How do you conceptualise god?

[OMG12]

Just that really. Atheist, believer or agnostic what do you think of when someone says god? Not a judgement about existence, what concept comes to mind, if you’re a believer (of any faith) how do you conceptualise your god (inc in the plural and feminine)

The one word I should look up in the dictionary is inevitably which I haven't been able to spell up until now.

Well I guess you interpreted it wrong.

Which examples of “biblical truth” are you referring to.

The universe was created by God in seven days.

Noah collected two of every creature in an Ark before a the entire surface of the Earth was flooded because God was angry.

The son of God came to Earth as a man, died and was ressurected.

I interpreted it in a way that was entirely consistent with what you had written, although not what you intended. That suggests to me that your writing is ambiguous and incomplete.

It suggests you don’t understand the context

Well, as I suggested you might want to refer to the symbology of the numbers, interplay with summarian culture and here’s a new one, spiritual symbolism respectively

No, it's OK, thanks.

I'm not really interested in how various generations have tried to talk their way out of the obvious nonsense and blatant contradictions of the Bible.

How about you refer to the idea that someone made it all up?

Well, let’s put forward this hypothesis

The universe has an unseen power beyond the detection of current scientific methods of investigation. The repeated appearance of this concept across time and geography suggests that there is likely to be an element truth in the various iteration of “gods”/“goddesses”

You state
I have no idea if the holographic universe theory is true. I don't have the knowledge of physics to test the theory. However, the scientists who posit it give their good rational reasons why it might be, and ask others to confirm or reject their theory through the scientific process.

So can you confirm or reject this theory through the scientific method.

Obviously, I don’t think this is possible because spirit doesn’t form part of the physical world the scientific method was designed to investigate. However, you seem to think it can answer everything.

Oh I’m quite happy to talk about the connection between divinity and imagination- what do you think of the points put forward by Samuel Taylor Coleridge and Blake. Some fascinating insights there.

The repeated appearance of this concept across time and geography suggests that there is likely to be an element truth in the various iteration of “gods”/“goddesses”

No, that is not a good reason to believe these things are true when there are better explanations that fit more closely to the way we know reality works. It is more likely that any commonality across cultures is due to our common brains, and the way we perceive and interpret the world. There is no doubt that many different societies have invented religion. That doesn't mean it's true, or more likely to be true

You can talk about metaphysical concepts like "spirit" as much as you like which are, conveniently, invisible, intangible, untestable and described in so many different ways as to be indefinable. No, I don't think the scientific method has much to say about "spirit", but then I think it's a load of bollocks, so how could it?

I think they have not read as much neuroscience as I have.

Why does your theory hold any more water than any other? You’re extrapolating and confusing religious practice with the existence of a God.

Although I am blown away by the erudition of your “load of bollocks” conclusion.

Actually it’s very inconvenient that the current lens through which people narrowly view the world doesn’t account for meta physics. Maybe one day the view will be broadened.

And thank god for that!!! The English language would have missed out on some of the greatest works if they thought humanity was limited to a load of electrical impulses in the brain.

Why does your theory hold any more water than any other?

I haven't claimed it holds more water than any other theory. I am claiming it's more likely than your specific assertion.

You asserted that the appearance of religion or the concept of gods across cultures suggests "there is likely to be an element truth in the various iteration of “gods”/“goddesses”.

I am claiming there is more likelihood of a rational explanation that accords with everything we know about the nature of the universe than an irrational explanation that needs to resort to the supernatural. Perhaps you're not willing to accept that as a base assumption. You do you

There are plenty of great works that have been inspired by religion or a notion of god or gods.

Again, this has nothing to do with whether or not those notions are fundamentally true.

This was in response to you saying neither Blake or Coleridge had read as much neuroscience as you.

So basically you don’t know anything for certain. You are hypothesising based on your perspective on the world. Yet people who don’t see the world in the same way as you and draw a different conclusion with regard to an uncertain matter are “thick as mince”. I see!

Maybe lay off the neuroscience books and read a bit of Blake’s mythology I would especially recommend The First Book of Urizen.

Maybe walk around the tree a little and see different perspectives.

Yes. I know. I can follow a thread.

As you can't seem to join the dots, or recognise a joke, let me spell out my thinking for you.

Blake and Coleridge wrote their pieces about divinity, creativity and imagination without the benefit of our modern understanding.

They didn't know about evolutionary biology or the big bang and relativity or neuroscience. They weren't aware of how many of the mysteries of their time which they could only explain by the supernatural have now been explained rationally. So it's no surprise or shame that their poetic and imaginative thoughts were framed by their understanding of religion and god. They literally knew no better.

Today, we do know better. We know much more about the place of humans in the universe. We are beginning to explain how those electrical impulses you think so little of - that create our consciousness - are related to our dreams, our creativity and our humanity.

Their writings are interesting as a snapshot in time of their understanding. They are, of course, woefully ignorant of everything we know now.

Maybe lay off the neuroscience books and read a bit of Blake’s mythology I would especially recommend The First Book of Urizen.

Why would I lay off books that rationally explain the universe? How is it useful to ignore?

Good for you. If they share your distain for what happens in the human brain, they must be huge intellects, I'm sure.

What do you think of people who believe the world is flat, that the main landings were faked, or that planes are deploying chemical trails to influence people’s biology?

If you think that people with those beliefs are not the sharpest tool in the box then that’s similar to others thinking that belief in a supernatural god says the same about you.

If I told you that I disbelieved your claim that there was a seven-headed dragon in your cistern would you try to argue that until I had precisely defined what your claim meant that I should not dismiss it?

Well I think I have already answered the point about people who believe the earth is flat.

With regard to the other two points they are both physical matters so ultimately can be proved or disproved using scientific methodology. Which as discussed up thread isn’t really suitable is ascertaining the presence of God.