Muslim provoked thoughts on God, gods - God is not a deity?

[Abu]

God is misunderstood in Islam as the failure to understand His natural law shows…

Orthodox Islamic scholars absolutely rejected any conception of the universe that involved consistent physical laws, because the absolute autonomy of Allah could not be restricted by natural laws. Apparent natural laws were nothing more than mere habits, so to speak, of Allah, and might be discontinued at any time. (How The Catholic Church Built Western Civilization, Dr Thomas E Woods, Regnery, 2005, p 79)

 

[RobbyS]

I think most if not all pantheons have a creator deity.

Admittedly maybe I have the wrong idea of what personal god means. I take Personal God to mean a god who takes an interest in human affairs (interacts with humans), and who has some similarities with humans, such as intelligence and love.

This as opposed to someone who thinks God=nature or is a lifeforce, that sort of thing. Technically if God=nature, God interacts with us, but not in a personal way.

Do you disagree with my description of what is meant by Personal God? Does the God you believe in fit that description?

Can God be personal without being anthromorphic? I have trouble accepting that if that’s what you are saying and would welcome further explanation.

Interesting admission.

I have a side question. This may be nonsensical. If/when humans were not around, would God have the same characteristics? I know God is unchanging but consider this: was God personal before people existed?

Feel free to ignore that last question but I do look forward to continued discussion with you on the nature of God bc I find your responses somewhat unique and interesting.

I think you are are wrong about pantheons having a creator God. Neither Greek nor Mesopotamian mythology posits a “creator,” who by an act of will bring the universe into being. Most others have been affected by contact with Christian and Islam over the past thousand years. Buddhism, as we know it in the West, is quite different from what it once was, because of syncratism. American indians used the term a lot, but I doubt that this was part of the original “creation” story. Even the term “Creator” implies a “person."

 

[samiam1611]

I think you are are wrong about pantheons having a creator God. Neither Greek nor Mesopotamian mythology posits a “creator,” who by an act of will bring the universe into being.

Well I’m no expert so maybe “most if not all” was incorrect, I just know there are plenty of creation mythologies out there with their creator deities.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Creator_gods

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Creator_goddesses

Wasn’t Gaia the creator deity for the Greeks? I’m not saying their creation mythology was very similar to the Abrahamic religions’ mythology, just saying a deity responsible for creation is not unique to the Abrahamic religions which is what you seemed to be saying before.

Most others have been affected by contact with Christian and Islam over the past thousand years. Buddhism, as we know it in the West, is quite different from what it once was, because of syncratism. American indians used the term a lot, but I doubt that this was part of the original “creation” story.

Native Americans had creator deities. Spider Grandmother for example.

Even the term “Creator” implies a “person."

Indeed.

 

[samiam1611]

We know what to believe because G-d has revealed Himself to the whole nation of Israel at Mount Sinai by means of giving us his eternal Law (Torah) through Moses, His greatest prophet, and we believe those first five books of the Hebrew Bible were divinely inspired. By means of G-d’s Word, we know what He expects of us and have an idea of His nature.

In that case, God is in the same vein as the gods of polytheistic pantheons. A supernatural being. A bit more anthromorphic than how my bf conceives of God.

Frankly… if there is no God, no objective morality or objective meaning to life then who are you to say that his religious devotion is pointless? Can you really say that it is any more pointless or frivolous than the things that you do with your free time?

Here is an example:
Usually he does not eat pork. We made a quiche one time and I wanted to put bacon in it but we put turkey bacon in it instead. Then one time we were at a restaurant and he ordered a salad which had bacon bits on it. He ate it. At that same meal I had a grilled ham and cheese and bacon sandwich and asked him if he wanted a bite. I half-jokingly said, “c’mon, Allah doesn’t care what you eat.” So he had a bite, and when I was too full to finish it, he finished it off.
It is pointless to deprive yourself of delicious bacon sometimes but not all the time.

I think you are are wrong about pantheons having a creator God. Neither Greek nor Mesopotamian mythology posits a “creator,” who by an act of will bring the universe into being.

Well I’m no expert so maybe “most if not all” was incorrect, I just know there are plenty of creation mythologies out there with their creator deities.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Creator_gods

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Creator_goddesses

Wasn’t Gaia the creator deity for the Greeks? I’m not saying their creation mythology was very similar to the Abrahamic religions’ mythology, just saying a deity responsible for creation is not unique to the Abrahamic religions which is what you seemed to be saying before.

Most others have been affected by contact with Christian and Islam over the past thousand years. Buddhism, as we know it in the West, is quite different from what it once was, because of syncratism. American indians used the term a lot, but I doubt that this was part of the original “creation” story.

Native Americans had creator deities. Spider Grandmother for example.

Even the term “Creator” implies a “person."

Indeed.
!!!

I think we’re on the same page about what being a personal god means. Being a Christian, I hold that God is in fact so personal that we can even say that He is a person (or, to disagree even more so with our Jewish and Muslim friends, three persons who eternally love and beget and are begotten of one another) as long as we understand that by saying this we do not mean that He is a person in the same way we are. He is a divine person, that is, He is the very meaning of personhood. We are only persons by virtue of being like Him.

In a certain sense of using these words, yes. We can say that God is personal (meaning that we can relate to Him as a person), but we cannot say that being personal (anthropomorphic, i.e. like a person) is what God is. That would be getting it backwards. As humans we are defined as persons because we are created in the image of God, who is a person. Our personhood is contingent. God’s personhood is intrinsic.

I had to reread this a few times but I think I get it. The bolded sentence in particular provided some clarity.

 

[samiam1611]

We know what to believe because G-d has revealed Himself to the whole nation of Israel at Mount Sinai by means of giving us his eternal Law (Torah) through Moses, His greatest prophet, and we believe those first five books of the Hebrew Bible were divinely inspired. By means of G-d’s Word, we know what He expects of us and have an idea of His nature.

In that case, God is in the same vein as the gods of polytheistic pantheons. A supernatural being. A bit more anthromorphic than how my bf conceives of God.

Frankly… if there is no God, no objective morality or objective meaning to life then who are you to say that his religious devotion is pointless? Can you really say that it is any more pointless or frivolous than the things that you do with your free time?

Here is an example:
Usually he does not eat pork. We made a quiche one time and I wanted to put bacon in it but we put turkey bacon in it instead. Then one time we were at a restaurant and he ordered a salad which had bacon bits on it. He ate it. At that same meal I had a grilled ham and cheese and bacon sandwich and asked him if he wanted a bite. I half-jokingly said, “c’mon, Allah doesn’t care what you eat.” So he had a bite, and when I was too full to finish it, he finished it off.
If Islam is true, he’s already in trouble. If Islam is not true, it is pointless that he deprives himself of delicious bacon bc his reason is imaginary.

I think you are wrong about pantheons having a creator God. Neither Greek nor Mesopotamian mythology posits a “creator,” who by an act of will bring the universe into being.

Well I’m no expert so maybe “most if not all” was incorrect, I just know there are plenty of creation mythologies out there with their creator deities.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Creator_gods

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Creator_goddesses

Wasn’t Gaia the creator deity for the Greeks? I’m not saying their creation mythology was very similar to the Abrahamic religions’ mythology, just saying a deity responsible for creation is not unique to the Abrahamic religions which is what you seemed to be saying before.

Most others have been affected by contact with Christian and Islam over the past thousand years. Buddhism, as we know it in the West, is quite different from what it once was, because of syncratism. American indians used the term a lot, but I doubt that this was part of the original “creation” story.

Native Americans had creator deities. Spider Grandmother for example.

Even the term “Creator” implies a “person."

Indeed.
!!!

I think we’re on the same page about what being a personal god means. Being a Christian, I hold that God is in fact so personal that we can even say that He is a person (or, to disagree even more so with our Jewish and Muslim friends, three persons who eternally love and beget and are begotten of one another) as long as we understand that by saying this we do not mean that He is a person in the same way we are. He is a divine person, that is, He is the very meaning of personhood. We are only persons by virtue of being like Him.

In a certain sense of using these words, yes. We can say that God is personal (meaning that we can relate to Him as a person), but we cannot say that being personal (anthropomorphic, i.e. like a person) is what God is. That would be getting it backwards. As humans we are defined as persons because we are created in the image of God, who is a person. Our personhood is contingent. God’s personhood is intrinsic.

I had to reread this a few times but I think I get it. The bolded sentence in particular provided some clarity.

 

[Aloysium]

My boyfriend is nominally Muslim. His occasional, inconsistent practice of his religion amuses me and ignited this teeny tiny desire to make him see how pointless it is to do it at all bc God does not exist (IMO). or at least not the god he believes in . . .

if you are getting serious with your boyfriend, religion is going to be important
it sounds like you are trying to build a common ground with your boyfriend and share the same beliefs

just a heads up on a few points:

• looking to the future, whether you believe it or not, marriage is a sanctified union and the love that you have for each other has to be met with at least an equal part to what transcends the two of you; without that, even if its just a rule that people should not break promises; the marriage will fail. When you will naturally start evoking bad feelings in each other, there could be no reason to continue and you will not really know what love is: self-sacrifice, patience, consideration, etc.
• you may think you are trying to get him to think rationally, but from the other side of the relationship the situation may be totally different. It is likely that he is being given a choice as to whether to follow Eros or God. This is not a happy set of circumstances for either of you. You may think that it is a good thing that you have turned him around, but the outcome will be a mutual using of each other until it ends in suffering (from which there could be growth) if the relationship is not sanctified from his end -you need to be joined under God.
• I don’t think it has to be said but get this sorted out before you have kids

i don’t have a crystal ball, but as i said “heads up” something could hit you really hard here; or not.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

I came across a thread on here the other day that had the most ridiculous OP. I read it to him but he did not share my opinion that it was ridiculous. It said something along the lines of God’s existence being obvious; self-evident. What I said to him was, which god? What are this god’s attributes? It is laughable to suggest “God” is obvious bc you haven’t said anything substantial on what God is. What is the meaning of the word God?

That’s the position of ignosticism.

According to my bf, I misunderstand what God is. I said you believe God is a deity, right? (As opposed to like pantheism) He stopped me right there and said God is not like a deity like how I am probably thinking of it. He said, isn’t a deity like what the ancient Greeks believed in? [Note, English is not his first language.] I said yep, and they belived in numerous gods, aka deities. You believe in one god, aka one deity…]He objected to this, saying his God is not a deity in the same sense that the gods of mythology/polytheism are.

I received a similar statement here in the forums the other week. (here)

I think that what most people think of when they think of a “deity” is some ethereal humanoid that lives in the sky and shoots lightning at people . All humor aside, that’s not what most theist philosophers or theologians mean by God, at least if I’m understanding them correctly. Fr. Barron said something in his Catholicism series along the lines of “if you think that you have an understanding of God, run from that because that’s not God.” If God really is infinite, then we can’t classify Him under terms like “deity” and even “God”, even though we humans like to try to understand things and categorize them.

 

[Semangelof]

He said bc the earth, the universe, could not have created itself, it must be have been created by someone outside the universe. (Hmmm where have I heard that before? )
I responded that it doesn’t seem possible - it is quite a stretch, hence, not obvious - that something immaterial could create the universe (made of matter).
I said is it obvious God is good? Intelligent? Personal? :nope:

Here are two premises that I will take from Dr Craigs site. The first premise is one of many purporting the existence of God. The second premise will show that, under the first premise this God must be either a good or evil God. Whether good or evil it requires that God be a personal God to fulfill those attributes. I have not yet got into the logical premises that show God to be good so I will stop there.

First premise.

 1)Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause.

2)If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God.

3)The universe exists.

4)Therefore, the universe has an explanation of its existence (from 1, 3).

5)Therefore, the explanation of the universe’s existence is God (from 2, 4).

Read more: reasonablefaith.org/the-new-atheism-and-five-arguments-for-god#ixzz2VGV29fpb

Now here is why God must be either a Good God or an evil one. It comes from the Euthyphro Dilema

It basically goes like this: Is something good because God wills it? Or does God will something because it is good? If you say that something is good because God wills it, then what is good becomes arbitrary. God could have willed that hatred is good, and then we would have been morally obligated to hate one another. That seems crazy. Some moral values, at least, seem to be necessary. But if you say that God wills something because it is good, then what is good or bad is independent of God. In that case, moral values and duties exist independently of God, which contradicts premise 1.

…there’s a third alternative: namely, God wills something because he is good. God’s own nature is the standard of goodness, and his commandments to us are expressions of his nature. In short, our moral duties are determined by the commands of a just and loving God.

Read more: reasonablefaith.org/the-new-atheism-and-five-arguments-for-god#ixzz2VGW573bZ

So you see here if God does exist his nature must be good or evil or suffer the Euthyphro Dilemma paradox. A good God would immediately desire a personal relationship to enact good, just as an evil one would immediately desire a personal relationship to inflict evil.

Also since we are talking about objective moral values and duties I will mention that no such thing could exist outside of a God. Without a God only subjective moral values and duties could exist. Consequently If objective moral values and duties do exist then God also must exist. Put simply without a God all moral values and duties are subjective, meaning that the most terrible thing you can imagine cannot objectively be bad or wrong.

 

[Semangelof]

I’m not ready to finalize the following steps but I didn’t feel good leaving the nature of the above proofs in an undeclared state.

I think the Euthyphro Dilemma has the potential to expand this premise but I’m still working on it. I wanted to go ahead and show that God is good rather than wait till I get it all down because His nature is immediately and eternally important. So here goes.

1. If objective moral values and duties exist then God exists
2. Objective moral values do exist
3. Therefore God exists
4. If moral values and duties exist because God declares them, then moral values and duties are not concrete. (if God>Morals then Morals = undefined, irrelevant in an objective sense)
5. If God wills something because it is good then morals values and duties are greater than God (If Morals>God then God = undefined (…not God))
   6)Therefore God can only be in nature of Goodness. (God is = to moral values and duties) God is in a state of being Good, and the very nature of His being makes objective moral values exist.
6. Goodness requires a personal involvement.
   8)Therefore and good and personal God exists.

 

[UntimelyBourn]

From what I can tell the above seems like a very well reasoned argument that I can agree with. The one part I don’t quite grasp is this:

A good God would immediately desire a personal relationship to enact good…

and this

7.Goodness requires a personal involvement.

Can you explain why is this so? Why is it that a personal relationship is necessary for goodness to exist?

 

[Semangelof]

From what I can tell the above seems like a very well reasoned argument that I can agree with. The one part I don’t quite grasp is this:

and this

Can you explain why is this so? Why is it that a personal relationship is necessary for goodness to exist?

Thank you, i’m brand new to this type of thing so your compliment means a lot.

I’ve already looked back on it and seen my own typos. I still need to make it smoother, it’s still got some rough edges. I need to smooth them down so that the whole thing is more immediately rational.

The order here is important. A personal relationship is not necessary for goodness to exist. That sort of thing would be equivalent to the Euthyphro Dilemma on line 5. Rather a personal relationship comes to exist because God is (equals) good. A being that is in the very nature of being good will do so. There is an abundance of good that can be enacted in my life and yours. A God who is in the very nature of being good would do good. It would be immediately irrational for such a being to do otherwise.

Looking back on it I need to make line 7 much more self evident. That is how these things stand or fall, they need to be immediately self evident or it falls apart.

 

[Semangelof]

Looking back on it I need to make line 7 much more self evident. That is how these things stand or fall, they need to be immediately self evident or it falls apart.

Premises 1-6 are not my own so i’m more confident on them being accurate and acceptable. My worry comes from my own contribution, 7-13, but I think it’s more immediately rational now.

1. If objective moral values and duties exist then God exists
2. Objective moral values do exist
3. Therefore God exists
4. If moral values and duties exist because God declares them, then moral values and duties are not objective but subjective. (if God>Morals then Morals = undefined, non-eternal, and not objective)
5. If God wills something because it is good then moral values and duties are greater than God (If Morals>God then God = undefined as God )
   6)Therefore God can only be in nature that of Goodness. (God = moral values and duties) God is in a state of being Good, and the very nature of His being makes objective moral values exist.
6. If a being exists that is in the nature of being good that being will do good.
7. If there is a deficit of goodness then that being will accomplish it’s nature.
8. A God exists that is in the nature of being good.
9. A deficit of goodness exists within the scope of humanity
10. Therefore God is in action toward humanity and in favor of that deficit.
11. Therefore God is personally involved.
12. Therefore a good and personal God exists.

 

[samiam1611]

if you are getting serious with your boyfriend, religion is going to be important
it sounds like you are trying to build a common ground with your boyfriend and share the same beliefs

just a heads up on a few points:

• looking to the future, whether you believe it or not, marriage is a sanctified union and the love that you have for each other has to be met with at least an equal part to what transcends the two of you; without that, even if its just a rule that people should not break promises; the marriage will fail. When you will naturally start evoking bad feelings in each other, there could be no reason to continue and you will not really know what love is: self-sacrifice, patience, consideration, etc.
• you may think you are trying to get him to think rationally, but from the other side of the relationship the situation may be totally different. It is likely that he is being given a choice as to whether to follow Eros or God. This is not a happy set of circumstances for either of you. You may think that it is a good thing that you have turned him around, but the outcome will be a mutual using of each other until it ends in suffering (from which there could be growth) if the relationship is not sanctified from his end -you need to be joined under God.
• I don’t think it has to be said but get this sorted out before you have kids

i don’t have a crystal ball, but as i said “heads up” something could hit you really hard here; or not.

Thank you for your concern. We have not been dating long at all but are very happy together so far.
His level of religiosity is so low that having different beliefs is not an issue in our relationship and I don’t foresee it being one in the future…assuming he stays at this level of course.
Would it be wrong to hide his Qur’an under a copy of The God Delusion? KIDDING. I have no intent to interfere with his beliefs.

I don’t know what the future holds but I will keep what you’ve said in mind.

That’s the position of ignosticism.

Yes! I think it is of some importance for theists realize atheists don’t “choose” not to believe in God - we don’t even understand the concept! At least that’s how it is for me. I disbelieve in part bc the concept eludes me.

I received a similar statement here in the forums the other week. (here)

Originally Posted by Balto
I think that what most people think of when they think of a “deity” is some ethereal humanoid that lives in the sky and shoots lightning at people . All humor aside, that’s not what most theist philosophers or theologians mean by God, at least if I’m understanding them correctly. Fr. Barron said something in his Catholicism series along the lines of “if you think that you have an understanding of God, run from that because that’s not God.” If God really is infinite, then we can’t classify Him under terms like “deity” and even “God”, even though we humans like to try to understand things and categorize them.

Well that post certainly is relevant to this thread! It really seems to me that some Catholics really do believe in a person-like deity. Of course I’m not in their head so I could be wrong but that is what they convey. Others speak of God in more abstract terms.

Semangelof - thank you for your posts. I don’t have time to reply now but will when I get a chance. Suffice to say right now, I disagree with some of your premises. I look forward to discussing it with you.

 

[mek42]

You might think about posting in Catholic Living … Family Life and ask about people who married as unreligious couples and then one of them became religious later in life. The different perspective might be of interest.

By chance is it possible for the two of you to discuss the issue with his imam?

 

[MissyB786]

Not to be rude but ur BF sounds like he doesn’t know much about Islam as he is just Muslim by name but doesn’t really practice it. Would be worthwhile to check if he actually believes in the existence of God first of all and is not an atheist.

If he don’t know about his religion, how would he expected to understand and explain God, his explanation sounds like someone who is Agnostic trying to get a basic understanding of God but he will need to find out about it further himself.

 

[samiam1611]

1)Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause.

I disagree with this. I think some things just exist. They just do. I think “wanting” an explanation for everything leads to the error known as theism. It seems to make people uncomfortable for there not to be an explanation for something so they make up an explanation and call it God. Like that saying “everything happens for a reason.” Trying to rationalize the world around them and filling in the gaps with their imagination.

2)If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God.

Whoa whoa whoa! Back to the OP. What is God? If the universe has an explanation for its existence (a concession not difficult for me to make even though ultimately I disagree with it), how can you just say “that explanation is God?” I mean I know this is supposed to be a short sweet and to the point but I feel like you skipped over the most important part. Well Dr. Craig did. Perhaps you’d care to elaborate on it though?

It basically goes like this: Is something good because God wills it? Or does God will something because it is good? If you say that something is good because God wills it, then what is good becomes arbitrary. God could have willed that hatred is good, and then we would have been morally obligated to hate one another. That seems crazy. Some moral values, at least, seem to be necessary. But if you say that God wills something because it is good, then what is good or bad is independent of God. In that case, moral values and duties exist independently of God, which contradicts premise 1.

My disagreement here is with your basically saying that values can’t exist independent of God. Whatever God is like, whether God is a personal deity, an invisible force, the universe itself, or any other way, I am of the opinion values can be/are independent. I base this on a pragmatic view of reality. Good and bad exist (in a sense), and t**here is nothing supernatural about good and bad, therefore, there is no need to bring a supernatural element into the equation. **

…there’s a third alternative: namely, God wills something because he is good. God’s own nature is the standard of goodness, and his commandments to us are expressions of his nature. In short, our moral duties are determined by the commands of a just and loving God.

So you see here if God does exist his nature must be good or evil or suffer the Euthyphro Dilemma paradox. A good God would immediately desire a personal relationship to enact good, just as an evil one would immediately desire a personal relationship to inflict evil.

Also since we are talking about objective moral values and duties I will mention that no such thing could exist outside of a God. Without a God only subjective moral values and duties could exist. Consequently If objective moral values and duties do exist then God also must exist. Put simply without a God all moral values and duties are subjective, meaning that the most terrible thing you can imagine cannot objectively be bad or wrong

I believe morality is subjective.

 

[samiam1611]

You might think about posting in Catholic Living … Family Life and ask about people who married as unreligious couples and then one of them became religious later in life. The different perspective might be of interest.

I have seen such posts. They are interesting. They can be quite sad. Strife is no good.

By chance is it possible for the two of you to discuss the issue with his imam?

Ha! An imam! I am fairly sure he hasn’t been involved in any sort of formal worship that would have him in contact with someone like that in quite some time. Wouldn’t surprise me if he hasn’t been to a mosque in many years. Certainly that is good advice though if the situation changes. Thanks for the suggestion.

Not to be rude but ur BF sounds like he doesn’t know much about Islam as he is just Muslim by name but doesn’t really practice it. Would be worthwhile to check if he actually believes in the existence of God first of all and is not an atheist.

If he don’t know about his religion, how would he expected to understand and explain God, his explanation sounds like someone who is Agnostic trying to get a basic understanding of God but he will need to find out about it further himself.

Perhaps you misunderstand. His practice of Islam is minimal, true. But his belief in God is solid, and his conception of God seems to be in line with Muslim teaching. (I am basing this assessment on the similarities with how Catholics describe God (after all, they both believe in the God of Abraham) and the miniscule amount of reading I have done on Islam myself. He even becomes a bit passionate when he talks about God so I’m sure he’s a believer. (All like 2 times that we’ve talked about it.)
I’m sure he knows about his religion; he’s from a country that is 99% Muslim. He’s simply not devout.
I am the atheist, not him.

I take it you disagree with him? You do see God as a deity, not unlike the gods found in polytheistic religions? (In concept, not personality of course.)

 

[Mount_Carmel]

Hmmn, IMHO for we humans to fully understand the nature/being/essence of God is impossible - we can only look imperfectly at God through the veils and limitations of our own all too fallible minds, and pray for some Divine (name removed by moderator)ut in the form of discernment and ‘insight’/inspiration.

God IS BEING - (NOT JUST ANOTHER BEING)
{To borrow from Mark Brumley’s excellent article in ‘Catholic Answers’ An Antidote to Atheism. A copy of which I have close at hand, here in the UK.]

God is not a ‘creation’, nor indeed is ‘He’ a collective pantheon of competing and squabbling ‘lesser gods’.

If it was possible to regress some sort of infinite timeline, nothing would be there except God. Without God there can only be an infinity of nothingness. All else exists only because God IS - ‘I AM’ does not exist in the way we or indeed the rest of the universe exists - He is not the effect of a cause or causes - He is though the cause of all effects. Without God there is nothing, and can only be nothing.

God IS TRUTH - not merely percieved truth. God is LOVE, not merely an aspect of love.

God is OF ALL, directly or indirectly, and is the prime mover of ALL that was, is, and will be.

 

[samiam1611]

Hmmn, IMHO for we humans to fully understand the nature/being/essence of God is impossible - we can only look imperfectly at God through the veils and limitations of our own all too fallible minds, and pray for some Divine (name removed by moderator)ut in the form of discernment and ‘insight’/inspiration.

God IS BEING - (NOT JUST ANOTHER BEING)
{To borrow from Mark Brumley’s excellent article in ‘Catholic Answers’ An Antidote to Atheism. A copy of which I have close at hand, here in the UK.]

God is not a ‘creation’, nor indeed is ‘He’ a collective pantheon of competing and squabbling ‘lesser gods’.

If it was possible to regress some sort of infinite timeline, nothing would be there except God. Without God there can only be an infinity of nothingness. All else exists only because God IS - ‘I AM’ does not exist in the way we or indeed the rest of the universe exists - He is not the effect of a cause or causes - He is though the cause of all effects. Without God there is nothing, and can only be nothing.

God IS TRUTH - not merely percieved truth. God is LOVE, not merely an aspect of love.

God is OF ALL, directly or indirectly, and is the prime mover of ALL that was, is, and will be.

Do you get these ideas from scripture? (If so, references not necessary. Just asking.) Or did God communicate this to you? Or did you just figure it out? Or did your parents tell you this and you believe them? or… where does one get an understanding like this? I know you said you don’t fully understand…but you have some general idea so I am wondering how you arrived at these ideas. In what way is God in your life? Can you experience, or somehow sense these characteristics? Can you sense the “beingness” of God?

 

[Semangelof]

I disagree with this. I think some things just exist. They just do. I think “wanting” an explanation for everything leads to the error known as theism. It seems to make people uncomfortable for there not to be an explanation for something so they make up an explanation and call it God. Like that saying “everything happens for a reason.” Trying to rationalize the world around them and filling in the gaps with their imagination.

Wanting an explanation isn’t an error. Science is in the business of finding things out, it would seem odd to just stop wanting to know when it reached that point. Why would we try to learn all these things and then suddenly stop wanting an explanation for something so important? I’m plagiarizing Dr Craig here but, if you found a baseball while hiking up a mountain would it have an explanation for being there? If the baseball increased in size to a planet, to a solar system, then to a universe would it then suddenly not have an explanation? To just say “god did it” is called the God of the Gaps. To say “it just happened” would be called the “naturalism of the gaps”. Either would be unreasonable without some premise to show it rational or empirical.

Whoa whoa whoa! Back to the OP. What is God? If the universe has an explanation for its existence (a concession not difficult for me to make even though ultimately I disagree with it), how can you just say “that explanation is God?” I mean I know this is supposed to be a short sweet and to the point but I feel like you skipped over the most important part. Well Dr. Craig did. Perhaps you’d care to elaborate on it though?

What ever started and effected the universe must therefore transcend the universe. Nothing and nothing can’t get together and make something. To answer the question with any answer other than God creates an infinite regress. An infinite regress is not an answer. Therefore it is discarded as irrational. Unless a third hypotheses is presented then God is the only rational answer.

My disagreement here is with your basically saying that values can’t exist independent of God. Whatever God is like, whether God is a personal deity, an invisible force, the universe itself, or any other way, I am of the opinion values can be/are independent. I base this on a pragmatic view of reality. Good and bad exist (in a sense), and there is nothing supernatural about good and bad, therefore, there is no need to bring a supernatural element into the equation.

The argument from this line is actually an atheist argument, I just hijacked it. It fell apart because a 3rd hypothesis existed. I’ll answer it more on the next line because it’s similar.

I believe morality is subjective.

Forgive me for appearing to create a straw man but this is the actual and unfortunate reality of your statement. If there are no objective moral values and duties then hitler was not not wrong to do what he did, neither were those who followed him. Our subjective moral values and duties would have no jurisdiction on hitlers. Hitler created the law of his country based on his own subjective moral values and duties and thought he was doing the right thing by purging what he believed were undesirables. This line of thinking is untenable and doomed to plunge the world into destruction.