What is GOD?

I ask the above question because it is profoundly disturbing to me that the many different people who all claim access to god as a consequence of their experiences consider that they know that they have really determined that they have found the one true god and cannot be wrong.Since their are many POV's concerning the method or lack thereof for arrival at the "truth of god" here I would like to ask instead what god is and why they consider their POV to be correct. It would also be intersting if we could flesh out why they think that other people's god is false.I would like to ask this question also to see why there are so many different versions of god.This would likely be best under faith and belief.

robinrohan The question is "what is GOD?". There are many POV's as you list here concerning the means by which GOD is arrived at for the individual.I am concerned with the actual GOD that is the core of all these POV's.
Since much fuss and violence breaks out worldwide and even locally among indiviiduals within churches or groups of common belief it puzzles me that the MAIN player is not actually specified as other than an immaterial,invisible unknowable entity{This is a contradiction IMO} and yet is somehow accesible to being known though means which seem vague at best.What is GOD?What are the attributes of GOD that convince you that you are so correct in your evaluation of this entity you so title? It would also be enlightening,I think, to understand why other people would be so thouroghly convinced of the validity of their own judgement on GOD even when others are just as convinced of a diametrically opposed POV. I am wanting to know what the cause of ignorance is that lends to so much of society a dispensation towards aggresive tendencies when it comes to GOD.As an atheist it is puzzling to me that so much talk goes into the constant droning on by the masses that GOD is love,GOD is this,GOD is that,etc. etc.. while the human agenda is what actually plays out through the course of individuals lives in their relations to others.I suppose it is the creeping of age and the slow process of aching bones beginning to remind me of my mortality that lends me to this excercise in debate,for I do really concern myself with what my children must attend to as a consequence of the actions of others.Also,I shall instill in them tolerance of and appreciation for differences among people while still giving them a proper sense of when imbalance is arriving on the scene within their interactions with others.I am not sure this makes things much clearer but as the posts accumulate perhaps I can better narrow the inquiry to its proper place.

---

In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move.
Douglas Adams

Phatboy Two-stepping just fine Phatboy.It is not the claim that concerns me me but,rather,the thing claimed.What is GOD? is a question about the deity you worship as a matter of your belief.What is it about your experience that allows you to determine the actuality of god and adhere to it while another person can have a completely opposing view of What is GOD? that contradicts your own.
I,as an atheist,am struck by the prevalence of the number of beliefs that revolve around the points of view individuals take.I talk with the individuals and find them equally sincere in their conviction concerning the "truth" of god yet these cannot all be correct since they are,in some cases mutually exclusive.
Does conviction to even the point of death make an arguement for the validity of a viewpoint? I can hardly think so,unless we are willing to include such notable events as Jonestown and Heaven's Gate.
How do you square your own POV and weigh it against the others to arrive at your conviction as to What is GOD? I am aware of this and news of world events show this daily as a consequence of the 9/11 attack that proved to the masses of North America that being wrong is not an option can drive men to despicable acts.As I indicated with the Jonestown and Heaven's Gate this can hardly be an indicator of the validity of a conviction.I would like to further debate the other points covered in your post but I am pressed for time these days.I shall leave it at that and await your next response.One last thing though,are there any POV's people have that you consider to be incorrect as concerns the OP question What is GOD?

Phatboy No I am cuious as to What is GOD? that entails such directly opposite views depending upon whom you should ask concerning the answer to this question.People from different parts of the world have entirely different views on what constitutes god and they,too,are convinced of the validity of their viewpoint as any that occupy this forum.What is GOD such that this can be the case? I cannot answer this because to do so would involve me putting my take on it and I would have you then respond to this rather than the question at hand What is GOD? This is off the topic. The question is What is GOD? This is not a dealing with the various holy books but rather why the fuss over the different interpretations if the central character really is the same? Funny since I always thought that something knowable was also demonstratable.In other words jesus would be something independent of the individual experience.
I do not see how you can maintain a humble position when you make claim that the people for whom jesus is not a central figure are somehow werong in their thinking.It is probably just as true from their POV that you are daft for believing thus.Regardless the question is still What is GOD? Jesus is not a common denominator in every stance worldwide that still believes there is a god so this is not a problem. Bad experiment.We cannot possibly make the conditions the same for everyone to allow us to see the varibles that follow from the beleif so that would never work.
Whatever Universal truth there is why would it not be common if What is GOD were something real as opposed to something created within the minds of men? If you mean the result of your experiment would show this you assume way too much since the experiment could never be practically implemented. It is easy to make the conclusion on something that cannot be demonstrated in the first place. We have not yet established what truth is have we? Acknowlegement of what sir? [qs]Is our first duty to acknowledge the spirit of truth or is our first duty to accept the spirit of agreement?ConclusionHow does your conclusion follow from your premise? Easy to state since we cannot possibly know the sincerity of such within the skull of another.How do you determine "real faith"? By a willingnes to die for what you believe in? No,the terrorists of 9/11 ate steel,concrete and jet fuel along with the innocent in accordance with their faith so we will not deal that card.How do we tell whether a person is sincere in their profession of such.The short answer is we cannot even to those we think we know.Acknowlegdement of god does not answer the OP question What is GOD? We are constantly dancing around the issue and not bringing clarity to the cental figure in all these debates and it is telling that people are adamant in the adherence to a belief in a God that they cannot even articulate the essence of.For something that is common in concept it is wildly disparate in application. The question What is GOD?,though, necessitates consensus.I mean, if you do not have any real idea of What is GOD? then it seems all to easy to allow for any conjecture to see the light of day as valid arguement.Billy could just as easily believe so adamantly because his livelihood and the people under him who are dependant monetarily upon him depend upon such.Even if he were to lose faith he could feel socially obligated to maintain the game.I am not saying this is the case and in all likelihood is not but within the realm of human agendas it is not entirley unlikely. Let us approach the arguement here. You seriously cannot see the circular arguement here? Jesus is here stating that the testimony from the Father is himself{Jesus} and the fact that you do not hear his{God's} voice nor see his form nor does his word dwell in you is because you do not believe the one he sent {Jesus}In other words Jesus' is saying that God's testimonial is Jesus himself and the way to know this is to believe what Jesus tells you then all will be clear.No conflict here right? This is a circular arguement again Phatboy surely you have better than this? If you believe first ,you convince yourself of the truth, not the truth being obvious in the first place and therefore you believe. C'mon man,engage the gray matter.What is GOD?

---

In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move.
Douglas Adams

robinrohan What do you mean the "feeling" of incorporeality? How can you feel something that by definition cannot be felt?

robinrohanI think I see what you mean.The illusion of a mind seperate from the body is what you are refering to correct? The brain has no nervous feedback system in the same way that the body does and so we assign the activity of the brain as being due to an entity seperate from the body.