Is God Invisible?

[Chip]

Well, first off I'm not an agnostic and secondly you are stating that God has limits based on your perceptions of the Universe. You aren't in a position to place limits on God and your (bolded) proof of God's limitations is semantically null--it says nothing. You don't know if everything exists everywhere all at once--all you have to go on is your perception, which may not translate into the Ultimate Truth in the Universe.

So to you, then, God is a prankish trickster, presenting us with an experience of reality that he knows we'll get wrong?

That's ludicrous.

The miracle of identity is real, not a perceptual relativism. It presents that no two seemingly identical entities of any kind are the same entity.

The order we experience from the miracle of identity tells us that the chair we're sitting on and the lamp across the room are not the same thing, they are not in the same place, and, obviously, they do not exist everywhere at once ... just as it tells us that you and I are not the same person and that we exist in truly unique and different places.

Were you to poll rational individuals not sufferring from some chronic or momentary oppositional defiant disorder, the subjective agreement would form the summation that we sane people refer to as objectively observed reality.

That's really quite good enough for this discussion.

Extremism is simply not required.

 

[palerider]

The neat thing about relatives ... is that thereby the dearly departed truly does have an afterlife for us to enjoy.

 

[Coyote]

So to you, then, God is a prankish trickster, presenting us with an experience of reality that he knows we'll get wrong?

Why not? Ever wonder why God gave human's a sense of humor...the ability to laugh...hmmmmm???

 

[Coyote]

Did you hear about the dyslexic agnostic who spent years contemplating the existence of dog?

you mean there is no dog?

 

[Coyote]

No, God is God, regardless of how God is perceived.

The perceiver simply does not change reality by perceiving.

Are you sure about that? I watched a science segment on particles/waves - where their behavior (reality) is changed by the act of observation.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Q4_nl0ICao

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

So to you, then, God is a prankish trickster, presenting us with an experience of reality that he knows we'll get wrong?
That's ludicrous.

Expecting people to read and believe the Bible would be a perfect example of God doing just that--if God had indeed been the author of the Bible.

The miracle of identity is real, not a perceptual relativism. It presents that no two seemingly identical entities of any kind are the same entity.

The order we experience from the miracle of identity tells us that the chair we're sitting on and the lamp across the room are not the same thing, they are not in the same place, and, obviously, they do not exist everywhere at once ... just as it tells us that you and I are not the same person and that we exist in truly unique and different places.

Were you to poll rational individuals not sufferring from some chronic or momentary oppositional defiant disorder, the subjective agreement would form the summation that we sane people refer to as objectively observed reality.

That's really quite good enough for this discussion.
Extremism is simply not required.

Your post was not entirely clear, are you saying that all people will have exactly the same experience? With physical reality? With God?


You appear to be speaking on the level of chairs and tables, while I was speaking on the level of people's spiritual experiences with the Creator. Perhaps on the grossest physical level you are correct, but as soon as one begins looking at anything more complex than chairs and tables they will find a plethora of interpretations of identity. This can be aptly demonstrated by the 2500 sects of Christians, all using the same book, worshipping the same God, and starting from the same Holy Man about 2000 years ago. The "miracle of identity" gets a little foggy doesn't it? And that's just one religon on one planet, multiply that by all the inhabited planets and all the other religions, and STILL you would be a long way from the complexity of the Creator of this Universe. Hence my statement stands: YOU are not in any position to announce to the world about the limits or abilities of God.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

you mean there is no dog?

Of course there is, just go to the Untied Dyslexic Church of Dog on any Sunday.

 

[palerider]

Of course there is, just go to the Untied Dyslexic Church of Dog on any Sunday.

Imagine that. palerider does have a sense of humor.

 

[Chip]

Originally Posted by Chip
So to you, then, God is a prankish trickster, presenting us with an experience of reality that he knows we'll get wrong?
That's ludicrous.

Expecting people to read and believe the Bible would be a perfect example of God doing just that--if God had indeed been the author of the Bible.

But God isn't the author of the Bible.

So your example is imperfect based on its premise being false.

And thus your example is irrelevant and doesn't speak either to the topic or to your attempted point.

Originally Posted by Chip
The miracle of identity is real, not a perceptual relativism. It presents that no two seemingly identical entities of any kind are the same entity.

The order we experience from the miracle of identity tells us that the chair we're sitting on and the lamp across the room are not the same thing, they are not in the same place, and, obviously, they do not exist everywhere at once ... just as it tells us that you and I are not the same person and that we exist in truly unique and different places.

Were you to poll rational individuals not sufferring from some chronic or momentary oppositional defiant disorder, the subjective agreement would form the summation that we sane people refer to as objectively observed reality.

That's really quite good enough for this discussion.
Extremism is simply not required.

Your post was not entirely clear, are you saying that all people will have exactly the same experience? With physical reality? With God?

My post was quite clear. You're simply wanting to divert with irrelevancies. I asked a simple question: is God invisible. That, obviously means is God invisible to everyone, just like the ends of the light spectrum are commonly invisible to everyone, just like getting one's head cut off will kill anyone, etc. etc.

It really is a simple question, and with a simple answer and reason.

You appear to be speaking on the level of chairs and tables, while I was speaking on the level of people's spiritual experiences with the Creator. Perhaps on the grossest physical level you are correct, but as soon as one begins looking at anything more complex than chairs and tables they will find a plethora of interpretations of identity. This can be aptly demonstrated by the 2500 sects of Christians, all using the same book, worshipping the same God, and starting from the same Holy Man about 2000 years ago. The "miracle of identity" gets a little foggy doesn't it? And that's just one religon on one planet, multiply that by all the inhabited planets and all the other religions, and STILL you would be a long way from the complexity of the Creator of this Universe. Hence my statement stands: YOU are not in any position to announce to the world about the limits or abilities of God.

There you go again: inappropriately over-complicating.

Try to remember the simple truth that God and religion are not mutually inclusive.

That the various nuances of coping fantastically with the reality of one's mortality have lead to diverse religious sects is not only not surprising ... but it remains topically irrelevant.

All too often, the religious project upon God in an attempt to mentally validate their fantasies.

But in so doing they are no longer talking about God, but about some fantasy being of their own creation.

I, on the other hand, am talking about God when I ask the question if God will ever die, and I'm not talking about some religious fantasy being.

Religion is thus irrelevant to this discussion.

I'm amused by those who revile against the religious for bringing religion into everything ... but then they themselves commit the same act!

Please, stay on topic as presented in the original post, and leave irrelevant religion out of this discussion.

Thank you.

 

[Coyote]

Of course there is, just go to the Untied Dyslexic Church of Dog on any Sunday.

 

[numinus]

God is God.

A definition of God is thusly irrelevant.

But your last guess is a good one.

Panentheistically speaking ... which is the only true speaking of God ... God is not invisible, and is composed of mass and energy -- God material -- just like we are.

It's just that God is so infinitely large, we only have, at best, a radio telescope's view of this tiny piece of God.

Nevertheless, our spiritual nature, that which we are as created from the mass and energy of our living cells so closely inter-relating, is truly invisible, and can only be experienced at the spiritual level ... just like the invisible spirit of God can be likewise experienced.

The next question is, of course: will God ever die.

That's good stuff, except for the argument from contingency.

Mass, energy, and the whole of the common-sense universe are by definition contingent entities. Contingent entities cannot cause themselves.

 

[Coyote]

But God isn't the author of the Bible.

So your example is imperfect based on its premise being false.

And thus your example is irrelevant and doesn't speak either to the topic or to your attempted point.



My post was quite clear. You're simply wanting to divert with irrelevancies. I asked a simple question: is God invisible. That, obviously means is God invisible to everyone, just like the ends of the light spectrum are commonly invisible to everyone, just like getting one's head cut off will kill anyone, etc. etc.

It really is a simple question, and with a simple answer and reason.


There you go again: inappropriately over-complicating.

Try to remember the simple truth that God and religion are not mutually inclusive.

That the various nuances of coping fantastically with the reality of one's mortality have lead to diverse religious sects is not only not surprising ... but it remains topically irrelevant.

All too often, the religious project upon God in an attempt to mentally validate their fantasies.

But in so doing they are no longer talking about God, but about some fantasy being of their own creation.

I, on the other hand, am talking about God when I ask the question if God will ever die, and I'm not talking about some religious fantasy being.

Religion is thus irrelevant to this discussion.

I'm amused by those who revile against the religious for bringing religion into everything ... but then they themselves commit the same act!

Please, stay on topic as presented in the original post, and leave irrelevant religion out of this discussion.

Thank you.

She's not over-complicating anything.

You are "amused by those who revile against the religious for bringing religion into everything".

Religion can exist with out a god but God is defined by religion.

Religion is the language that defines and describes God. Not science. Not mathmatics.

You are asking if God is invisable.

What if "God" does not exist? It renders the whole question into a perfect example of nonsense.

 

[ArmChair General]

That's good stuff, except for the argument from contingency.

Mass, energy, and the whole of the common-sense universe are by definition contingent entities. Contingent entities cannot cause themselves.

If thats true, then what created the creator?

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

But God isn't the author of the Bible.So your example is imperfect based on its premise being false. And thus your example is irrelevant and doesn't speak either to the topic or to your attempted point.

Boy am I glad to hear that! But you'all better watch out because there are a few Bible-beaters out there that HATE it when people say such things. I like it though, so you're okay with me.

My post was quite clear. You're simply wanting to divert with irrelevancies. I asked a simple question: is God invisible. That, obviously means is God invisible to everyone, just like the ends of the light spectrum are commonly invisible to everyone, just like getting one's head cut off will kill anyone, etc. etc.

It really is a simple question, and with a simple answer and reason.

Simple people often want simple answers to complex questions because they can't or don't want to look at the whole issue. We can see examples of this everyday: Christians are good, everybody else is bad, or white people are good and black people are bad, one of my favorites is All LIBERALS are bad, all Conservatives are good.

Your example of the light spectrum was good, but flawed because not all people see the same part of the spectrum and many animals see parts of the spectrum that no human can see. The same applies to the range of human hearing, smell, and touch, there are wide differences in what we are able to perceive, so saying that we all perceive the same thing is obviously not entirely true.

There you go again: inappropriately over-complicating.

There you go trying to oversimplify a question by ignoring complexities that you cannot or do not see.

Try to remember the simple truth that God and religion are not mutually inclusive.

I'm good with that.

That the various nuances of coping fantastically with the reality of one's mortality have lead to diverse religious sects is not only not surprising ... but it remains topically irrelevant.

It isn't irrelevant to the people for whom it is relevant. Maybe YOU aren't one of those people, but what gives you the right to dismiss their relevancies? Do they have the right to dismiss yours?

All too often, the religious project upon God in an attempt to mentally validate their fantasies.

Denying religion can work the same way. How's it working for you? Feeling pretty validated?

But in so doing they are no longer talking about God, but about some fantasy being of their own creation.

Even I wouldn't say something that abusive about your validating fantasies unless you were trying to make me believe them and live my life according to them. What in the world gives you the temerity to dismiss other people's relationships with their Creator? Is this the hubris of youth? Are you really 14?

I, on the other hand, am talking about God when I ask the question if God will ever die, and I'm not talking about some religious fantasy being.

So your fantasy being is a non-religious one? Does that make it any less of a fantasy?

I'm amused by those who revile against the religious for bringing religion into everything ... but then they themselves commit the same act!

You can't "revile" against something, you can "rail" against it though. You can "revile" someone though.

Please, stay on topic as presented in the original post, and leave irrelevant religion out of this discussion.

Sorry, but this is the Religion section, so religion tends to creep in when discussing God. Perhaps next time you start a thread and don't want religion in it you should specifically request NO RELIGION in the OP.

Now that we have some of the definitions out of the way: The answer is NO, God is not invisible, God is the sum and substance of all existence and is everything that we perceive.

 

[Coyote]

If thats true, then what created the creator?

Walt Disney.