What does God look like?

[Jeanne dArc]

The Spirituality, Religion and Beliefs Section was created several years ago to address the issue of uber-scepticism. What I mean by this is that the Spirituality board (there was only one at the time) had basically boiled down to the following:

*thread started*

Question - I'd like information on subject x, or feedback on experience y, or want to hear stories about deity z (or any other topic you care to name)

Answer - first prove to me that God exists, Jesus never existed so the question is irrelevant, you have no proof of God so who cares what the question is at all.

As you can guess, from here regardless of whatever the question originally was the premise of the thread is very quickly supplanted by attempting to discuss the scepticism of whether the "spiritual" even exists at all. In order to allow those who do believe a place to better express their views, this section of the boards was created. It doesn't mean that people can't disagree with the premise of the OP, what it does mean however is that "sceptic vs believer" style debates are discouraged. Thus if someone asks "what does God look like" (as in the case of this thread), there is some latitude for an atheist to answer "God doesn't exist". However, moving from there to demanding that God be proven to exist before the question can be dealt with is not for this section of the board.

Why? Because this then turns into a "sceptic vs believer" style of debate where the question of "what does God look like" becomes secondary to the scepticism of "prove God exists". If you want that type of debate, the Spirituality vs Skepticism section of the board has many such threads on the topic. If you choose to interpret that as calling this the Imagination, Fiction and Scrutiny-Free section that is your choice, but it is what it is.

Fair enough. I will continue to debate those who here claim to have proof, however. Because claiming proof crosses that line, most definitely.

[+Link of Hyrule]

Fair enough. I will continue to debate those who here claim to have proof, however. Because claiming proof crosses that line, most definitely.

You have that right. However, I'm not sure how a thread titled "what does God look like" includes the phrase "I have proof".

Perhaps this is one of those cases where the cliche "you had to be there to understand" resonates. When there was only one spirituality board here things got so bad that the entire Spirituality section was shut down for a few days while the moderators discussed seriously the idea of closing this part of the board down indefinitely. The creation of the Spirituality, Religion and Beliefs section was the alternative to that extreme solution. Knowing how things were then compared to how they are now I'm able to see how bad things can really get. Though naturally some latitude for argument is given in this section simply because of the nature of the beast, questioning the underlying notion of a thread like this ("What does God look like"..... "first you need to prove God exists"....) is really not why this section exists.

[+Hammerclaw]

You have that right. However, I'm not sure how a thread titled "what does God look like" includes the phrase "I have proof".

Perhaps this is one of those cases where the cliche "you had to be there to understand" resonates. When there was only one spirituality board here things got so bad that the entire Spirituality section was shut down for a few days while the moderators discussed seriously the idea of closing this part of the board down indefinitely. The creation of the Spirituality, Religion and Beliefs section was the alternative to that extreme solution. Knowing how things were then compared to how they are now I'm able to see how bad things can really get. Though naturally some latitude for argument is given in this section simply because of the nature of the beast, questioning the underlying notion of a thread like this ("What does God look like"..... "first you need to prove God exists"....) is really not why this section exists.

So, basically, this is a believers thread, and questioning the existence of God in it is off topic and tantamount to trolling?

[Jeanne dArc]

You have that right. However, I'm not sure how a thread titled "what does God look like" includes the phrase "I have proof".

Perhaps this is one of those cases where the cliche "you had to be there to understand" resonates. When there was only one spirituality board here things got so bad that the entire Spirituality section was shut down for a few days while the moderators discussed seriously the idea of closing this part of the board down indefinitely. The creation of the Spirituality, Religion and Beliefs section was the alternative to that extreme solution. Knowing how things were then compared to how they are now I'm able to see how bad things can really get. Though naturally some latitude for argument is given in this section simply because of the nature of the beast, questioning the underlying notion of a thread like this ("What does God look like"..... "first you need to prove God exists"....) is really not why this section exists.

Fair enough, I wasn't here for all that stuff. But as for the thread itself presuming to have proof, that's clearly not the case: there are several people here however how have. So yeah.

[+Link of Hyrule]

So, basically, this is a believers thread, and questioning the existence of God in it is off topic and tantamount to trolling?

Not quite. An atheist is quite within their rights to post here that they don't believe God exists and therefore their answer to the question of the thread is "404 error, link cannot be established". There's nothing wrong with that answer. However, there are several points that come into play that affect the situation. As noted, arguing specifically for "evidence" that god exists before even addressing the question is indeed not what this section of the board is for. But that is not "tantamount to trolling". Trolling is a very specific action by which a person attempts to disrupt a thread for their own amusement (or just to see if they get a rise from other members). The topic of spirituality is far too broad to just sit back and say "any disagreement is trolling", which is why this section of the board is not enforced quite so strictly as other parts of the forum.

Furthermore, to suggest that any contrary disagreement constitutes "trolling" seriously simplifies what this board stands for. In this particular thread, it could be argued that demanding proof for the claim is not in the spirit of the board. However, not all threads are like this. To use a real life example of a thread that began several months ago, a person began by quoting a biblical prophecy and then asking whether that prophecy was fulfilled at x time in history (I can't recall the specifics). The person who began the thread was clearly of the view that the prophecy was fulfilled. So does that mean that anyone who doesn't agree with the thread starter cannot reply? By no means. The question allowed for alternatives. As such, anyone can respond with "yes, the prophecy is fulfilled because of evidence x, y, z....", and equally it can be answered, "no, the prophecy is not fulfilled because a, b, c....". What is NOT a right response in this section of the board is "prophecies are a load of crud, they can't happen, therefore the question is stupid and shouldn't be asked in the first place unless you can prove that prophecies have happened".

As noted, due to the nature of spirituality, the range of opinions is very great and therefore we do take some leeway with disagreements and don't strictly enforce the "rules" like we should if we were being Law Nazi's, but as best we can we do try and limit such activity.

[+Hammerclaw]

Never go to the religious looking for logic, for what you will find, instead, is theologic. Never ask the religious for certainty, for their reply will be Faith. Never ask the religious for proof of God's existence, for their reply will be that Faith is belief in the absence of such knowledge. Never, not even to themselves, will the religious be able to point and say, "Here! Here is God! Nor, there! There is God!" They will, instead, say God is everywhere. They will express the theological certainty of God's existence which science will always dismiss. So, to forever be asking the religious to "prove" God exists is pointless and an exercise in futility. What does God look like? The most wondrous and beautiful sight I have never seen.

[danielost]

Fair enough. I will continue to debate those who here claim to have proof, however. Because claiming proof crosses that line, most definitely.

your not going toget most of us who have proof to say it isn't proof. the old saying of one mans trash is another mans treasure comess to mind. as i have said before you have to be open to it. chrrist ran into this problem when he went home. the people there didn't see him as a prophet because they knew him as a kid.

[danielost]

Never go to the religious looking for logic, for what you will find, instead, is theologic. Never ask the religious for certainty, for their reply will be Faith. Never ask the religious for proof of God's existence, for their reply will be that Faith is belief in the absence of such knowledge. Never, not even to themselves, will the religious be able to point and say, "Here! Here is God! Nor, there! There is God!" They will, instead, say God is everywhere. They will express the theological certainty of God's existence which science will always dismiss. So, to forever be asking the religious to "prove" God exists is pointless and an exercise in futility. What does God look like? The most wondrous and beautiful sight I have never seen.

this is a two way street. those who don't believe will use the exact opposite statements. which is why non-belief is belief.

[Jeanne dArc]

your not going toget most of us who have proof to say it isn't proof. the old saying of one mans trash is another mans treasure comess to mind. as i have said before you have to be open to it. chrrist ran into this problem when he went home. the people there didn't see him as a prophet because they knew him as a kid.

Except that proof isn't subjective. Either it is proof or it is not. There is no in-between. And if people such as myself contest your self-proclaimed "proof", and you are incapable of countering our refutations, then it can be safely said that your so-called "proof" has been firmly disproved. You have done absolutely nothing to counter any of my objections to your claims, you have simply asserted ad nauseam that I'm "not open" to your "proof". As I've said before: I'm perfectly open to new ideas, and I'm perfectly open to you being proved right (unlikely though I think it may be), but that's the thing: you have to prove yourself right, which doesn't exactly work when I'm able to debunk all of your claims with ease.

[Jeanne dArc]

this is a two way street. those who don't believe will use the exact opposite statements. which is why non-belief is belief.

No, by definition, non-belief is just that: non-belief. In other words: not a belief. In fact, exactly the opposite of a belief. Granted, if we're going to be all semantical and use multiple definitions of "belief", then fine, atheism is arguably a "belief", in some sense of the word. But that "belief" is little more than a disbelief in the belief of theism. A semantic argument isn't getting anyone anywhere on this point: why the hell should it matter if atheism were a "belief" anyway? If you're trying to make atheism a "belief" so that you can bring it down to an even playing field with theism, well, that's just not how the game is played: not all "beliefs" are equal.

[J. K.]

Hmmm.....if you can guarantee that there is no God, that would be you have seen into all parts of the universe and into every dimension, and have experienced all of what exists. Wouldn't that make you yourself God? So, apparently you don't exist either.

[+Liquid Gardens]

Hmmm.....if you can guarantee that there is no God, that would be you have seen into all parts of the universe and into every dimension, and have experienced all of what exists. Wouldn't that make you yourself God? So, apparently you don't exist either.

Technically I don't think that would make one God; one or many 'beings', could have the power to do all that but not be all-powerful nor the creator of the universe. Regardless, since there evidently exists a 'you' who is guaranteeing something, the existence of that guarantor has been established, which already puts it a leg up with respect to God and refutes your last sentence.

[J. K.]

Technically I don't think that would make one God; one or many 'beings', could have the power to do all that but not be all-powerful nor the creator of the universe. Regardless, since there evidently exists a 'you' who is guaranteeing something, the existence of that guarantor has been established, which already puts it a leg up with respect to God and refutes your last sentence.

You took that last statement seriously?

I'm just pointing out that no human knows everything there is to know about the universe. I maintain that God is a form of energy which science cannot yet detect. As for Jeanne's comment, Christians do have evidence of God's existence, but it is the form of subjective experience which science cannot corroborate.

[Alan McDougall]

If you are a Christian, you must have a very different interpretation of 'judge not' than I do, let alone, 'shake the dust off your feet'. You've nailed the part about knowing you 'by your fruits' however....

Jesus said, "Do not throw your pearls to the swine" He meant "do not waste your time on those that mock the truth? And that is exactly what Jeanne has been doing over and over and over and over and over again.

God is TRUTH so who is she mocking, if I were her I would be very careful about what a say about God?

[Alan McDougall]

your not going toget most of us who have proof to say it isn't proof. the old saying of one mans trash is another mans treasure comess to mind. as i have said before you have to be open to it. chrrist ran into this problem when he went home. the people there didn't see him as a prophet because they knew him as a kid.

Hi Daniel,

I want to ask your forgiveness in mocking you idea and the Mormon concept of God. For all I know God might be an exalted man as the Mormons believe, and little me could be completely wrong?

I had absolutely no right to say what I said to you, and if you forgive me, I will retract all my very negative posts about Mormons and what they believe?

I have both known many Mormons and attended the Temple, read the Book of Mormon and did not come across even one Mormon who was not a moral nice person, that I would be proud to associate with!

God Bless Alan!

[+Liquid Gardens]

You took that last statement seriously?

I don't know how 'seriously' I took it, but I thought it was the point of your post. I may have been confused though as you didn't quote who you were replying to, I don't know if anyone said they 'guaranteed' anything, so wasn't sure if you were just throwing something new out or were actually replying to someone.

I'm just pointing out that no human knows everything there is to know about the universe.

Agreed. Did someone say something that requires knowing everything there is to know about the universe? I haven't read every post and may well have missed it if so.

I maintain that God is a form of energy which science cannot yet detect. As for Jeanne's comment, Christians do have evidence of God's existence, but it is the form of subjective experience which science cannot corroborate.

I think it's been pointed out already in this thread that for some uses of the word, what you are describing is not what some consider 'evidence'. If you consider 'subjective experience' to be 'evidence' that is somehow meaningful, then I don't think we should pick and choose which subjective experience is meaningful and relevant, and I don't know how we propose to weed out the subjective experiences that do not actually reflect any objective reality. How do you propose we should approach subjective experience? "X" is a form of 'something' that science cannot detect 'works' for psychic powers, alien abductions, voodoo, chi, ghosts/demons, along with all (some contradictory) conceptions of god(s), so I'm not sure what that comment accomplishes.

(Dang it, you bring up interesting points J.K., but I fear that my response there is getting into the 'skeptic vs believer' type debates that I'm not supposed to engage in on this forum; don't feel obligated to respond if you think we're breaking those rules).

[J. K.]

I think it's been pointed out already in this thread that for some uses of the word, what you are describing is not what some consider 'evidence'. If you consider 'subjective experience' to be 'evidence' that is somehow meaningful, then I don't think we should pick and choose which subjective experience is meaningful and relevant, and I don't know how we propose to weed out the subjective experiences that do not actually reflect any objective reality. How do you propose we should approach subjective experience? "X" is a form of 'something' that science cannot detect 'works' for psychic powers, alien abductions, voodoo, chi, ghosts/demons, along with all (some contradictory) conceptions of god(s), so I'm not sure what that comment accomplishes.

(Dang it, you bring up interesting points J.K., but I fear that my response there is getting into the 'skeptic vs believer' type debates that I'm not supposed to engage in on this forum; don't feel obligated to respond if you think we're breaking those rules).

You're probably right that we are off-topic. I did want to say this while it was still on my mind. I've tried to say it before, but it never comes out right. In order to test for something, you have to assume that it exists and can be tested for. For Christians, the interaction that we have with God is real. Yes, we might be having a brain spasm or maybe we're communicating with the reptilian overlords. The experience itself is real, so there must be something we could hypothesize about its cause. When we "feel" the Holy Spirit, is there something occurring that can be measured biologically? What about when groups experience the feeling simultaneously? Is someone releasing "worship pheremones"? Boil it down to: the experience is real, so what is its cause?

What does God look like? According to Revelation 22, He sits on a throne, so he must appear as a bipedal being or something similar; He also has a face; and He emits light.

[Jack_of_Blades]

Jesus said, "Do not throw your pearls to the swine" He meant "do not waste your time on those that mock the truth? And that is exactly what Jeanne has been doing over and over and over and over and over again.

God is TRUTH so who is she mocking, if I were her I would be very careful about what a say about God?

No one is mocking anyone. And you are perfectly allowed to say "God is truth" and capitalize as many words as you wish.

But the fact remains that "truth" tends to have some evidence connected to it. If the "truth" of the universe is that it has a god (or

several) we as a species can not currently prove it.

Be careful? They (she?) doesn't believe in a god. There is no need to be afraid of what you believe to be imaginary.

I'm just pointing out that no human knows everything there is to know about the universe. I maintain that God is a form of energy which science cannot yet detect. As for Jeanne's comment, Christians do have evidence of God's existence, but it is the form of subjective experience which science cannot corroborate.

The bolded is sort of what I believe. We're just humans. We can't prove that a deity exists any more than we can disprove it. As an insignificant mote

of dust on the cosmic chessboard it strikes me as very odd to think that mildly intelligent creatures on a back-water planet not only knows the "truth"

but what a creator wants.

What does God look like? According to Revelation 22, He sits on a throne, so he must appear as a bipedal being or something similar; He also has a face; and He emits light.

A throne is defined as a ceremonial chair. So it could have any amount of legs, arms, whatever. Would any one know what original word was used that was translated

into "throne"? Perhaps it could provide a better insight.

[J. K.]

The bolded is sort of what I believe. We're just humans. We can't prove that a deity exists any more than we can disprove it. As an insignificant mote

of dust on the cosmic chessboard it strikes me as very odd to think that mildly intelligent creatures on a back-water planet not only knows the "truth"

but what a creator wants.

We know what He wants because He gave us His Word to tell us. You don't have to believe the Bible is true in order to count it as source material for Christianity. If I'm going to discuss Islam, then I will accept the Quran as a source document for that religion.

[Jack_of_Blades]

We know what He wants because He gave us His Word to tell us. You don't have to believe the Bible is true in order to count it as source material for Christianity. If I'm going to discuss Islam, then I will accept the Quran as a source document for that religion.

Which is completely fair with your perspective. I'm not arguing against what anyone believes. I'm only saying scientifically.

[Ben Masada]

I think the title of the thread was "What does God look like", not "I don't believe in God so I'm going to keep demanding evidence".

I still like my idea that God looks like Gravity.

Why keep on demanding food when you are not ready to eat? I have the evidences for the existence of the Primal Cause and I have given them here more than several times and atheists are not ready to feed themselves on them because of their preconceived notions implanted in their own nature. The universe for instance could not have caused itself to exist. Since it exists, it must have been caused to. Obviously it was caused by something else from outside of it. What could it have been if not some thing of the "size" of the Primal Cause?

[Jeanne dArc]

Hmmm.....if you can guarantee that there is no God, that would be you have seen into all parts of the universe and into every dimension, and have experienced all of what exists. Wouldn't that make you yourself God? So, apparently you don't exist either.

I have never guaranteed that a god doesn't exist. There is simply no reason at all to believe that one does.

[Jeanne dArc]

As for Jeanne's comment, Christians do have evidence of God's existence, but it is the form of subjective experience which science cannot corroborate.

Subjective evidence, again, is dangerous. Christians may have subjective reasons to believe in God, but evidence is a more objective matter.

[Jeanne dArc]

Jesus said, "Do not throw your pearls to the swine" He meant "do not waste your time on those that mock the truth? And that is exactly what Jeanne has been doing over and over and over and over and over again.

God is TRUTH so who is she mocking, if I were her I would be very careful about what a say about God?

Truth is truth. I don't think you have any clue what truth is. And of course I'm not you, so of course I don't give a damn about mocking fictional things

[Jeanne dArc]

Hi Daniel,

I want to ask your forgiveness in mocking you idea and the Mormon concept of God. For all I know God might be an exalted man as the Mormons believe, and little me could be completely wrong?

I had absolutely no right to say what I said to you, and if you forgive me, I will retract all my very negative posts about Mormons and what they believe?

I have both known many Mormons and attended the Temple, read the Book of Mormon and did not come across even one Mormon who was not a moral nice person, that I would be proud to associate with!

God Bless Alan!

Aww, very nice gesture of you, Alan So you do admit that you could be wrong? Hmm..... Step in the right direction.