression of motion (remember, particles are basically also only "move") similar to the compression of air/gas.
Above a certain level, however, black holes are a compression of movement similar to an MP3 (audio) compression → information/motion is lost.
The level at which "move" is lost is when a black hole loses mass. Because: mass = "move".
There is the possibility that black holes can explode. However, too little is known about this.

By the way:
Emotions are also only motions ("move").

There is the possibility of the idea of an anti-black hole. Would this be a white hole? This would be another word for BigBang or "God". Consider that the science assumes at present that with the BigBang (not before) the universe consisted only of light - a white mass. The term White Hole fits quite well there.

Before the BigBang, White Hole, "God" was not/non (actually "without") and not "anti".

Expansion of Understanding
It is to be noted that from a certain understanding of the matter, there is an expansion of understanding. Generally, the universe is understood as that which is observable. So: Universe = everything what "is" (be) [ergo: everything was "move" (ergo: was interact or react)]. In the extension the universe is "everything and not", thus "everything and without". This becomes understandable with dark matter and dark energy, because this does not interact and does not react, therefore is not (without) in the certain understanding of the matter. In the expansion of understanding »not« (without) = »be«, but not really »be«. Its more between »be« and »not« (without). Its observable, but dont react.
There is no "outside". There are no multiverses (bubbles). Only one universe, and this "all and without". This therefore, because »be« arises from "without" and passes again in it. So "without" is a part of the universe. But not an external part, but an inclusive one. So not a part, but also the universe.

move / initial accelerate / decelerate
Imagine a universe without "move" = no position, no direction (on the quantum level). This universe is »not« / »non«. Yet think twice:
certain understanding: This is a situation "without" universe, also no universe.
extended understanding: This is also universe.

extended understanding: The universe is not only space-time, rather also "without". That lies beyond our imagination.
The essential question in this understanding
is not: Exist "God"?
is not: Exist "move"?
is: Exist "without"?

certain understanding: The essential of the universe (actually space-time) is "move". No "move" - no universe. Either "move" has always existed, or it was created by an initial acceleration.
The essential question in this understanding
is not: Exist "God"?
is: Exist "move"?

So, think in a situation of »without«.
- no space, no time, no space-time
First: a position or a direction?
About it can be argued endlessly.
Both conditional "move".
Also first: "move".
With "move" arises space and time.
Of this is also a different thinking possible.
Is space = move, or is time = move?
In considering of position AND direction = "move", its not relevant.
Its more a matter of further explanations.
This fits good:
space = position = fixed = body (particles).
time = direction = flexible = mind (motion).
Look closer, this is reducible to "direction", because all bodys are basically "move", also all positions are basically directions, because positions are only a part of directions.
Therefore its possible to think: space is only a part of time. But that fits not to all explanations. Therefore, not the terms space and time are used, but space-time. Its only possible to differentiate between both like:
space = move.
time = change.
But space-time is "move" and "change", because one implies the other.
"move" = "change".
"change" = "move"
space = time.
time = space.
But only in this explanation / point of view.

 

As I've said before, the question "What is God?", in any definitive sense, is way above my pay grade. Yet I use "God" as a working concept, and in fact define the meaning of my life in terms of it. So maybe it would be useful to consider what I do and don't mean by the term.

I think of God as a felt presence of a Higher Power "in whom we live and move and have our being." (Acts, 17:28). "Felt" conveys that this is a personal, subjective feeling or experience. "Higher Power", of course, is a term borrowed from the "twelve steps" recovery programs: an intentionally vague concept referring to any power beyond oneself that gives purpose to life and provides spiritual or psychological support. In the context of religion, this can be an immaterial entity, a force, or "ultimate" that gives meaning to our lives. The phrase "In whom we live and move and have our being" describes our dependence on and intimate involvement with the spiritual life principle that is the ground of our reality. Here my concept of God has been influenced by Hindu thought, which sees the Brahman as an immanent and transcendent reality to which we are intimately inter-connected by the Atman or universal self. Is this true? I don't know. It works for me, but others may view it differently.

I used to label myself a "Christian agnostic", but gave that up because the apparent contradiction seemed to cause confusion--and doesn't really describe the extent to which I find God a useful, compelling concept worthy of paramount devotion. (I still find "agnostic" to be a useful label, reflecting my fundamental belief that "nothing is certain, not even that". My faith is an existential choice, although one informed, as best I can, by reason, experience, intuition, and available evidence.) I now use the label "progressive Christian" for my beliefs, which is admittedly also vague. I'm Christian, in the sense of accepting the life and teachings of Jesus, as reported in the New Testament, as my primary guides for living. "Progressive Christian" distinguishes me from the fundamentalist, evangelical kind. Progressive Christianity is an outgrowth of liberal Christianity, or "Christian Modernism". "Liberal Christianity", which separates the "mainline" Protestant denominations from evangelicals, involves: (1) acceptance of the Enlightenment tradition, biblical criticism, and Darwinian evolution; (2) rejection of Biblical inerrancy or infallibility; (3) tolerance of other faiths; and (4) acceptance of the "social gospel", or social justice, as a defining Christian value. "Progressive Christianity" goes farther in rejecting the exclusionary tendencies of traditional Christianity, promoting acceptance and inclusion of women and LGBTQs in the full life of the church; unconditional love and social justice as core values; an historical-metaphorical approach to the Bible; and more deistic, naturalistic conceptions of God, stressing God's immanence, as opposed to the transcendence that characterized the traditional concept of the Deity. It "sees itself as simply one perspective in a world of many beautiful religious traditions where there is much to be gained through inter-religious dialogue and cooperation". A Brief Primer On Progressive Christianity Some definitions of progressive Christianity include embracing post-modernism, but I reject that experiment in radical relativism as a giant step backward for Christianity and human thought in general. That's a lot to absorb, so I'll stop for now, and try to narrow my beliefs down even further in a later installment.

Fear of death is one existential concern that led to the development of supernatural belief, another being fear of the uncertainties of living. And there are lots of other psychological factors involved as well: cognitive (e.g., pattern seeking); behavioral conditioning. And sociological processes, as well (Durkheim).

God, of course, is only one of many things that can't be proven. e.g., multiple universes.

Excellent visual metaphor of human efforts to understand the ineffable. A major source of conflict among religions is their refusal to realize that the part of God they accept is far from the whole thing.

 

Be the best you can be . . Enjoy your interests and pleasures and life ...
"Be Your Own God " ... God , Dog No Difference ... Fuck the labels just live and have fun !!! Take Care

 

Wrong! "Just have fun" or unbridled hedonism, is a prescription for social injustice and what Hobbes called "The war of all against all." We need values that go beyond self! Being "the best you can be" is a good idea, so long as "best" goes beyond self-worship. Those who think they're gods will find out otherwise the hard way!

 

Thanks y'all, in all my researches. There always was, an irritatiing lil question mark. Occasionally goes like:whats behind? Tish, ya partially got it right. When humans think they're gods, & why would that be? A reality is, that we partially are, even in our darkest moments. Parts of us, have always been higher up. These are known as, our higher selves. In addition to these, we have etheric guides. & we also have a guardian angel. All this & more, partially existed in harmony. Along came a different paradigm, which kinda upset things a bit. Since all were & are, have certain rights to existence. This never could or can be completely eradicated. We kinda volunteered long ago, to be the hungry ghosts. Was best term ive ever heard for us. & yeh over all this was is a prime creator.