How is God defined?

  • Thread starter Thread starter lemondiesel
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
honestquestions said:
The typical atheist response (which I am) is to accept that it is unknown at this time and that is the proper position to hold. If there need not be a creator for God, then why not the same for everything that we have now. We would run into the problem of an infinite regress. Throughout history, there were many things we didn’t understand including many things that we thought would be impossible to comprehend, but as time progresses, history shows that we learn more and more about what once was thought of as the supernatural.
Click to expand...
Here is an honest question, honestquestions: if you are willing to “accept that it is unknown at this time,” wouldn’t that make you an agnostic?
 
=lemondiesel;7678378]I was recently discussing the issue of “Well, who created God…?,” and it actually got my mind stirring.
Click to expand...
People are that say “God is not subject to reason or intellect or anything like that.” How is He is not subject to what defines Him? Isn’t He All Reasonable, All Just, All Powerful. These attributes define his infinite Magnificence, His infinite Glory. Then my stoner friends argue that I have to realize that he created these things, but in actual form is beyond the human level. Look at humans in terms of God attributes and not God in terms of human attributes. It’d be like the bacteria in your intestine looking at it’s Universe (me) in terms of bacterial attributes, when clearly we are completely beyond bacteria and hence incomprehensible to them.
Click to expand...
Well, I certainly can’t argue with that illustration. Bacteria may find us incomprehensible, but some unknowingly effect us with sickness.
Click to expand...
But HOW!!, is God not subject when he is the purest for each attribute.* If God is describable, then there must be something even more miraculous which is not, which creates the Definitions for which God is defined.*
Click to expand...
Or does God define Himself?
Click to expand...
My friend;

God is describable ONLY bcause humanity insist on trying to do so…

**Moses asked God: Exod.3: 6; 14-15 ** "And he said, “I am the God of your father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.” And Moses hid his face, for he was afraid to look at God. ***And God said to Moses, “I AM WHO I AM.” And he said, “Say this to the people of Israel, I AM has sent me to you.'***" God also said to Moses, "Say this to the people of Israel, The LORD, the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you’: this is my name for ever, and thus I am to be remembered throughout all generations.”

"I… AM…" means always was, Is and always shall be: without beginning and without end."

And Yes God is indescrible; incomprehensible and perfect in every good thing.Thus He gave us Jesus so that we MIGHT come to know better.

God Bless,
Pat
 
How?

if you mean ‘define’ as in
finding an edge or marking out limits

how many dimensions can he occupy
can he occupy no dimensions
how fast can he travel
does he have inside/outside
where is the ‘One’ centered at

🤷 can’t find His edges

to say he has no edges,
like a blob or something
doesn’t make sense
He’s probably perfectly defined…somehow

maybe define him by what he is not
he is not physical matter
some sort of exchange particle
he is not time, or entropy…etc

How is God defined?
 
FCCopleston said:
Here is an honest question, honestquestions: if you are willing to “accept that it is unknown at this time,” wouldn’t that make you an agnostic?
Click to expand...
Yes, agnostic atheist. And as I said (maybe in another thread) most Christians are also agnostic.

Almost all atheists do not make an assertion that they believe there is no god; rather, they do not believe in god, in the same respect that we do not believe in a countless other number of things because they haven’t met their burden of proof. That doesn’t mean it’s not possible to have these claims be true - its that it’s unjustifiable.
 
StrawberryJam said:
Is there free will if we have no choice whether or not we come into Being? Is this a gift?
Click to expand...
Hi, Strawberry Jam,

Yes, there is free will when we have no choice about coming into being. Because, not only when we come of age do we have freedom of choice, but also we have a natural freedom of choice (which is how I recognize free will) as toddlers. There is always the choice to obey or disobey the authority in our lives.

Now, if a non-extant person were to disobey the impetus to come into being…there would be no proof of free will for before we come into being. Right?

God loves you,
Don
 
StrawberryJam: Yes.Free will is a gift from God. Free will doesnt mean we have divine will.Since God created you and youu didnt create yourself it was God’s to God’s good favorthat you be created.Of course its a gift.Don’t you enjoy the fact that you can decide to go fishing or stay at home?But the greatest figt of free will is the ability to choose to love Him and live for all eternity in Heaven.
 
honestquestions said:
Yes, agnostic atheist. And as I said (maybe in another thread) most Christians are also agnostic.

Almost all atheists do not make an assertion that they believe there is no god; rather, they do not believe in god, in the same respect that we do not believe in a countless other number of things because they haven’t met their burden of proof. That doesn’t mean it’s not possible to have these claims be true - its that it’s unjustifiable.
Click to expand...
It is not rationally justifiable to believe in God???

Okay. Is it possible that God (i.e., the Greatest Conceivable Being) exists in some possible world?

In Christ,
FCCopleston
 
StrawberryJam said:
You did not answer the part about free will, could you explain that part.
Click to expand...
Well, before you exist, you cannot assent to the state of existence. You must first exist. Free will is a component of existence. However, the ability to use it develops as do mind and body.

I have heard a member allege on CAF that he was brought into existence without his permission. Makes one wonder just how a person can consent (or refuse) before they exist. :confused:
 
po18guy said:
Well, before you exist, you cannot assent to the state of existence. You must first exist. Free will is a component of existence. However, the ability to use it develops as do mind and body.

I have heard a member allege on CAF that he was brought into existence without his permission. Makes one wonder just how a person can consent (or refuse) before they exist. :confused:
Click to expand...
Precisely.

The proposition: “a non-existent being can be forced against its non-existent will,” is not true. In fact, it is not even false! Rather, it is a purely meaningless statement, committing a category mistake of comparing what is and what is not (the difference between something and nothing is incommensurable).
 
FCCopleston said:
Precisely.

The proposition: “a non-existent being can be forced against its non-existent will,” is not true. In fact, it is not even false! Rather, it is a purely meaningless statement, committing a category mistake of comparing what is and what is not (the difference between something and nothing is incommensurable).
Click to expand...
That is not the poposition, but your own.

I’ll correct it for you. A not probable being is claimed to force a life into existance that had no free will to decide on the matter.
We have a name for those who do this in our society today.
 
There’s a long tradition in Catholic philosophy that, though we can understand God in some sense, we can never fully comprehend Him. This is known in Thomistic philosophy as analogy. According to this idea, terms can be used in three ways: univocally, analogically, and equivocally. When terms are used equivocally they mean entirely different things; for instance, the word “bank” when I say “I got some cash from the bank” and “I stood by the river bank.” Terms used univocally mean the exact same thing, like the terms “buddy” and “friend”. Finally, when terms are used analogically they mean somewhat similar things, like when I say “that food is healthy” and “my body is healthy”.

According to Thomism, when we say that God is loving, there is something like our love which is in God. When we say that God has knowledge we are saying God has something like our knowledge. This seems to follow if we are made in the image of God. But in other words, God has these things only analogically, not in the exact same way. Hence, we cannot completely comprehend God.

Of course, this isn’t the only way to understand things. Scotists, followers of Blessed John Duns Scotus, do not believe in the idea of analogy. I’m not sure what to think myself, but maybe that’s somewhat helpful.
 
StrawberryJam said:
That is not the poposition, but your own.

I’ll correct it for you. A not probable being is claimed to force a life into existance that had no free will to decide on the matter.
We have a name for those who do this in our society today.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the correction…

Your rephrasing of the proposition seems to have a very low view of what it is to live and be given life; and it doesn’t seem to avoid the difficulty of the previous proposition either, namely, that it is somehow “immoral” of God to bring into existence what has not freely willed to exist. As said already by myself and others, it sort of goes without saying that what does not exist cannot freely will to exist or freely will not to exist since what does not exist cannot will at all.
 
FCCopleston said:
Thanks for the correction…

Your rephrasing of the proposition seems to have a very low view of what it is to live and be given life; and it doesn’t seem to avoid the difficulty of the previous proposition either, namely, that it is somehow “immoral” of God to bring into existence what has not freely willed to exist. As said already by myself and others, it sort of goes without saying that what does not exist cannot freely will to exist or freely will not to exist since what does not exist cannot will at all.
Click to expand...
We are all forced to be alive and are not allowed to choose if we want life. There is no free will in that especially when the end result can be eternal life.
Not all of us wish for eternal life you know.
 
StrawberryJam said:
We are all forced to be alive and are not allowed to choose if we want life. There is no free will in that especially when the end result can be eternal life.
Not all of us wish for eternal life you know.
Click to expand...
Since we come from opposite poles, so to speak, just imagine if you will, that life actually is a gift. Your free will arrives along with that gift - free will even to take your own life, if you so desire. That is ultimate freedom, but freedom has a price in both time and eternity. You and I are made of the same human DNA, so the difference between us is attitudinal in nature. My attitude is that, even though I have a life which contains suffering, I embrace that suffering as it is a form of purification which is promised to lead to an endless life of true joy.

I would hope that those who do not see joy or happiness in this life would reflect on why those who seek the next life are so content - even in their suffering.
 
StrawberryJam said:
We are all forced to be alive and are not allowed to choose if we want life. There is no free will in that especially when the end result can be eternal life.
Not all of us wish for eternal life you know.
Click to expand...
You are talking in circles…

The objection that we “are not allowed to choose if we want life” is meaningless since it is:
**1. **Comparing being with non-being (which is an incommensurable comparison, committing a most fundamental category mistake) and,
**2. **Attributing a “forced will” to non-being, when there is no will to be “forced”

In Christ,
FCCopleston
 
Greetings all,

For the religious person, God is the object of his worship. The logic of worship requires that the object of worship be unsurpassed by any other. If I discover or am able to conceive of another being which is greater than the one I worship, then–in order to be rational–I must make the greater being the object of my worship.

Therefore I, along with St. Anselm, define God as the greatest conceivable being (that than which none greater can be thought).

Biff
 
Biff_Hooper said:
Greetings all,

For the religious person, God is the object of his worship. The logic of worship requires that the object of worship be unsurpassed by any other. If I discover or am able to conceive of another being which is greater than the one I worship, then–in order to be rational–I must make the greater being the object of my worship.

Therefore I, along with St. Anselm, define God as the greatest conceivable being (that than which none greater can be thought).

Biff
Click to expand...
Thanks, Biff,

I go along with St. Anselm and your definition of God.

God loves you,
Don
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top