No such thing as God

[Highest]

It is my opinion that the use of God has now become a tautology. What does it matter what we call the ultimate truth? Or the ultimate cause of everyting? If God is existence or consciousness, what does it matter if we say God is existence or existence is existence? The majority believe God is a personified thing, we invented a personified God, we gave God a personality, now we found out that this not the case. Existence is non-personal, impersonal. Consciousness/existence exists, God does not. An ultimate causer may exists, but there is no need to call it anything, not God, nor anything. It certainly does not call itself anything, we do that name calling, probably because it is so much rooted within us.

[YaNanNallari]

The same goes for all words. It's a matter of convenience

[Ibn Sina]

Great question. I have yet to find an answer to this question. If existence is God, why call God God? Why not call God existence? Why is there even a word called God if God is existence? 

[YaNanNallari]

@Ibn Sina Maybe because there are multiple gods? There is the absolute god and the deitys. Quite obvious really, never heard of deitys?

[Ibn Sina]

2 hours ago, YaNanNallari said:

@Ibn Sina Maybe because there are multiple gods? There is the absolute god and the deitys. Quite obvious really, never heard of deitys?

Of course I have heard about deities ( your spelling is wrong) and multiple gods, the question is - In all pantheistic systems , why to use God and existence interchangeably . Well, to be fair pantheism is exactly the belief that God and existence are the same thing so that is why those two words are being used interchangeably, but I was talking about pantheistic systems like this actualized.org, whose sole agenda is not to convince people that God is not the christian God but existence (which is the agenda of pantheism) but the sole purpose of actualized.org is to show and make understand the true nature of reality, and the non-material core of reality. In all this picture, why to speak of it as God? Why not just stick with nothingeness? Why to say- God is existence? That is not a useful sentence, as it only describes the nature of God , but we are not interested in God, we are interested in the nature of reality. The useful sentence is- Existence is nothingness. Existence is immateriality, consciousness. The goal of actualized.org is not to realize God (as it is in no way a religious organization that believes in God) , it's goal is to realize the true nature of existence so as to bring about a radical positive transformation in an individual's life which allows him to live an extraordinary life (which is what it's true goal is).

 

Secondly, I asked - IF existence is god, why to call God God and not call God existence (which as I have already said , I was talking in the context of pantheistic system) and you said because there are multiple gods?Seriously? Because there ARE multiple gods, god is called god? So it is obvious? Well yes it is obvious IF just like you I was also believing that there ARE multiple Gods, but what is fascinating  is how you cannot see that here in actualized.org, most people are not believers in the existence of multiple gods, most are believer in god= existence, so why do you think that just like you everyone is a believer in multiple gods (specially in this place)? Yes it  would be obvious that God is called God if people believed in MULTIPLE gods ( let alone ONE), but how is it not obvious to you that here in actualized.org most people do not hold that belief?   1st question to you - Do you believe that multiple gods exist? Why? Second question - If yes, what the hell are you doing here if you don't even know the basic premise that this website is founded upon? 

Edited June 6, 2018 by Ibn Sina

[cetus]

@Highest You can't put a name on something which has no attributes. You could just as well call it " The Big Booty" for all it matters.

[cetus]

@Mikael89 I agree completely with what you said about the word "God" and it's religious overtones.

That's just an idea of what God is. A conceptual God.

[Faceless]

18 minutes ago, cetus56 said:

@Mikael89 I agree completely with what you said about the word "God" and it's religious overtones.

That's just an idea of what God is. A conceptual God.

This has to do with time. You see it?

This is what I mean by being able to see when time is in movement in oursleves. 

This impulse to identify and even the subtle impulses to dis-identify 

To see this movement of time clearly in ourselves. 

Edited June 6, 2018 by Faceless

[cetus]

The English word for �God� has become a source of confusion for Christians since at least the Anglo-Saxon era.� Webster�s New Collegiate Dictionary says that the origin of the word �god� comes from a Germanic word �gad,� pronounced as �gohdt.��

 

The following information on the origin of the word �god� will help to understand why we use it in our vernacular.

 

GOD - The English word God is identical with the Anglo-Saxon word for �good,� and therefore it is believed that the name God refers to the divine goodness. (See Oehler's Theol. of Old Test.; Strong's and Young's concordances.)� (From New Unger's Bible Dictionary)� (Originally published by Moody Press of Chicago, Illinois.� Copyright (C) 1988.)

 

Further information on the source of our word for �God� is listed below:

 

Word origin:� God - Our word god goes back via Germanic to Indo-European, in which a corresponding ancestor form meant �invoked one.�� The word�s only surviving non-Germanic relative is Sanskrit hu, invoke the gods, a form which appears in the Rig Veda, most ancient of Hindu scriptures:� puru-hutas,� ï¿½much invoked,� epithet of the rain-and-thunder god Indra.� (From READER�S DIGEST, Family Word Finder, page 351) (Originally published by The Reader�s Digest Association, Inc., Pleasantville New York,��� Montreal;�� Copyright�� (C)� 1975)

 

Now if the sources noted above are accurate, then the word that we use for the Supreme Being, God, comes from a very pagan origin.� Thus the word god is used generically by many different religions to refer to their deity or �invoked one.��

 

 

[cetus]

12 minutes ago, Faceless said:

This has to do with time. You see it?

This is what I mean by being able to see when time is in movement in oursleves. 

This impulse to identify and even the subtle impulses to dis-identify 

To see this movement of time clearly in ourselves. 

@Faceless I believe the average person on the street experiences time almost as walls that define their life. Everything is partitioned by time. Even their view of what "God" is.

[Faceless]

They are the walls, the experience, time. 

Great example of time attempting to end time by the means of inviting time. The ultimate contradiction indeed. 

28 minutes ago, cetus56 said:

Everything is partitioned by time

The inevitable mechanical and fragmented nature of thought.  

 

28 minutes ago, cetus56 said:

Even their view of what "God" is.

Dualistic movement/psychological time 

Edited June 6, 2018 by Faceless

[Dodo]

2 hours ago, Ibn Sina said:

Of course I have heard about deities ( your spelling is wrong) and multiple gods, the question is - In all pantheistic systems , why to use God and existence interchangeably . Well, to be fair pantheism is exactly the belief that God and existence are the same thing so that is why those two words are being used interchangeably, but I was talking about pantheistic systems like this actualized.org, whose sole agenda is not to convince people that God is not the christian God but existence (which is the agenda of pantheism) but the sole purpose of actualized.org is to show and make understand the true nature of reality, and the non-material core of reality. In all this picture, why to speak of it as God? Why not just stick with nothingeness? Why to say- God is existence? That is not a useful sentence, as it only describes the nature of God , but we are not interested in God, we are interested in the nature of reality. The useful sentence is- Existence is nothingness. Existence is immateriality, consciousness. The goal of actualized.org is not to realize God (as it is in no way a religious organization that believes in God) , it's goal is to realize the true nature of existence so as to bring about a radical positive transformation in an individual's life which allows him to live an extraordinary life (which is what it's true goal is).

 

Secondly, I asked - IF existence is god, why to call God God and not call God existence (which as I have already said , I was talking in the context of pantheistic system) and you said because there are multiple gods?Seriously? Because there ARE multiple gods, god is called god? So it is obvious? Well yes it is obvious IF just like you I was also believing that there ARE multiple Gods, but what is fascinating  is how you cannot see that here in actualized.org, most people are not believers in the existence of multiple gods, most are believer in god= existence, so why do you think that just like you everyone is a believer in multiple gods (specially in this place)? Yes it  would be obvious that God is called God if people believed in MULTIPLE gods ( let alone ONE), but how is it not obvious to you that here in actualized.org most people do not hold that belief?   1st question to you - Do you believe that multiple gods exist? Why? Second question - If yes, what the hell are you doing here if you don't even know the basic premise that this website is founded upon? 

Leo has shared that in one of his deepest trips the best word he could use to describe what was happening was God. Perhaps there is something we don't know, don't just let your logical mind take over such things.

[Highest]

Have you ever seen or meet something that claimed itself to be God? Probably not. You can use existence and God interchangeably but then you have change the meaning of God all together. But the current meaning is simply false. In that sense God does not exist. In the apsolute sense, there is only that which IS (existence/consciousness, being itself nameless.

[Faceless]

11 minutes ago, Dodo said:

Perhaps there is something we don't know, don't just let your logical mind take over such things.

That’s just it, can we see when thought has taken over such things? 

 

Can we see time in movement in ourselves. 

 

Are we aware of time? Do we even notice time in movement? 

[Dodo]

5 minutes ago, Highest said:

Have you ever seen or meet something that claimed itself to be God? Probably not. You can use existence and God interchangeably but then you have change the meaning of God all together. But the current meaning is simply false. In that sense God does not exist. In the apsolute sense, there is only that which IS (existence/consciousness, being itself nameless.

Meaning of God is the ever present creator. 

That's awareness, awareness is God, I don't see a problem with the definition. 

Awareness is also nothing, so God indeed does not exist, God is the empty space in which all "else" exists.

[Ibn Sina]

In Hinduism, there are 2 words. One is 'Brahma' and the other is 'Brahman'. Similar sounding words but their meaning are different. 'Brahma' is a creator God who has got 4 heads ,4 arms and dons a large white beard. 'Brahman' is the ultimate reality i.e the true nature of existence.These two words cannot be used interchangeably, they are not identical. But for some reason, the words 'God' and 'Existence' are being used interchangeably like they are the same thing. But it is necessary , just like in the Hindus tradition, to establish a distinction. Because we are not concerned with 'Brahma' , we are concerned with 'Brahman'.

@Dodo

47 minutes ago, Dodo said:

Leo has shared that in one of his deepest trips the best word he could use to describe what was happening was God. Perhaps there is something we don't know, don't just let your logical mind take over such things.

I have nothing to object. Yes, if he couldn't do without describing his deep mystical experience as nothing else but God, then there must be something to it. May be it is associated with the deeply conscious, life like, living breathing aspect of  reality.

Edited June 6, 2018 by Ibn Sina

[cetus]

@Highest What a coincidence! This just popped up as on youtube.

 

[Dodo]

17 minutes ago, Ibn Sina said:

In Hinduism, there are 2 words. One is 'Brahma' and the other is 'Brahman'. Similar sounding words but their meaning are different. 'Brahma' is a creator God who has got 4 heads ,4 arms and dons a large white beard. 'Brahman' is the ultimate reality i.e the true nature of existence.These two words cannot be used interchangeably, they are not identical. But for some reason, the words 'God' and 'Existence' are being used interchangeably like they are the same thing. But it is necessary , just like in the Hindus tradition, to establish a distinction. Because we are not concerned with 'Brahma' , we are concerned with 'Brahman'.

@Dodo

I have nothing to object. Yes, if he couldn't do without describing his deep mystical experience as nothing else but God, then there must be something to it. May be it is associated with the deeply conscious, life like, living breathing aspect of  reality.

The thing is, even if Brahma is what you say it is, some sort of creator, it is Brahman that created Brahma, so actually Brahman is the creator. 

[Highest]

26 minutes ago, Dodo said:

Meaning of God is the ever present creator. 

That's awareness, awareness is God, I don't see a problem with the definition. 

Awareness is also nothing, so God indeed does not exist, God is the empty space in which all "else" exists.

One of the meanings of God is indeed that he is the creator. That's just one. You can call the creator for the creator cuz he/it created. However, that does not make the creator God, it's simply the creator. To me God is more complicated. But you say that God is awarness, that's changing the meaning all togheter, which is good. But still, the ultimate is nameless, we are just using mind made concepts here. Awarness just IS, why call it God, where does God come from? Awarness is reality, it exists, but it does not say I am God, all of that comes from is, it's created by us. Awarness simply just are. You see? It's obvious that we created God, not the other way around. It's so deep rooted that it's simply difficult to see that it's an invention of the mind.

[Dodo]

15 minutes ago, Highest said:

One of the meanings of God is indeed that he is the creator. That's just one. You can call the creator for the creator cuz he/it created. However, that does not make the creator God, it's simply the creator. To me God is more complicated. But you say that God is awarness, that's changing the meaning all togheter, which is good. But still, the ultimate is nameless, we are just using mind made concepts here. Awarness just IS, why call it God, where does God come from? Awarness is reality, it exists, but it does not say I am God, all of that comes from is, it's created by us. Awarness simply just are. You see? It's obvious that we created God, not the other way around. It's so deep rooted that it's simply difficult to see that it's an invention of the mind.

Created by us means created by God. You are separating yourself from reality