The question, as I understood it, was to describe how each of us experience God, if God is something we experience.
I think it is alright to ask a question out of of pure curiosity.
And so, I responded.
A response which was scorned.
God is a visceral and sensory experience for me.
Thus, I described my God.
Not intellectual.
Not measured by “power” to do this or that.
Not made of some imagined properties.
Alas, my description did not “measure up”.
Too bad. I would have looked forward to reading other sincere responses.
I doubt there will be many.
And how does that affect your life? What decisions have you made differently because you are open to the possibilities that fairies exist on another planet?
Then what you are saying is not that you think there may be a God because anything may exist, you believe because you have evidence. Those are not remotely the same stance.
You really don’t see how condescending that is? Okay, whatever.
Anyway, I think I see what you mean. The problem with your earlier statement, that god is an infinity of infinities, is that something can be an infinity of infinities and still be incredibly limited: a line, for example, is an infinities of infinities, yet it encompasses 0% of space. A plane is an infinity of infinity of infinities, and still encompasses 0% of space. You see what I mean?
I think what you meant to say is that God is the sum of all infinities. Is that correct? But before you were too wrapped up in condescending to me to figure out what I was saying was wrong with your definition.
Although I have never really believed, as a child I told my mother God was probably a young boy, and we were nothing more than something akin to an ant farm. He set it up and now it just sits there in his room. Every once in awhile he taps on the glass, pokes it with a stick or shakes it. Just to see what we’ll do.
It’s clear there’s more to our understanding of the fabric of the universe than we can make sense of from the gathered evidence. It’s not quite all adding up yet. Science is an evolution of knowledge, adapting to new revelations as our math, technology and motivation to dig ever deeper unlock these secrets. Who knows how far the rabbit hole goes?
There’s two things that can prevent us from directly observing something, scientifically:
**1) We don’t have the technology.
As a matter of the principle of physics itself, as we know it, it defies detection, assuming whatever it is you’re looking for actually exists.**
As for #1, without a clear understanding of what to even look for, how would we know what technology to use.
As for #2, our incomplete understanding of the universe may prevent us from unlocking new fundamentals of reality.
Then there’s the caveat; the most frustrating aspect. There is most likely a limit to how much humans can possibly grasp, understand, and unravel when it comes to the complexities of the universe and existence itself. We have no idea where that limit lies, and we can only hope our brains are vast enough to make sense out of everything there is to know about this existence.
What I believe is really of no consequence except to myself. I’ve stated my thoughts about as clearly as I can manage. I don’t ask that you believe them. Hell, I don’t even ask that you believe that I believe them. There is a Hindu saying that more or less means “What you believe is true is true for you. Until it isn’t.” Thudlow paraphrased the Tao Te Ching, but I’m going to finalize my contribution with the actual sentence that appears in most English translations.
The Tao that can be spoken of is not the true Tao.
You (and a few others, it seems) understand wrong, and although your re-write of the question in the OP may make it easier for you to answer, it is not the answer to the question I asked in the first place.
[QUOTE=Czarcasm]
For the purpose of this thread I am not interested in proofs and/or evidence, and I don’t care to read responses such as “I would tell you, but you would just…”. Describe the characteristics of the deity you believe in. How powerful is she/he/it, what is she/he/it made of, what can/can’t she/he/it do, where does she/he/it reside, and any other specifics you can throw in, please.
Again, this is not the a thread for proving or disproving God-this is a thread for describing God.
[/QUOTE]
edited to add: Nobody is forcing you to come up with a description if you cannot(or will not) do so, but I resent the implication that I doing something underhanded by the mere asking of the question.
You said it very well. I admit to being mystified by the insistence on the concrete in this thread, but like you, I have said my piece and am now done. Believe or don’t believe, it is an individual choice. Requesting descriptions of the unknowable and indescribable is asking the wrong question IMO.
Sorry, but it is the only question this particular thread is concerning itself with at the moment. If you wish to enlighten us with the “right” questions, feel free to start a new thread on the subject, although I am mystified as to what such a question might be since you insist that what you worship is totally unknowable.
I have no problem at all with what you presented as a former believer, since it is what you believed at that time. I am having difficulty with those that claim that
God cannot be described—why bother responding, then?
I am asking the wrong question—it may be a question one cannot or will not answer, but wrong?
I should not be asking this question, because somehow it offends.
All powerful, all knowing, all good.
He is a spirit, so “made of” cannot get a correct answer.
I use “He” because He’s always presented Himself as such, althoug sex in a spirit must be something different than for humans.
He lives in heaven, which is not part of the materil world, while at the same time being everywhere.
He existed before time, even though I understand that “bfore time” is not physically or matheatically correct.
He wants us all to go to heaven with us but gave us the free will not to.
Yes, I can see that you are mystified. Perhaps a more percipient question to ask (and this is merely a suggestion; I have little interest or time in pursuing this topic with you) is why you feel a detailed description of any God is needed? I notice that you do not answer my questions as to why you need to know this or by what right you ask others to divulge personal beliefs while you do not.
Who said it was one thing? I said God was indescribable and unknowable. I am not about to indulge the concrete here and specify “that which we call by the name of God but may contain multitudes etc”.
I don’t see the point of this thread at all. Perhaps the OP could fill us in.
[Cut to a scene of Mary giving an enthusiastic thumbs up.]
On topic:
The point would seem to be that theists are unable to articulate clearly something they’re asserting as true. If you assert that something is real and flounder when asked to describe that thing, it doesn’t really say anything for the rigor of your beliefs.
If the assertion is “I have faith in a creator whose purpose is beyond my understanding,” it’s not floundering to attempt no further definition of that creator.
The OP’s error is in thinking that faith requires intellectual acceptance of a concept.
Frankly, I haven’t encountered any good objective evidence for a creator or loving God, nor do I find any of the philosophical arguments convincing. My feeling is that all evidence points toward the physical truth best espoused in this thread by Una. And I came to that conclusion decades ago.
But I could not shake my faith that there is a purpose and that we are all parts of it. So rather than continue to try and strangle that [completely subjective and nonverifiable] axiomatic experience, I decided to embrace it. None of that requires a belief in “woo” or omni-entities of any particular stripe, and it certainly doesn’t require me to describe something I can’t measure or understand.