Something rather than Nothing

[Griffin NoName]

*the same one that hides all singularities and bans white holes for that very reason.

Imagine having to spend large amounts of time doing that. Such a tedious job. Worse than running an internet forum.

[Bluenose]

Probably it's the auditors. Fortunately Death is on our side... 

[Aggie]

A divine being cannot be totally bound by this, otherwise it cannot be considered divine. This does not mean it has necessarily to be fully free and not constrained at all but that it has the ability to violate it at least in parts (and in the open).

I don't have any truck with the divine by this definition.

My ideas regarding TGW run more to 'supernatural' as being larger than or beyond the natural.  Trans-natural? I dunno, I'm a panentheist so there's no need for an interventionist God. 'Something' itself is the intervention, and proceeds naturally.  It's nothing like us; while I understand the need for many people to see God as 'a being', it's not something I find helpful.

Conveniently, this approach doesn't expect miracles nor any other non-natural phenomenon, and as Swato points out, is an unprovable hypothesis by definition if one insists on sticking to objective assessment.

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

I think that mostly we have a problem with our own internal definitions but not so much on our views, I don't like the 'god' moniker and it would seem that to you it's easier to use it as a focal point (trying to commune with the universe in it's entirety sounds drastically harder than to commune with the channel itself, if you allow me the simile, like loving your ISP for the ability to reach the Internet as opposed to loving the Internet directly ).

[Aggie]

I rather dislike my ISP...

I'm not sure if I actually do use the 'god' term as a focal point on a regular basis. I do heartily enjoy using it in discussions to provoke cognitive dissonance in others who have a firm image or set of associations tied to that word; depending on the situation and audience it can draw in those who have positive associations with it or induce those with negative associations to try to pounce on it.

I suppose it depends on which function I need the concept to serve for me at a particular moment. Roughly speaking, I think I lean towards The Great Whatever (completely apersonal 'nothing' from which something emanates) when I meditate and contemplate being and the universe at large on a philosophical basis. On the other hand, I do sometimes work with a more personal and personlike God concept to appeal to when I feel like I've strayed from my path and need to ask for guidance. I look for this guidance from within and without simultaneously as it's the same thing to me.

Maybe the best description I can come up with is that there is a focal continuum from me-the-human-individual to TGW (to use an optical analogy). Most of the time, we are focusing close-up on ourselves, so even if we are aware of TGW in the background, it's out of focus and doesn't seem present. Sometimes, our focus shifts and we seem less in focus compared to the world around us (this can be in completely secular context such as seeing a spectacular sunrise, being in a crowd at a concert, etc.). At the most extreme levels of deep-focus, such as the transcendent states that experienced meditators can reach, the 'me' is so out of focus that it essentially disappears. However, at mid-points on the continuum and/or with an expanded depth of field, I feel that there can be overlap points between 'me' and TGW that serve to provide the illusion of a personal God, or at least a point where 'me' connects to TGW in a meaningful way.

Of course, these are just mental modules that I play around with developing.  It helps me feel connected to the universe at large, with otherwise can seem rather unfathomable. 

---------

On a related note, I'm of the opinion that the popularity and success of Christianity is largely due to the ability to put a human face on God. Jesus as a religious icon is someone that believers can relate to on a human-to-human basis and look at as a brother, friend, companion, mentor or whatever else is most comfortable to them. One may feel a little more hesitant to approach Angry and Vengeful God the Father with one's failings and daily struggles, whereas it may be a little easier to talk about your 'sins' to the man-god who reputedly died to atone for them. I don't really understand the concept of sin, so Jesus (and Christianity) doesn't really make sense to me in this context.

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

On a related note, I'm of the opinion that the popularity and success of Christianity is largely due to the ability to put a human face on God. Jesus as a religious icon is someone that believers can relate to on a human-to-human basis and look at as a brother, friend, companion, mentor or whatever else is most comfortable to them. One may feel a little more hesitant to approach Angry and Vengeful God the Father with one's failings and daily struggles, whereas it may be a little easier to talk about your 'sins' to the man-god who reputedly died to atone for them. I don't really understand the concept of sin, so Jesus (and Christianity) doesn't really make sense to me in this context.

That is an interesting argument, the man-god is certainly approachable, and the idea of someone giving his/her life for you would come close to a very good father/mother/friend. Much easier than follow an abstract concept/deity, easier to put words on his mouth, and easier to build a legend around.

I still believe that the key element of Xtianity is the piece on the sermon on the mount where the poor are directly enfranchised (as opposed to the religions available at the time in the region) and which I consider the more insidious element of that religion.