What is God?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Moonstruck888
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Why do you expect us to know these specific answers? We can give you definitions and we can give you explanations for what God is, but it’s not like we’re palling around with him exactly.

EDIT: The Catholic Encyclopedia’s explanation of God:

The proper name of the one Supreme and Infinite Personal Being, the Creator and Ruler of the universe, to whom man owes obedience and worship.

In fact, I encourage you to read the whole article. Explains things pretty well.
 
Moonstruck888 said:
You don’t even understand basic scientific precepts and you call me uneducated?

It makes not odds what science cannot disprove. The burden of proof is on a person making a claim, not the person who is skeptical of it. This is why science is a superior system to philosophy. ** In science, if you can’t prove something, it is thrown out until you can.** I don’t have to entertain “ether” nor “dark matter” until someone can establish their existence. So far no one has, and until they do it is my duty to suspend my belief.

I put it to you that there is a tea pot in orbit around Neptune.

Do you believe me? Of course not.

Can you “disprove” that my teapot is there? Of course not.

Simple common sense heuristics should tell you that my claim is too extraordinary to take seriously unless I can back it up with irrefutable evidence. I cannot, so you are within your rights to point out the claim is absurd.

Entia non sunt multiplicanda preter necessitatum. Numquam ponenda est pluralitas sine necessitate.
Click to expand...
You appear to be labouring under a misconception, the emboldened part of your post was not science, but merely one of the many schools of Epistimology - a form of Philosophy. Science is only one of the many areas where Philosophical ideas (particularily from epistimology) are applied to a school of thought, other ones would be history, lawmaking, social sciences, teaching, mathematics and so forth…

The claim that “if you can’t prove something, it is thrown out until you can” is a philosophical one, and one that has to be defended - although I concede I agree with this point. Nonetheless, without philosophy we would not have got this idea. Like I said earlier, science presupposes logic.
 
Moonstruck888 said:
I reject them for not being quantitative.

Let me rephrase:

What height is God?
What weight is God?
What colour is God?
What components is God built out of?
What is God’s energy source?
From whence did God appear?
Click to expand...
I shall give the answers to these questions simply.

Now, I shall explain; as we know - things are either : Contingent, or Nessecary,
Now, the whole totality of “contingent” things cannot be contingent upon itself,
Nor could it have come into being by itself,
Therefore, it is contingent upon something that is Nessecary,
This nessecary thing then, must essentially have the power and capacity to create the totality of contingent things.

Therein, we know that a nessecary all powerfull thing, exists, that created the totality of contingent things.
We also know, that if this thing is nessecary, ie; not contingent that it must not have a cause; it must be infinite.

Corporality, height, colour etc. is a contingent aspect of our perception of the world, if God does have it, it is not essentially so, but so out of volition.

Consequentially this is what we know to be God from Logic alone, put simply here, so as not to confuse you, and yes - I can elaborate later.

What height is God? – As / If willed (not known if he elects to do so)
What weight is God? – As / If willed (not known if he elects to do so)
What colour is God? – As / If willed (not known if he elects to do so)
What components is God built out of? – As / If willed, essential components are those nessecary for the actualisation of his omnipotence (proved above)
What is God’s energy source? – Himself
From whence did God appear? – He didn’t

👍
 
Moonstruck888 said:
I reject them for not being quantitative.

Let me rephrase:

What height is God?
What weight is God?
What colour is God?
What components is God built out of?
What is God’s energy source?
From whence did God appear?
Click to expand...
Yep, once again you are thinking of “God” as some sort of being sitting outside of the universe watching us. You have failed to understand the concept I have been trying to say, so I am officially done with this thread. (YAY FOR YOU RIGHT!👍)

We will truly know the WHY of everything upon reuniting our individuality with the All.
 
Marc_Anthony said:
Why do you expect us to know these specific answers? We can give you definitions and we can give you explanations for what God is, but it’s not like we’re palling around with him exactly.
Click to expand...
I expect anyone who makes a claim to be able to back that claim up with data specific to the claim.

I don’t think that is unreasonable.
 
JohnDamian said:
I shall give the answers to these questions simply.

Now, I shall explain; as we know - things are either : Contingent, or Nessecary,
Now, the whole totality of “contingent” things cannot be contingent upon itself,
Nor could it have come into being by itself,
Therefore, it is contingent upon something that is Nessecary,
This nessecary thing then, must essentially have the power and capacity to create the totality of contingent things.

Therein, we know that a nessecary all powerfull thing, exists, that created the totality of contingent things.
We also know, that if this thing is nessecary, ie; not contingent that it must not have a cause; it must be infinite.

Corporality, height, colour etc. is a contingent aspect of our perception of the world, if God does have it, it is not essentially so, but so out of volition.

Consequentially this is what we know to be God from Logic alone, put simply here, so as not to confuse you, and yes - I can elaborate later.

What height is God? – As / If willed (not known if he elects to do so)
What weight is God? – As / If willed (not known if he elects to do so)
What colour is God? – As / If willed (not known if he elects to do so)
What components is God built out of? – As / If willed, essential components are those nessecary for the actualisation of his omnipotence (proved above)
What is God’s energy source? – Himself
From whence did God appear? – He didn’t

👍
Click to expand...
That sounds like a very elaborate way of admitting you don’t actually have any quantitative data on God.
 
Moonstruck888 said:
That sounds like a very elaborate way of admitting you don’t actually have any quantitative data on God.
Click to expand...
Logical claims are superior to evidential ones, for the perception of, and synthesis of data is never certain, only implied conclusions from presumed perceptions can be used. Thus, quantitative data on God would be redundant and worthless.

👍
 
JohnDamian said:
You appear to be labouring under a misconception, the emboldened part of your post was not science, but merely one of the many schools of Epistimology - a form of Philosophy. Science is only one of the many areas where Philosophical ideas (particularily from epistimology) are applied to a school of thought, other ones would be history, lawmaking, social sciences, teaching, mathematics and so forth…

The claim that “if you can’t prove something, it is thrown out until you can” is a philosophical one, and one that has to be defended - although I concede I agree with this point. Nonetheless, without philosophy we would not have got this idea. Like I said earlier, science presupposes logic.
Click to expand...
Science is a method, nothing more… The results of the application of the scientific method are it’s defence. The Hubble Telescope, The Computer, Vaccines, Electrical Power, The Apollo Missions, The Haber Process… et cetera… These are how I would defend science. On results.

Results are all I care about. Epistimology means precisely nothing to me.
 
I think I’m out too. If you reject the evidence we do present, well, I guess in your mind you’ve got us beat.
 
JohnDamian said:
Logical claims are superior to evidential ones, for the perception of, and synthesis of data is never certain, only implied conclusions from presumed perceptions can be used. Thus, quantitative data on God would be redundant and worthless.

👍
Click to expand...
Logic is great for building computer circuits, but for verifying or falsifying data it is a feeble discipline. We have science as a direct result of the short comings of logic. logic cannot seperate true and false because it has one insurmountable weakness. If you put garbage in, you get garbage out. Science addresses that problem with empirical testing.

👍
 
Marc_Anthony said:
I think I’m out too. If you reject the evidence we do present, well, I guess in your mind you’ve got us beat.
Click to expand...
Yes, I’m afraid you have a point there…

Since none of you will address my points, I assume that you have nothing to address them with.
 
Moonstruck888 said:
That is the only kind of data that matters.
Click to expand...
Now lets get technical, and analyse that point of view;

You have reached the conclusion, that “quantitative data” is the only kind that matters, how?

By logic?

If you assume that Logic is prior to quantitative data you must see that nessecarily therefore data is its posterior, it is contingent upon the inherant truth of the pressupposed logical method. Therein, if we take the logical determinant method for analysing the form of data to be the prior of the data, then the other conclusions of the logical method are prior to, and above the conclusions or contingency for data. Viz. we do not require data to justify our points, or else data would be required to justify the point that data is the prior.

Praxis itself is the means and not the end nor beginning of knowlege, the assumptions inherant to the application of sensory perceptions to the construction of causal links nessecitates the primacy of logical thought over quanta; thus, we must accept its conclusions above and beyond evidence.

Unless you have evidence that evidence is the only way to do this, without logic or analysis?

You do realise that scientific method is a small aspect of the logical constructs of philosophy, invented in it’s modern form by philosophers such as Alhazen and Roger Bacon? It is by applying logic (philosophy) to the world around them that they devised a logical system for analysing mundane and day to day things, like chemistry or physics.

👍
 
Moonstruck888 said:
Yes, I’m afraid you have a point there…

Since none of you will address my points, I assume that you have nothing to address them with.
Click to expand...
And if you think we’re not addressing your points I’m afraid that this is a discussion that can end in only one way…you thinking you’re right, us thinking we’re right.

For the record, I do not believe God can be absolutely proven. I DO believe his existence to be highly probable. And even the most hardcore of atheists like Dawkins and Humes merely call God’s existence highly improbable, not impossible.

NOW I’m really out. See ya. 👍
 
JohnDamian said:
Now lets get technical, and analyse that point of view;

You have reached the conclusion, that “quantitative data” is the only kind that matters, how?

By logic?

If you assume that Logic is prior to quantitative data you must see that nessecarily therefore data is its posterior, it is contingent upon the inherant truth of the pressupposed logical method. Therein, if we take the logical determinant method for analysing the form of data to be the prior of the data, then the other conclusions of the logical method are prior to, and above the conclusions or contingency for data. Viz. we do not require data to justify our points, or else data would be required to justify the point that data is the prior.

Praxis itself is the means and not the end nor beginning of knowlege, the assumptions inherant to the application of sensory perceptions to the construction of causal links nessecitates the primacy of logical thought over quanta; thus, we must accept its conclusions above and beyond evidence.

Unless you have evidence that evidence is the only way to do this, without logic or analysis?

You do realise that scientific method is a small aspect of the logical constructs of philosophy, invented in it’s modern form by philosophers such as Alhazen and Roger Bacon? It is by applying logic (philosophy) to the world around them that they devised a logical system for analysing mundane and day to day things, like chemistry or physics.

👍
Click to expand...
Let me just say this about that and that about this therein whereof…

How many times do I have to say, I’m not a philosopher? I wanted to see if anyone could give me quantitative data on God, and all the arguments seem to hinge around the assertion that I was wrong to want this.

I think this thread has run it’s course, don’t you? 👍
 
Marc_Anthony said:
And if you think we’re not addressing your points I’m afraid that this is a discussion that can end in only one way…you thinking you’re right, us thinking we’re right.

For the record, I do not believe God can be absolutely proven. I DO believe his existence to be highly probable. And even the most hardcore of atheists like Dawkins and Humes merely call God’s existence highly improbable, not impossible.

NOW I’m really out. See ya. 👍
Click to expand...
👍

I would call God’s existence highly improbable.

It is my belief that it is impossible, but I concede I cannot prove that.
 
Moonstruck888 said:
Logic is great for building computer circuits, but for verifying or falsifying data it is a feeble discipline. We have science as a direct result of the short comings of logic. logic cannot seperate true and false because it has one insurmountable weakness. If you put garbage in, you get garbage out. Science addresses that problem with empirical testing.
Click to expand...
But consider what Christians believe: If there exists a Transcendent God, who is empirically untestable, Who wants us to choose Him by Faith (and thus by definition will probably not reveal Himself empirically on any universally falsifiable scale), how do you propose that Empirical Science would go about revealing that He is real? If [empirical] science cannot do it, we have a problem with limiting ourselves to [empirical] science, since you’re basically telling us outright that in that scenario (which is certainly not a logically impossible one) such science would be useless to determining the truth. If science can, on the other hand, discover such a God empirically (against that same God’s will, no less!) I’m interested in knowing how.

Blessings in Christ,
KindredSoul
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top