What do You think God is?

How do we or you conceive of god?Conception can be a brute force, or an immaculate conception , or even a geometric or a trigonometric calculus of All possible conceptions. It is a semantic notion in the beginning, but advancing by evolution of the body, then the mind and finally , the spirit.

Ill take the geometric conception first,
symbolized by a circle, slowly closing in on the semantic, which overdeveloped around the late middle ages, and developed syntactically until it reached a critical point, around the time of Descartes, and then started to shrink very slowly at first , but then, taking up speed, as it started to react to total human misunderstanding, because of the onset of atheism.

The circle shrunk, as its diameter became more and more linear, and forming the elliptical form .

Fimdally as it started to approach the point. This process started a reversal by a realization of the event , another critical point, whereupon IT would have hidden Itself again into a Singularity. Singularities are worrisome for a god of many universes, but IT is able to compress ALL material manifestations into the Nothingness where Everything is hidden.

This god lasts only an instant cosmic time, when it again explodes into a multiplicity.

Since time is non existent while all this happens, it never happens and god is really a contradictory manifestation .

It is represented. Ying/Yang and other symbols.

How could have such symbols of do as evolve into its significance?
The evolition from the earliest symbolic sign to its most elaborate manifestation is coincidental to the degree that it assumes simulate simultainity, where both the expansion. and the collapse pro a my tales place in such an interval that IT also is an in appearance.

God exists therefore in formless non existence, primarily because that is a vastly superior progression over the basic signs and motives of Being.

God though variously defined is ultimately one of two things : the cause of all that exists or a product of human imagination
Given there be more plausible explanations for observable phenomena then the probability is more likely the latter of these

Or maybe both, comparable to a feed back system, where the product becomes the cause. Then becomes the product again but somewhat changed.

God is a symbol for ultimate reality.

There is what you think God is. And then there is what you are able to demonstrate that all rational men and women are obligated to think that God is.

And then, like all the rest of us, you will die.

I think.

Hey Meno_

You seem to be asking “what” but thinking “where”.


all of it

is it

and a pain in the ass to deal with.

and half baked ideas, and I’m twisting the old wrack trying desperately to include that too. Moving something from ridiculous to yeah well that’s just god, is exhausting and a lot harder then it looks. People, things, all of it seems to slip from that pile so easily. It’s a big pile and getting bigger. I’ve taken a few short cuts, that, in hind sight, don’t appear to have saved me any time. It’s not like I get to sell back any left over minutes.
I figure if I could just start there, there’d be a whole lot less work to do. But that hasn’t proven any easier, so here I am punching the clock.

In your OP you had presumed “God exists” thus God is assumed to be something in existence.
But the fact is, you have jumped to conclusion ‘God exists’ without any proofs at all even of God’s possibility.

I have proven, God is an impossibility to be real, thus the question of “God is …” is a non-starter, i.e. moot.
For example, it is by default we do not attribute real existence to a “square-circle” because it is impossible to be real to start with. It is the same with the idea of God’s existence.

You should be asking,
Why do I think ‘God is something that exists’?

The point is you assumed God exists when not proven at all is because of your [and other theists] state of existential psychology which compels you to think [speculate] of God as something.

This is a not rare way of starting discussions. To make an assumption and see what it entails. And in a sense you have answered the thread, from your position, that it is an idea in people’s heads or whatever. Fine. But you are acting as if one cannot or should not begin a discussion with an assumption. And first, this is based on assumptions or your part about what a good discussion must be, and further we MUST do this. We can never begin a discussion at some zero point where we are making no assumptions. LIke solipsism is not the case. Or that we can accurateliy remember things. Or that logic always applies. or that…and there are a myriad of assumptions all discussions begin from unless they are focusing on one of these. And even then, the discussion will have other assumptions. We work from axioms. We can question them, sure, but we have to work from them. Even those of us who think all their thinking is arrived at by pure deduction and infallible empirical research.

You need to differentiate between an assumption and a premise or proposition.

Assumption =
a thing that is accepted as true or as certain to happen, without proof.
Google Dictionary.

Premise =
an idea or theory on which a statement or action is based
dictionary.cambridge.org/dictio … sh/premise

Note Scientific theories are qualified to some basic assumptions.
The point is these assumptions are agreed without questions by those who agree with Science, because these assumptions are reasonable.
It is the same with Mathematical axioms where all mathematical minded people will agree with them and others believe them based on faith.

In the OP case,
if there is a disagreement with the assumption, then the whole argument will not follow.
In this case, one will have to convince the assumption ‘God exists’ is reasonable.
Theists will agree with this assumption, rather they believe it based on faith.
But why should I accept this assumption.
If I cannot agree with the assumption then the following arguments is a ‘no go.’

Nah, not important here.


Which is true in any discussion, especially philosophical ones.

You don’t have to accept the assumption or the premise. Who said you have to accept the assumption? The title of the thread asks a question. The OP tries to answer his or her own question. Others, including you, throw out their responses. Which is what ‘they think.’

The conclusions would obviously not be ones you would agree with, which you made clear. The discussion however could very well be a go.

No one is bound to anything. An atheist could discuss the issue working from the premise that there is a God and what that would be.

And as people here and in the other philosophy forum have pointed out, you have proven nothing. And that includes non-theists pointing out the failure of your ‘proofs’.

Some thing new occurs to me. That perhaps god is a mirror of our soul.

That is to say that lets see how to formulate it.

Given the idea of giant central galaxial black holes being as large as perhaps billions of stars put together, playing around with inconceivable amounts of energy, while able to generate the subtle est subtle est situations of the most profound suspended stillness of time, where the instant appears to defeat time and movement, is it not conceivable that a super co sciousness appears to mirror the tremendous being of time and space with a mirror of so extraordinary complexity and fidelity, as to be able to regenerate a functional derivitive of a simulated Absolute, So as to enable consciousness through the word to begin ?

Is not existence the predicate? Therefore without it, all this would be impossible, and there would not, could not be even a vision of how it could be.

Science could not ever fly forth from the existential darkness, science could not profess to possess an inkling of how the two ends may meet at the absolute union between the incalculable of the highest and the lowest, the most and the least, the possible and the certain.

God may be the absolute re-(pro)duction of conscious real elisation of anything and everything that ever was , is , and will be.

An atheist would counter with a logical circularity here, and the charge against Saint Anselm is similarly misrepresented. New modes of thought and logic do reinforce circularity as resembling all atomiatic symbolic visualisations.

God is a fork of mania and focus that drives down victory road towards the fulfillment of passion to shape shift and morph reality in accordance with imagination. If we could have a crystal ball, and extend our roots into a void of zen, then we could hijack the director’s office (where God is and operates our universe), and spin theories of the impossible. The key to being greater than God is to be FarFetched, because through radical entailments, essentially taking action, we can consume the old constraints, and ride a high rainbow to a much loftier, more lush paradise. So God is a Creator of beauty.


That is not something new, Meno. I have no idea of God (except perhaps for pure energy) but I would hate to consider that God is an image or a reflection of the human psyche as I sit on a park bench and reflect this ideal. That would certainly take my sense of wonderment away.

Does God also evolve ------- outside of our own minds? I may not have said that correctly.

A mind like us but supreme in knowledge and power.

Mowk, god is something even if a concept. Accepted and useful concepts are mental ‘things’ and they have developmental and structural evolution., just as physical evolution .
Between physical , inorganic to organic & and physical metaphysical, there is a continuum of development, and god belongs in that continuum as a utalitarian. tool. Of that is all what God is, it is still something.

Arc, good point, but raw nature may not be beautiful nor even admirable had not evolution produced an excellent machine, the brain, to interpret it, as such.

Beauty is in the eye of.the beholder , and in that sense , god is the object and the objective whereby nature mirrors man and god. The most outstanding example comes to mind, and that is god the father touching man’s finger .

Autrpromorphism elevates man to ideal conceptions of a goal oriented sense of evolutionary sense.

Exuberant, god can be the instrument through which imagination, reality and symbolism interact to form an objective criteria for modeling prototypes for mankind. If that can be god, then he/it is a pattern of variable structural essence. May as well go with that

I agree the OP is valid for those who are theists and thus have their own views of God.
On this issue, they can talk till the cows come home.

However you cannot deny I can present my own views to the OP which I think would be more effective.

For me, asking the question;
“What do You think God is?”
is like asking
What do You think a square-circle is?
What do You think a flat-Earth [theological] is?

Being aware the above are impossibilities, I propose we save time and rather raise the question, WHY do people ask such a question.
I know the ‘WHY’ is the psychological issue.
Thus we should get to the real point rather than beating around the bush.

That is your perception.
As far as I have been arguing [obviously I would be more focused on it since it is my OP] no one has presented any convincing counter arguments to weaken my proof.
I will concede [based on intellectual integrity] if any one can produce a convincing counter and I am still waiting.