What is god

[Gricken]

One could go on and on about what God is. And thousands of debates and books have been on just this very subject. But god is best summed up in 2 words

God is.

 

[Love4All]

:doh2:

I’d add: God is And as for philosophers, someone may want to check out the first book of Summa contra Gentiles by s. Thomas Aquinas

God is Who Am.

 

[Love4All]

Pure intelligence is a good start. My favorite complete concept is that God is a consortium of beings that were brought into existence as the result of a cosmic sideswipe between spaces with opposite properties, long before the universe came into existence.

None of these entities were initially conscious. “God” consists of a group (at least two) of them which together derived consciousness without outside assistance, after which, over time, they developed very high intelligence, probably originally in the form of mathematical understanding.

How did “spaces with opposite properties” exist without a universe?

You seem to be talking about an already existing system of things — without an Origin?

To me, if God is God at all, He must be the Origin of all things — otherwise, there is something prior to and thus superior to God. You seem to be saying that that is the case, but that that prior system of existence had no intelligence. This seems parallel to, from an idealist perspective, Buddhism (everything begins in Ignorance), or from a materialist perspective, Physicalism (everything begins as Matter.) Either way, it amounts to Impersonalism, it seems to me — the idea that the Original Reality, whatever it may be, is not personal, and beings with personality (gods) arise from it. The Advaita Vedanta school of Hindu thought also has a similar concept.

Thus this God concept is plural, exactly as was the God of the Old Testament. (Elohim is a plural word.)

Ancient Judaism was never polytheistic in any sense. Abraham’s father, Terah, was an idolater; Abraham renounced his father’s idols and went in search of Reality. Later, Moses encountered the burning bush and the Voice that spoke to him from it saying, “I AM WHO AM.” It is that God — the I AM WHO AM — who is the God of the Old Testament. Not a collective of beings, but a single being, albeit a Communion of Persons. The word ‘Elohim’ refers either to this Communion of Persons in God, or to the heavenly host who, apart from God, are created beings.

Plurality does indeed apply to the Divine Persons, but not to the Divine Being.

God are (sounds strange, doesn’t it?) physical (not material) and capable of interacting with the universe they created via an ability to contravene the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, temporarily of course. God does not have souls— they are what you would call souls and which the philosopher Descartes called mind.

God are limited by logic and by the laws of physics, even to a large extent by the time-dependent laws that they created.

It seems to me you are going away from, rather than toward the Truth in your assigning of the phrase “God are.” You seem to be positing a collective of beings, which would appropriately be assigned the verb “are,” but the reality of God is that He IS Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. It is not that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are God, but rather, that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit IS God.

 

[Love4All]

kabbala? /QUOTE]

It seems to me Kabbala, such as it is, is the attempt by rabbis to save Judaism as a religion in the face of the spread of Christianity. It is the attempt to place Judaism on an equal footing with Hinduism, Buddhism, Hermetism, etc. To make it one of the religions of the world, so that it would stay in existence, rather than fade away as the preparation for the Messiah that was no longer necessary once the Messiah had come.

 

[billcu1]

How did “spaces with opposite properties” exist without a universe?

You seem to be talking about an already existing system of things — without an Origin?

To me, if God is God at all, He must be the Origin of all things — otherwise, there is something prior to and thus superior to God. You seem to be saying that that is the case, but that that prior system of existence had no intelligence. This seems parallel to, from an idealist perspective, Buddhism (everything begins in Ignorance), or from a materialist perspective, Physicalism (everything begins as Matter.) Either way, it amounts to Impersonalism, it seems to me — the idea that the Original Reality, whatever it may be, is not personal, and beings with personality (gods) arise from it. The Advaita Vedanta school of Hindu thought also has a similar concept.

Ancient Judaism was never polytheistic in any sense. Abraham’s father, Terah, was an idolater; Abraham renounced his father’s idols and went in search of Reality. Later, Moses encountered the burning bush and the Voice that spoke to him from it saying, “I AM WHO AM.” It is that God — the I AM WHO AM — who is the God of the Old Testament. Not a collective of beings, but a single being, albeit a Communion of Persons. The word ‘Elohim’ refers either to this Communion of Persons in God, or to the heavenly host who, apart from God, are created beings.

Plurality does indeed apply to the Divine Persons, but not to the Divine Being.

It seems to me you are going away from, rather than toward the Truth in your assigning of the phrase “God are.” You seem to be positing a collective of beings, which would appropriately be assigned the verb “are,” but the reality of God is that He IS Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. It is not that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are God, but rather, that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit IS God.

We do know that there can be others like god. Christian mysticism teaches that more than anything else god wants us to be like him.

 

[billcu1]

billcu1;10481689:

kabbala? /QUOTE]

It seems to me Kabbala, such as it is, is the attempt by rabbis to save Judaism as a religion in the face of the spread of Christianity. It is the attempt to place Judaism on an equal footing with Hinduism, Buddhism, Hermetism, etc. To make it one of the religions of the world, so that it would stay in existence, rather than fade away as the preparation for the Messiah that was no longer necessary once the Messiah had come.

Kabbala as it was revealed in the middle ages and mixed with hermetism. The teachings themselves were given to Adam by god. Moses knew them as was “skilled in all the wisdom of Egypt” His father-in-law was Chief of the Egyptian magi too. Ziporah’s father. The contents of sefer yeteriah came from Abraham.

 

[Love4All]

If he exists, the classical view is that he’s a totally different substance from us, so, we can’t really say much at all.

Yet, Scripture says we are created in His image, so we can know some things by analogy.

Some people think we can assign properties to him and he actually has those properties as we understand them (All powerful, all knowing, etc).

Particularly in some strands of Jewish thought, some think we can only talk of what God is in negative terms (God is not a chair, God is not wholly evil, etc).

Others yet again think we can’t say anything that actually corresponds to God’s true nature. Kant made this distinction. We can never see or understand things as they actually are. For example, a colour-blind friend and I are looking at the very same painting and yet we see very different things. Our knowledge and reality of the painting is coloured by our senses, thinking and interpretation, it is not how the painting actually is. So, the distinction is between things as we perceive them (phenomena) and things as they actually are (noumena). We can apply this to God as well.

God per se is not a phenomenon at all. If He were, then He would be classifiable as phenomena are, e.g., He would have a certain size and shape and color, etc. But nothing in this world that we can point to (apart from the Eucharist, but not phenomenally) can be God. So Kant’s distinction between noumenon and phenomenon couldn’t apply to God.

Finally, some people think there is a problem with assigning properties to God. It’s more of a medieval/scholastic idea though. If something has constituent parts or properties, that thing is dependent on its parts or properties, moreso, it is dependent on them to be what it is. If God has the property of perfection, God is dependent on perfection to be God. This clashed with their view of God as an absolutely independent being. This has several side-effects as well though, some can be quite unpleasant which is why i suspect it isn’t a popular idea anymore.

God IS His own perfection, therefore He is not, by being perfect, dependent on any perfection outside of Himself.

 

[billcu1]

That’s not mysticism, its mythology. There is a difference.

Mythos explains alot of truth. That’s what mythology is. The truth in a fable. Like 2 people in a garden.

 

[Love4All]

One could go on and on about what God is. And thousands of debates and books have been on just this very subject. But god is best summed up in 2 words

God is.

Three words. God is Love.

 

[Love4All]

We do know that there can be others like god. Christian mysticism teaches that more than anything else god wants us to be like him.

There can be many gods. We are such gods. There cannot be many of God.

God wants us to know, love and serve Him in this world, to be happy with Him forever in the next.

It is taught in several different streams that we can be or are like God qualitatively but not quantitatively. So that, we are spiritual beings capable of knowledge and love, but our Knowledge and Love can never be Infinite as it is in God.

 

[Love4All]

Kabbala as it was revealed in the middle ages and mixed with hermetism. The teachings themselves were given to Adam by god. Moses knew them as was “skilled in all the wisdom of Egypt” His father-in-law was Chief of the Egyptian magi too. Ziporah’s father. The contents of sefer yeteriah came from Abraham.

Adam and Eve remembered God, and made the very best attempt that they could to teach their children about Him, but Alas! It is impossible. God is Infinite, and it is impossible to convey His Reality in mere words. It is impossible to sum up The Word in a word. But attempts have been made.

AUM was Krishna’s attempt. AUM signifies Everything, including God, all gods, all spirits, all minds, all matter and energy, time and space, and whatever is beyond these. But AUM is imperfect precisely because it is Complete. In order to be perfect, the Word cannot be an indestructible Unity like AUM is. It must be capable of being broken apart. Such was the word YHVH. AUM, despite the fact that it has been analyzed, really does not admit of analysis. YHVH, on the other hand, does. Thus the correlations are made, Y = Fire, H = Water, V = Air, H = Earth. This is the basis of all Magic, including ancient Egyptian Magic as well as its modern counterpart. Moses defeated Pharaoh’s magicians, his staff swallowed up their staves when they all were in the form of snakes. In that moment, Pharaoh’s magicians were absolutely aware of the totality of their defeat, yet it took all ten plagues to get Pharaoh to budge.

But for all that has been written about the analysis of the Word, YHVH — which can only be the selfsame Word as AUM, but in a breakable rather than an impervious form — the Manifestation of the Word was as yet incomplete with Moses. The Prophets all followed after Moses, each of them understanding the Word more completely, but none of them able to rectify the imperfect system of sacrifices that Moses established. All each Prophet in his turn could do, was to speak his Word to the People. The Prophets were in a position somewhat similar to Adam. While they did not have the memory of God as Adam and Eve did, yet they did have the Knowledge of God in His Word, which they were utterly incapable of summing up for their fellow human beings. They did, however, each of them in his turn, make the level attempt, and thus the Deposit of Faith grew.

Until finally, there came Mary. She also understood the Word, as the prophets before her, but she, the Queen of the Prophets, alone among the human race, understood it so deeply and so completely that she became One with it. As Scripture says, the power of the Holy Spirit overshadowed her, so that she conceived and bore a Son whom she named Jesus. Jesus now is the Word made Flesh. The Word that had been unbreakable as AUM, and able to be analyzed and understood (to a degree!) as YHVH, now gained another letter, five letters instead of four, Y-H-Sh-V-H, Yehshuah, Jesus. Now the Word Himself could speak to us directly, and could give us Himself as consumable Food, in the Eucharist, and justified His giving us the Eucharist by being broken completely on the Cross.

Now, the Word is made Bread, and feeds us.

Kabbalah, by comparison, is just so much magic. Assuredly, it is the Wisdom from Adam, and of the Egyptian priests, and of Moses, but at the same time it cannot produce the Bread of Life, so what good is it? He Himself contains all Wisdom within Himself; He IS the Incarnate Wisdom. It is impossible that a Kabbalist could have any real advantage over a Catholic.

 

[Love4All]

Mythos explains alot of truth. That’s what mythology is. The truth in a fable. Like 2 people in a garden.

Well, the interesting thing about the myths in the Bible is that they are not only myths but at the same time historical accounts. In the Mystery of the Incarnation, the Truth becomes Incarnate, so it manifests as just as real as you or me.

But yes, just so, mythology conveys a lot of truth under the veil of allegory, whereas mysticism, by contrast, is either a direct encounter with the truth or else it is false mysticism. True Mysticism means to know God.

 

[billcu1]

Adam and Eve remembered God, and made the very best attempt that they could to teach their children about Him, but Alas! It is impossible. God is Infinite, and it is impossible to convey His Reality in mere words. It is impossible to sum up The Word in a word. But attempts have been made.

AUM was Krishna’s attempt. AUM signifies Everything, including God, all gods, all spirits, all minds, all matter and energy, time and space, and whatever is beyond these. But AUM is imperfect precisely because it is Complete. In order to be perfect, the Word cannot be an indestructible Unity like AUM is. It must be capable of being broken apart. Such was the word YHVH. AUM, despite the fact that it has been analyzed, really does not admit of analysis. YHVH, on the other hand, does. Thus the correlations are made, Y = Fire, H = Water, V = Air, H = Earth. This is the basis of all Magic, including ancient Egyptian Magic as well as its modern counterpart. Moses defeated Pharaoh’s magicians, his staff swallowed up their staves when they all were in the form of snakes. In that moment, Pharaoh’s magicians were absolutely aware of the totality of their defeat, yet it took all ten plagues to get Pharaoh to budge.

But for all that has been written about the analysis of the Word, YHVH — which can only be the selfsame Word as AUM, but in a breakable rather than an impervious form — the Manifestation of the Word was as yet incomplete with Moses. The Prophets all followed after Moses, each of them understanding the Word more completely, but none of them able to rectify the imperfect system of sacrifices that Moses established. All each Prophet in his turn could do, was to speak his Word to the People. The Prophets were in a position somewhat similar to Adam. While they did not have the memory of God as Adam and Eve did, yet they did have the Knowledge of God in His Word, which they were utterly incapable of summing up for their fellow human beings. They did, however, each of them in his turn, make the level attempt, and thus the Deposit of Faith grew.

Until finally, there came Mary. She also understood the Word, as the prophets before her, but she, the Queen of the Prophets, alone among the human race, understood it so deeply and so completely that she became One with it. As Scripture says, the power of the Holy Spirit overshadowed her, so that she conceived and bore a Son whom she named Jesus. Jesus now is the Word made Flesh. The Word that had been unbreakable as AUM, and able to be analyzed and understood (to a degree!) as YHVH, now gained another letter, five letters instead of four, Y-H-Sh-V-H, Yehshuah, Jesus. Now the Word Himself could speak to us directly, and could give us Himself as consumable Food, in the Eucharist, and justified His giving us the Eucharist by being broken completely on the Cross.

Now, the Word is made Bread, and feeds us.

Kabbalah, by comparison, is just so much magic. Assuredly, it is the Wisdom from Adam, and of the Egyptian priests, and of Moses, but at the same time it cannot produce the Bread of Life, so what good is it? He Himself contains all Wisdom within Himself; He IS the Incarnate Wisdom. It is impossible that a Kabbalist could have any real advantage over a Catholic.

As you say things can’t be put into words. Usually an initiate into the 9 lesser mysteries is “shown” things by picture consciousness. Which reminds me of a story about one of the saints that saw an angel holding the chalice and bread it spun around and things were disclosed then.

 

[billcu1]

Before I look at the other answers, I wanted to give this a shot myself.

You did not capitalize the word, ‘god,’ I notice, and I wonder about your intent. To my mind, the questions, “what is a god?” and “what is God?” are two very different questions. The first is much more definite, so I will take it on first.

Etymologically, the word, ‘god’ means, the receiver of the sacrifices, or the one invoked. The idea is of a superior or supreme being, to whom human worship is properly directed. The idea evokes myriad images in the human mind, images of gods, ideas about what a god is. For the most part, gods per se are to a degree anthropomorphic. To that degree, the gods are considered to have intelligence, will, feeling, even human traits like jealousy, anger, and caprice. I am thinking mainly of the pagan pantheons from the various cultures of the world. Most thinkers of any depth these days shy away from a literal interpretation of these ideas as reality.

The God of Israel purportedly commanded the Israelites not to worship any images. Now we are getting more into a discussion of ‘God’ rather than ‘god.’

What is God? God is Love. It is incomprehensible to us how a being could literally be Love, but that is how Saint John defined God. That is the only proper definition of which I am aware, and indeed, if it is true, then it is the only proper definition possible. I hold it to be true, so I accept as simple fact, that God is Love. Love is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. God as Father is the sublime, mysterious Origin of all. God the Father is the Origin of all without exception, including God the Son. God the Son is the creative Word of the Father. He is the Manifestation of the Father. He is God as God is known to Himself, and also as He is revealed to us. God the Holy Spirit is the infinite mutual Love of God the Father and the Son. He is the Gift of Love. He is Love.

I didn’t mean anything when I didn’t capitalize god. I’ve always viewed God and god as the same I meant no meaning or disrespect.

 

[billcu1]

How did “spaces with opposite properties” exist without a universe?

You seem to be talking about an already existing system of things — without an Origin?

To me, if God is God at all, He must be the Origin of all things — otherwise, there is something prior to and thus superior to God. You seem to be saying that that is the case, but that that prior system of existence had no intelligence. This seems parallel to, from an idealist perspective, Buddhism (everything begins in Ignorance), or from a materialist perspective, Physicalism (everything begins as Matter.) Either way, it amounts to Impersonalism, it seems to me — the idea that the Original Reality, whatever it may be, is not personal, and beings with personality (gods) arise from it. The Advaita Vedanta school of Hindu thought also has a similar concept.

Ancient Judaism was never polytheistic in any sense. Abraham’s father, Terah, was an idolater; Abraham renounced his father’s idols and went in search of Reality. Later, Moses encountered the burning bush and the Voice that spoke to him from it saying, “I AM WHO AM.” It is that God — the I AM WHO AM — who is the God of the Old Testament. Not a collective of beings, but a single being, albeit a Communion of Persons. The word ‘Elohim’ refers either to this Communion of Persons in God, or to the heavenly host who, apart from God, are created beings.

Plurality does indeed apply to the Divine Persons, but not to the Divine Being.

It seems to me you are going away from, rather than toward the Truth in your assigning of the phrase “God are.” You seem to be positing a collective of beings, which would appropriately be assigned the verb “are,” but the reality of God is that He IS Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. It is not that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are God, but rather, that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit IS God.

Sayin Elohim is the plurality of divine persons kind of sounds to me like mixing chrsitian terms with judaic. The jews believe in trinity but don’t call it the same thing to my knowledge. I don’t know where father son and especially holy spirit came from. I read the t’noch when it comes to old testament. our old testament has been changed around so much.

 

[Love4All]

Sayin Elohim is the plurality of divine persons kind of sounds to me like mixing chrsitian terms with judaic. The jews believe in trinity but don’t call it the same thing to my knowledge. I don’t know where father son and especially holy spirit came from. I read the t’noch when it comes to old testament. our old testament has been changed around so much.

It is the selfsame God who is revealing Himself in both Old and New Testaments, so it seems a false dichotomy between “Christian” and “Judaic” terms. The God of Israel IS Triune, whether or not the Jews then or now knew that. As far as I know, they do NOT believe in a Trinity any more than Muslims do.

Anyway, the purpose of the Old Testament was to set up the New, and that function is fulfilled. Jesus said He came not to take away the Law but to fulfill it, and that is what He did.

The Holy Spirit is referred to by that Name in the Old Testament. The Word is not explicitly differentiated from God as it is in Saint John, but the prophets were all aware that they had encountered the Word. In order clearly to manifest the Trinity, the Word became Flesh. The Father did not become Flesh, but previous to the Incarnation, the Jews did not have a clear differentiation between God and the Word and the Spirit.

 

[Foofaraw]

Correct. Eloha is the singular. I’ve never quite heard it put the way you have does this come from kabbala? If that’s welcome here I definately welcome it! Rene Descartes was one of the greats!

What I wrote came from several readings of Digital Universe, Analog Soul. Anyone who admires Descartes and is aware of the complaints that most philosophers level against his idea of soul as equivalent to mind may appreciate that book’s treatment of his ideas. With but slight adjustments to Descartes’ ideas, it gives the concept of soul/mind new life, from philosophical and especially from hard science perspectives.

 

[Foofaraw]

I thought God(s) was outside of time ? When we go to mass we are taken outside of time and to the cross as I believe all events are happening or are outside of time I am not sure which.

Time is an artificial concept, an efficient way to wrap mathematical descriptions around what is actually just a sequence of physical states. From that perspective, everything is “outside” of time.

But let’s get practical. The “time” concept works quite well and is used in both common and scientific language to describe events, so we cannot dismiss it.

If for the sake of discussion we say that both God and the Cartesian soul/mind are spirit beings, it seems tto make sense to say that all such beings are as connected to time as they need to be. If God causes an event to occur in the physical world, he will have done so in what we would see in a normal space-time context. Yet, he might be able to do all kinds of things that do not impact our universe in the least little bit, and so would be operating outside of our space-time reality.

You yourself have probably operated outside of time. Think back to a moment when you had a unique thought, idea, or realization. You will find that this thought appeared in an instant, fully formed, and independent of language. To retain the thought/idea you will have needed to put it into language, or some visual form that brings the thought into real time and into your brain. That kind of innovative thinking is an example of the soul/mind operating outside of time, or perhaps between “ticks.”

It is pretty late for an explanation of the soul’s and God’s relationship to clock ticks, so if this fails to make sense, feel free to ask questions.

 

[Foofaraw]

Correct. Eloha is the singular. I’ve never quite heard it put the way you have does this come from kabbala? If that’s welcome here I definately welcome it! Rene Descartes was one of the greats!

What I wrote came from several readings of Digital Universe, Analog Soul. Anyone who admires Descartes and is aware of the complaints that most philosophers level against his idea of soul as equivalent to mind may appreciate that book’s treatment of his ideas. With but slight adjustments to Descartes’ ideas, it gives the concept of soul/mind new life, from philosophical and especially from hard science perspectives.

 

[Love4All]

Time is an artificial concept, an efficient way to wrap mathematical descriptions around what is actually just a sequence of physical states. From that perspective, everything is “outside” of time.

But let’s get practical. The “time” concept works quite well and is used in both common and scientific language to describe events, so we cannot dismiss it.

If for the sake of discussion we say that both God and the Cartesian soul/mind are spirit beings, it seems tto make sense to say that all such beings are as connected to time as they need to be. If God causes an event to occur in the physical world, he will have done so in what we would see in a normal space-time context. Yet, he might be able to do all kinds of things that do not impact our universe in the least little bit, and so would be operating outside of our space-time reality.

You yourself have probably operated outside of time. Think back to a moment when you had a unique thought, idea, or realization. You will find that this thought appeared in an instant, fully formed, and independent of language. To retain the thought/idea you will have needed to put it into language, or some visual form that brings the thought into real time and into your brain. That kind of innovative thinking is an example of the soul/mind operating outside of time, or perhaps between “ticks.”

It is pretty late for an explanation of the soul’s and God’s relationship to clock ticks, so if this fails to make sense, feel free to ask questions.

As an experienced musician, I must take issue with your dismissal of Time. Time is undeniably real — otherwise, music would not work. QED.