thoughts : god cannot be limited by mans constraints: such as desires: thus he cannot be evil. [god is infinite]. all words can do is point to the “infiniteness” which is god, it requires the individuals unveiling of his heart, unveiling of his fears and constraints: his feelings/emotions to be able to see and begin to grasp his inability to understand the god which definitely exists.
god is not limited to material: not limited to space, or time. he is everywhere and nowhere at the same time: he is shapeless.
he is beyond our comprehension.
[teaching phd level stuff to kindergarteners.]
he gave us the ability to understand this though, so it is completely just.
aham
He is everywhere and nowhere… he is up and down… he is left and right… he is all around… he is loud without a sound and good with no evil to be found… He is… aw never mind… I have no idea what i’m talking about… I imagine neither do you… Let’s all of us stop spewing gibberish and get back to using our brains, what do ya think?
god (or whatever) that is infinite, limitless cannot be defined or described, positively, as any attempt to do so will contradict to the supposed “infiniteness” by adding (limiting) attributes.
So, I guess you just did a fine job in desribing it, via negations.
I don’t think describing it as “He” was correct. How can you limit its sex?
And it can’t give anything, as there is nothing other than it.
If it’s truly limitless/infinite, we can’t even say that it exists, as “existing” is a limiting factor just like any other property/attribute.
The problem with religon is they put all sort of stupid exceptions and add many imaginary attributes to their “god” and believe that it’s still “infinite”, "absolute’, and so on.
All abilities and potentials are equaly limiting factors, in my view.
They don’t realize that they reduced their god into a pretty limited retarded male being, by praising “him”, for example.
I feel that you won’t call it as a “god”, either, if you really take “it” as something absolutely infinite and limitless.
“Nothing”, “void”, “emptiness” fits better to its attributeless nature, I’d say.
Very true! I never quite understood that either. I mean they explain it with the historical context and that he is not really meaning male still it IS a constant limitation which could be fixed kind of easily. And it is also true that by describing God we imitate him. I guess whatever term one uses for God one should add “for me” and “is also/as well”. So for example, let’s say: “For me God also is as much in the deepest darkness as he is in the brightest light.” One should always try to keep it vague as one’s understanding of God itself is. Trying to describe God is almost making him human. You describe your neighbor, friends, enemies… but God you can’t describe. But considering that the board is called I love philosophy I guess it seems attractive to try the impossible.
And also scary enough but true, there are enough foolish people seriously believing they understand the full concept of God. Which is pretty much like saying I know it all! Funny people on this planet.
Often, by describing “god” (or whatever), we are describing ourselves. Our own fear, limitations, desires, and so on.
We always look/imagin things through our own rather thick physical/emotional/mental filters.
If we try to see something simple, like pure existence or nothingness, most of what we see is created by the effects of our own filters.
Yet, so many of us love to think that they are describing “true”, “real” thing, and fight/hate against someone else who see differently through different sets of filters.
I figured if i kept going some moron might take it seriously and declare me a saint or prophet or some such… and then given the money and fame that comes along with such things, I would be forced to keep quiet about my atheism and live a lie… and when I die I must think of my children’s fame and wealth and so even then I would need to keep up the pretense… and God forbid, Jesus might mistake me for a true beliver and save me in the end, sending me to heaven where I will be tortured with eternity among Christians.
Clearly I should have stopped when I did… don’t you agree?
lol heaven is hell! I was enjoying your poem too, lemme take a swing at it ( i know earlier on in this topic they say describing God is like describing yourself so that means this poem is trying to portray MY MORTAL UNDERSTANDING of God):
God is in all existence, and all in existence is in God, God is inside every one and we are all inside God, “God” is a balloon blown up by different mouths filling it with different breaths; unable to pop, tis unknown why the balloon won’t pop but it is most commonly debated whether it is held by the adhesive of faith or lack of understanding and vagueness. God is non-existence and all existence, he is the alpha and the omega; the beginning and the end; all that is, has been or will be is a result of his desires. Who am I? A puppet to a puppet master? Puppets don’t move on their own, their puppet master is always moving them… are the thoughts I am thinking mine, when i move my arm is it I who moves my arm? Am i just the result of God’s desire? In conclusion, where is originality in a world comprised of only God and where is the “security” in a world without God?
Everyone: please point out holes in my logic,I want to revise this when i realize that i missed out some really important points
Most of the site’s members are Westerners, with Brits and Americans making up well over 90% of the membership. So it makes sense that of the gods out there, the one most seriously discussed is either the Judeo-Christian God or some spin-off of it, like Deism. It’s demography. It can be tricky sometimes, when people use the term “theist” for example, they really mean “Christian” and all sorts of other linguistic oddities. But what are you gonna do?
Oldschoolhero’s opening post illustrates the practice of negative theology or “via negativa.” It is a worthwhile spiritual practice which cuts across the major religions as can be seen by a cursory glance at the Wikipedia entry on the subject.
