What is your take on God?

For theists: Do you believe God is something which is separate or part of creation? If you would answer "both" could you explain that?

For atheists: When you reject God/ say that you do not believe in God, could you specify exactly which notions of God you do not believe in? Would there be a notion of God you could believe in - and what is that notion?

This isn't a debate thread, but more a simple collection of opinions. All viewpoints are welcomed - and for any Muslim visitors, "God" does not exclude "Allah" nor does it exclude "Shiva," Hindus. It's just English.

a reply to: scorpio84

IF there was nothing but God in the beginning of all things, then all things were created from that one...

Thus God is in everything

Sounds good to me

I Like God... He Pays His Bills.
Surely... As Hell Is Real... God Does Pay!
YAY GOD!

originally posted by: Pinocchio
I Like God... He Pays His Bills.
Surely... As Hell Is Real... God Does Pay!
YAY GOD!

That doesn't seem to fit in with the discussion. Kindly either answer the thread and contribute and refrain from trolling.

I hope you don’t mind if I re-post the answer I gave to a similar thread, when someone was asking for our definitions of God.

God is a Creator
God is one who Communicates
God is one who becomes Incarnate

God is a Creator

I see this view as distinct from both Monism and Dualism.

As I understand the difference;
Monism resolves everything to one point of origin.
Dualism resolves everything to two points of origin, distinct and independent.

Creation theory falls short of being genuine Monism, because the created universe is understood as distinct from God.

Creation theory falls short of being genuine Dualism, because the created universe is understood as dependent upon God.

My private theory is that Creation teaching ought to be called "One-and-a-half-ism", but I don't suppose it will catch on.

As far as I can see, this involves the traditional teaching of "ex nihilo" ("out of nothing") Creation.

Because if God is "creating" using pre-existing raw material, then the material is not genuinely dependent upon him- this has become Dualism.

Or if God is producing the material of the universe "out of himself", then the material is not genuinely distinct- this has become Monism.

"Ex nihilo" is the only logical alternative, which is presumably why the teaching was developed in the first place.

God is one who Communicates

This assumption is built into Biblical religion.

In the first place, the Bible is believed to contain examples of communication (as reported, for example, by the prophets).

Furthermore, the Bible is believed to reflect a policy of communication.
It is said that God is using the Bible to "reveal himself", and so Biblical religion used to be described as "revealed religion".

The belief that "God is one who Communicates" links back with the belief that "God is one who Creates".

In the first place, some of the content of the communication points to God as Creator.

The proper Biblical answer to the question "Why do you believe your God made the universe?" is not really "Because that's the only way to account for the universe."
The truly Biblical answer is "Because he says he did, and I believe him."

But I think the very act of communication also points to God as a Creator.

Any act of communication necessarily implies a distinction between the communicator and the other party.
I've already said the Biblical understanding of Creation involves a distinction between God and the universe.

An act of communication implies the existence of a "will" in the communicator, or at least some sort of analogy of one.
But the same could be said, surely, of an act of "Creation".

Finally, a God who creates a universe thereby sets up a relationship between himself and the universe.
The effect of communication is to set up a relationship between himself and individuals (or even a group of individuals) within the same universe.

I assume that a purely monistic deity would not be communicating with, or setting up a relationship with, parts of itself.

My point is that
The idea of the God who Creates
and the idea of the God who Communicates
are very akin to one another.

The kind of God who would Create would also be the kind of God who could Communicate.

God is one who becomes Incarnate

I could hardly, really, leave this out of a definition of the Christian God.

The understanding is that the Incarnation is a more direct presence of God within the created universe.

If this is true, it's the ultimate form of Communication, as the author of Hebrews points out;
"God spoke of old to our fathers by the prophets
but in these last days he has spoken to us by a Son".

But it's also the ultimate form of "establishing a relationship";

Because the doctrine of the Incarnation is that the Creator and his creation, divinity and humanity, are bound together within the person of the Son.
The bond is understood to be irrevocable.
It's impossible for a relationship to get any closer than that.

Anyone who tries to understand the church's teaching about the Incarnation will discover that it's all about finding the right "balance".

On the one hand, the distinction between the divinity and the humanity must not be exaggerated, to the point that the unity disappears.
O the other hand, the unity between them must not be exaggerated, to the point that the distinction disappears.
The correct position is somewhere halfway between the two extremes.

But this is exactly what I said, at the beginning of this piece, about Creation;
That it occupied a halfway position between Monism and Dualism.

So it seems to me that the "balancing act" which Jehovah's Witnesses love to mock, when it comes in the teaching about the Incarnation, is also inherent in the very doctrine of the Creation itself.

The kind of God who would Create is also the kind of God who could become Incarnate.


I began by naming the Christian God as
The one who Creates
The one who Communicates
The one who becomes Incarnate.

I now suggest that these three ideas are akin to one another.
They belong together, naturally.

Whether you can believe them or not, they all belong to the same kind of God.

a reply to: DISRAELI

You have very eloquent answers regardless of whether I agree

That is a Nice one brother

originally posted by: scorpio84
For atheists: When you reject God/ say that you do not believe in God, could you specify exactly which notions of God you do not believe in?

I do not believe in a god because there is nothing that has suggested gods exist. We have observed everything as we know it deriving from natural sources, and we can make accurate predictions using our observations of nature.

Using an unfalsifiable explanation is at its core a pointless explanation. For an infinite number of varying unfalsifiable explanations are just as likely as the original unfalsifiable explanation. Which means that using unfalsifiable explanations gives no context or credit to any notion at all.

originally posted by: scorpio84
Would there be a notion of God you could believe in

Yes, if there was a way to definitively prove that a god created this or that, or currently has a hand in this or that, or is intrinsically a part of this or that, I would change my position on the matter.

originally posted by: scorpio84
- and what is that notion?

We can't know what that would be because have no way of definitively proving anything that is considered supernatural.

The only way we can prove something that is supernatural is if it either wasn't supernatural to begin with, or a supernatural thing would have to occur; such as dying and going up to heaven, or a being coming into the natural realm from a supernatural one, claiming to be a god that was written about, and then somehow proving their magic that was written about is real by replicating it in some way, and proving any predictions in those writings.

a reply to: Ghost147

DO you believe in life beyond death?

If all viewpoints are accepted then I consider myself a pantheist and in that context my take on god is pretty much self-explanatory.

I also believe all spiritual tradition have an esoteric pantheistic mystical teaching and an exoteric interpretation which is tied to the culture and context.

So the only common point of all spiritual traditions is pantheistic mysticism.

a reply to: scorpio84

As an atheist i cannot say i reject god . I just don't believe in him/her . If Jesus or his/her dad finds the time to make another visit i can honestly say i would be first in line to shake his or hers hand .

originally posted by: hutch622
If Jesus or his dad finds the time to make another visit

What if he did on a daily basis?

What if what was wrong all along was your own personal understanding of what or who "god" is?

What if god was one of us? Just a slob like one of us. Just a stranger on the bus.Trying to make his way home.


OK sorry I'm out.

a reply to: gggilll

What if god was one of us? Just a slob like one of us.

Might explain a few things .

originally posted by: hutch622
a reply to: gggilll

What if god was one of us? Just a slob like one of us.

Might explain a few things .

More than you can imagine.

Everyone who truly and personally practice any spiritual tradition understand these words exactly for what they are:

"And the King will say, 'I tell you the truth, when you did it to one of the least of these my brothers and sisters, you were doing it to me!"

It's only the closed minded, the superstitious the child or the gullible who gets stuck at the exoteric interpretation that god is a being (with almost human-like character) who sits on his cloud, being busy creating worlds and punishing people.

The people who are really interested in spiritual texts and practice will very quickly understand that the common conclusion of all these traditions is that everything is divine, you included, and by acting like everything and everyone is divine we make this world a better place than it would remain if we all act based on our ego alone.



I have no sympathy for the countless people who get stuck at materialistic and egoistic interpretations of their religion, but I can understand why they do and respect their choice, like I respect atheists in their choice to think god is a supernatural being with supernatural powers. God is part of this creation since god IS creation. And if you can't see how magical and beautiful this creation is, then yeah there's a chance you miss the fact that you were looking in the eyes of god all this time.

And yes there is pain and suffering in this world; and these things are unfortunately necessary from an evolutionary point of view. The fact that pain exists is in no way an argument that there is no god. I don't see why. God is the universe and the universe is beautiful but also cruel. Just like we can all be sometimes.

If we want less suffering in this world we should all have a look at ourselves instead of always blaming others or even god. That's the real meaning of spiritual traditions: if you want heaven on earth, then accept your part of the divine work and do your damn job!

a reply to: gggilll

YOU should put that in your own thread...

Well said!

a reply to: gggilll

It's only the closed minded, the superstitious the child or the gullible who gets stuck at the exoteric interpretation that god is a being (with almost human-like character) who sits on his cloud, being busy creating worlds and punishing people.

So Jesus want made in gods own image then . Interesting .

originally posted by: hutch622
a reply to: gggilll

It's only the closed minded, the superstitious the child or the gullible who gets stuck at the exoteric interpretation that god is a being (with almost human-like character) who sits on his cloud, being busy creating worlds and punishing people.

So Jesus want made in gods own image then . Interesting .

Could you please rephrase please? I'm afraid I don't get your point.

originally posted by: scorpio84

For atheists: When you reject God/ say that you do not believe in God, could you specify exactly which notions of God you do not believe in? Would there be a notion of God you could believe in - and what is that notion?

I highly doubt any kind of anthropomorphic being as God. Not any Biblical God or anything even close to what is written about or talked about. Basically no "being" or entity as we would normally use those words to describe. About the only thing I believe may be possible is some all encompassing consciousness or energy or something although any characteristics or defining attributes are pointless in trying to assume.

Jesus was a mystic his teachings are very mystical in nature.

He knew he couldn't straight say that the religion of the Jewish priests was getting perverted by ego and materialism (like most religions loosing sight of their mystical origins) without getting in trouble (which happened eventually). And yet it's very clear in all his teachings that Jesus was a pantheist and a mystic.


When Jesus talks about "his father" he is talking about the divine permeating the universe. And unless I'm mistaking, he never said that it was only HIS father; quite the contrary. It's all symbolic of course like all mystical teachings, and yet it's all clear and coherent once you get the key to understand it: god is in everything and everyone, and you can find him within if look inside, but you can also find him all around you.

a reply to: gggilll

Genesis 1:26-27
Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth." God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.

Sorry i got man mixed up with jesus . So if i am the image of god , would he not vaguelly look like me then . So how can he be everywhere , i am not . UNLESS , i am god .

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: Ghost147

DO you believe in life beyond death?

I'd say, from my personal experiences, something seems to occur after some people die. I cannot make any definitive claims, as I have no absolute proof, and personal experience (more importantly, experiences which currently cannot be tested repeatedly) is an invalid source of judgement. It does indeed seem as though some things have something occur to their psyche after death.