What is the definion of the God of the philosophers?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Solmyr
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

Solmyr

Guest
The title says it all. Please forget the God of the Bible, the alleged revelations. The catechism says that God’s existence can be ascertained by pure reason, without any “faith”. But before any evidence can be brought up, a precise definition is needed.

So bring them on. What are the attributes of God? What do those words mean? Are the attributes coherent? In order to create a proper definition the following must be observed:1) The attributes must be meaningful.
2) The attributes cannot be mutually contradictory, and
3) The attributes cannot be contradicted by the observed reality
I already asked this question many times. People are reluctant to answer. Mind you, I do not ask that the attributes you bring up constitute a full set. Maybe there are things about God which cannot be fathomed, and that is fine. But whatever you talk about needs to meaningful and coherent, even if incomplete in some respect. The lack of answers can only be interpreted in one way: “the apologist does not know what he is talking about”.

I would love to ask this question on the “Ask the Apologist” forum, but it is far too complicated to be answered in a few words. So I am asking the participants of the Philosophy forum: “What is the definition of God that you believe in?”

Once this basic question is answered, the next ones can be discussed about the evidence for God. But without a reasonably coherent definition there is nothing to talk about.
 
Solmyr said:
The title says it all. Please forget the God of the Bible, the alleged revelations. The catechism says that God’s existence can be ascertained by pure reason, without any “faith”. But before any evidence can be brought up, a precise definition is needed.

So bring them on. What are the attributes of God? What do those words mean? Are the attributes coherent? In order to create a proper definition the following must be observed:1) The attributes must be meaningful.
2) The attributes cannot be mutually contradictory, and
3) The attributes cannot be contradicted by the observed reality
I already asked this question many times. People are reluctant to answer. Mind you, I do not ask that the attributes you bring up constitute a full set. Maybe there are things about God which cannot be fathomed, and that is fine. But whatever you talk about needs to meaningful and coherent, even if incomplete in some respect. The lack of answers can only be interpreted in one way: “the apologist does not know what he is talking about”.

I would love to ask this question on the “Ask the Apologist” forum, but it is far too complicated to be answered in a few words. So I am asking the participants of the Philosophy forum: “What is the definition of God that you believe in?”

Once this basic question is answered, the next ones can be discussed about the evidence for God. But without a reasonably coherent definition there is nothing to talk about.
Click to expand...
God is existence because he is conciousness.
 
God is :

Transcendent

Above the universe, distinct from the universe

Immanent

In the universe, involved in the universe

Omnipresent

Everywhere in the universe

Omnibenevolent

All loving , all merciful

Omnipotent

Able to do anything that is logically consistent, and consistent with His character

Simple

Not a composite of attributes ( i.e. God is good not made of of good )
 
Solmyr said:
The title says it all. Please forget the God of the Bible, the alleged revelations. The catechism says that God’s existence can be ascertained by pure reason, without any “faith”. But before any evidence can be brought up, a precise definition is needed.

So bring them on. What are the attributes of God? What do those words mean? Are the attributes coherent? In order to create a proper definition the following must be observed:1) The attributes must be meaningful.
2) The attributes cannot be mutually contradictory, and
3) The attributes cannot be contradicted by the observed reality
I already asked this question many times. People are reluctant to answer. Mind you, I do not ask that the attributes you bring up constitute a full set. Maybe there are things about God which cannot be fathomed, and that is fine. But whatever you talk about needs to meaningful and coherent, even if incomplete in some respect. The lack of answers can only be interpreted in one way: “the apologist does not know what he is talking about”.

I would love to ask this question on the “Ask the Apologist” forum, but it is far too complicated to be answered in a few words. So I am asking the participants of the Philosophy forum: “What is the definition of God that you believe in?”

Once this basic question is answered, the next ones can be discussed about the evidence for God. But without a reasonably coherent definition there is nothing to talk about.
Click to expand...
It may be that the lack of answers you’ve received is because most of the people here simply aren’t equipped to answer the question in a coherent way. That doesn’t meant that there is no coherent answer, it just means that we personally lack the skill to answer them in a satisfactory manner.

If you’re interested in a Catholic response to this, I’d direct you to St. Thomas Aquinas’ work. At least one of his proofs starts from a neutral position (nothing about God is assumed, and God is not assumed to exist), and arrives at the conclusion that God exists, and lists several of the attributes that would be necessary for Him to exist.

My personal, very layman’s response, would be that at His core, God is that which must exist.

Our universe does not exist necessarily (there is nothing about it which requires that it exist), nor does it necessarily have to exist in the form it does. This means that there must be an external cause for the universe to not only exist, but also to exist in the logically-coherent form it exists in.

The external cause must exist by necessity, because nothing which does not have to exist can exist of it’s own accord. In other words,it must be in the nature of whatever external force created the universe -to exist-, otherwise it wouldn’t exist. (Note, If you ascribe to the multiverse theory, that only moves the question up one level. No matter what, the physical reality must have an external cause, because it does not have to exist.) I hope I’m being clear, but I’m probably not. If you’re interested, the book Answering Atheism address this topic in far greater detail, and with far greater clarity, than I could ever hope to.

The point of what I’ve written above is that the most basic, discernible attribute of God is that it is in his nature to exist. He cannot not exist.

Moving on from there, we can discern that God is coherent.

We know that our universe is coherent because it is possible to learn about it through reason. We can study it, derive a hypothesis, and determine if that hypothesis is factual or not. Given that the universe is coherent, it follows that whatever created it is also coherent. Something cannot create something it cannot comprehend of. If God were not logically coherent then it could not create logical coherence.

So, the two most basic attributes I can derive are that God nature is to exist, and that God is logically coherent.

This is all I can do at the moment. I hope this has been readable and understandable >_>
 
Solmyr said:
The title says it all. Please forget the God of the Bible, the alleged revelations. The catechism says that God’s existence can be ascertained by pure reason, without any “faith”. But before any evidence can be brought up, a precise definition is needed.

So bring them on. What are the attributes of God? What do those words mean? Are the attributes coherent? In order to create a proper definition the following must be observed:1) The attributes must be meaningful.
2) The attributes cannot be mutually contradictory, and
3) The attributes cannot be contradicted by the observed reality
I already asked this question many times. People are reluctant to answer. Mind you, I do not ask that the attributes you bring up constitute a full set. Maybe there are things about God which cannot be fathomed, and that is fine. But whatever you talk about needs to meaningful and coherent, even if incomplete in some respect. The lack of answers can only be interpreted in one way: “the apologist does not know what he is talking about”.

I would love to ask this question on the “Ask the Apologist” forum, but it is far too complicated to be answered in a few words. So I am asking the participants of the Philosophy forum: “What is the definition of God that you believe in?”

Once this basic question is answered, the next ones can be discussed about the evidence for God. But without a reasonably coherent definition there is nothing to talk about.
Click to expand...
God has a personality and character. When someone understands who God is they can reasonably see him. Philosophy often takes away God’s character and tries to view him in absolutes and unreasonable ways. One should work to understand God as the Bible shows his Character.

God is Holy. He is separate from sin. He is incapable of sin.

Sin angers God. Sin does not do well in his presence. Be angry and sin not. (Ephesians 4:26)(1 Samuel 11:6-8) The Spirit of God is manly and virile.

God is Love. (1 John 4:8) God loves us a Father loves his children. He is a shepherd and he has a staff leading to Joy and Good things, and a Rod of Misery when we fall off the right path. (Psalms 23) He chastises and rebukes those he loves. (Revelations 3:19)(Dueteronomy 8:5)

Once someone understands who God is, God becomes self-evident. You can see how he works in the world.

Why are there so many Muslims in Europe right now? Those countries were Christian Nations. God blessed them, and they ruled the world. Those Nations fell away and adopted false idols in the form of Luciferian isms and ideologies. Many of the countries became socialist choosing an Atheistic State centered around ideologies that deny the Book of Daniel. These Nations are prostituting themselves with foreign gods and foreign nations. (Ezekiel 23) Nothing new happens under the sun. (Ecclesiastes 1:9-11) God is a Nationalist and keeps his promises. (Jeremiah 30) Muslims were seen by some Christians in Eastern Rome as God’s Rod and punishment for their sins.
 
I know I’m the odd man out, but I don’t see how reason alone brings someone to God necessarily. I can see how it can for sure.
 
Rhubarb said:
I know I’m the odd man out, but I don’t see how reason alone brings someone to God necessarily. I can see how it can for sure.
Click to expand...
I think reason alone can bring one to the concept of and belief in God.

What reason alone cannot gain you is a *relationship *with God or the spiritual benefits of knowing and being known by God in this way. Thus, in a sense, you would be quite right if you said Christianity is not simply founded on reason alone. One might be convinced of Christianity through reason, but the actual relational aspects are something else entirely, because they must be felt, not “logicked” into existence. In the same way, a woman can know intellectually that men exist and also be aware of what marriage entails, but the state of mere knowledge is something quite different from being married. Does this clarify?
 
God is the Supreme Being, always was and always will be.
 
I would look up Dr. Ed Feser’s work.

His website: edwardfeser.com

His blog (excellent: read the debates in the comments too): edwardfeser.blogspot.com/ Look up terms such as “classical theism.”

I also recommend his introduction to St. Thomas’ work, * Aquinas*, and his introduction to Thomist Metaphysics, The Last Superstition. The latter is polemical in the style of the New Atheists, deliberately of course, except for the fact that he actually responds to arguments and makes them before and while he is being polemical.

The essence of God as known by reason is contained in His name: “I Am that Am.” Absolute Being without imperfection, the source of all being, utterly transcendent so that He doesn’t have to compare himself in relationship with other beings, and a person of course. Almost everyone understands this God to be real quite easily actually.

Christi pax,

Lucretius
 
So far, not so good.

All the definitions so far are of the Christian God. That’s hardly a defintion from first principles. Either that or some ephemeral ‘instigator’, which has no connection to the Christian God whatsoever. Unless, of course, you start with God and then join the neatly aligned dots back to what you already believe started everything.

I am completely and utterly bemused as to how anyone thinks that any of the usual arguments lead to God. If there was zero concept of the Christian God to begin with, then these arguments wouldn’t even get off the ground. They have to START with God. He has to be defined BEFORE the arguments even start. It then becomes an excercise that would make the most stable person giddy with the circular arguments spinning around him.

If you took someone who had zero concept of the supernatural, who had no inklin of people’s concept of God, then is is utterly beyond me how they could reach a point whereby the Christian God emerges from any logical thought process at all.
 
Bradski said:
So far, not so good.

All the definitions so far are of the Christian God. That’s hardly a defintion from first principles. Either that or some ephemeral ‘instigator’, which has no connection to the Christian God whatsoever. Unless, of course, you start with God and then join the neatly aligned dots back to what you already believe started everything.

I am completely and utterly bemused as to how anyone thinks that any of the usual arguments lead to God. If there was zero concept of the Christian God to begin with, then these arguments wouldn’t even get off the ground. They have to START with God. He has to be defined BEFORE the arguments even start. It then becomes an excercise that would make the most stable person giddy with the circular arguments spinning around him.

If you took someone who had zero concept of the supernatural, who had no inklin of people’s concept of God, then is is utterly beyond me how they could reach a point whereby the Christian God emerges from any logical thought process at all.
Click to expand...
You asked for definitions not arguments. God is beyond definition. God has no bounds. God is not a thing for the human mind to grasp.
 
Bradski said:
So far, not so good.

All the definitions so far are of the Christian God. That’s hardly a defintion from first principles. Either that or some ephemeral ‘instigator’, which has no connection to the Christian God whatsoever. Unless, of course, you start with God and then join the neatly aligned dots back to what you already believe started everything.

I am completely and utterly bemused as to how anyone thinks that any of the usual arguments lead to God. If there was zero concept of the Christian God to begin with, then these arguments wouldn’t even get off the ground. They have to START with God. He has to be defined BEFORE the arguments even start. It then becomes an excercise that would make the most stable person giddy with the circular arguments spinning around him.

If you took someone who had zero concept of the supernatural, who had no inklin of people’s concept of God, then is is utterly beyond me how they could reach a point whereby the Christian God emerges from any logical thought process at all.
Click to expand...
I did not start with any presumption of God, I started with the reality of existence. I didn’t not arrive at the conception of the Christian God for two reasons. #1: I ran out of time; and #2: Certain aspects of the Christian God you can’t arrive at through reason alone because they are revealed by Him in the incarnation.

As I told you before, you’d beset look into St. Thomas Aquinas’s works. At least one of his arguments starts with zero presumptions and arrive at something closely resembling the Christian understanding of God.
 
Rhubarb said:
I know I’m the odd man out, but I don’t see how reason alone brings someone to God necessarily. I can see how it can for sure.
Click to expand...
I’m with you. I can’t how how someone can get anywhere with reason alone. Equipped with reason and a set of principles or axioms (that may or may not have isomorphosms to real life) I can see someone might make inferences or work there way somewhere. I can only see inferences from such a system to be applicable to real life with experiences and observations that strongly suggest the relationship.

But it’s also possible the there are additional connotations to the word “reason” that are specific to Catholicism or that the word is used a bit different in a Catholic context. There have been other conversations here in which miscommunications have occurred because of this.
 
Bradski said:
So far, not so good.

All the definitions so far are of the Christian God. That’s hardly a defintion from first principles. Either that or some ephemeral ‘instigator’, which has no connection to the Christian God whatsoever. Unless, of course, you start with God and then join the neatly aligned dots back to what you already believe started everything.

I am completely and utterly bemused as to how anyone thinks that any of the usual arguments lead to God. If there was zero concept of the Christian God to begin with, then these arguments wouldn’t even get off the ground. They have to START with God. He has to be defined BEFORE the arguments even start. It then becomes an excercise that would make the most stable person giddy with the circular arguments spinning around him.

If you took someone who had zero concept of the supernatural, who had no inklin of people’s concept of God, then is is utterly beyond me how they could reach a point whereby the Christian God emerges from any logical thought process at all.
Click to expand...
There is no other God than the Lord of Hosts.

Someone reads the Bible. They don’t believe in God or have Faith. Through reading comprehension and knowedge of history and current world events someone can logically reason God exists. The problem is that many people are blind to God and living in darkness and ignorance without Faith. It may take God opening someone eyes for them to understand and see. God is self-evident.
 
Bradski said:
So far, not so good.

All the definitions so far are of the Christian God. That’s hardly a defintion from first principles. Either that or some ephemeral ‘instigator’, which has no connection to the Christian God whatsoever. Unless, of course, you start with God and then join the neatly aligned dots back to what you already believe started everything.

I am completely and utterly bemused as to how anyone thinks that any of the usual arguments lead to God. If there was zero concept of the Christian God to begin with, then these arguments wouldn’t even get off the ground. They have to START with God. He has to be defined BEFORE the arguments even start. It then becomes an excercise that would make the most stable person giddy with the circular arguments spinning around him.

If you took someone who had zero concept of the supernatural, who had no inklin of people’s concept of God, then is is utterly beyond me how they could reach a point whereby the Christian God emerges from any logical thought process at all.
Click to expand...
Plato and Aristotle and even the Hindu Philosophers actually give a pretty good sketch of the major points of classical theism.

Furthermore, you are confusing the arguments themselves with the circumstances in which they arose. Yes, it is true that St. Thomas used revelation as a guide, and so used reason to prove what he already knew to be true. But, that isn’t an example of circular reasoning: circular reasoning is having the conclusion of an argument as a premise, which isn’t that same thing. The arguments he makes stand on their own, and condemning the hermeneutic doesn’t refute the argument.

Christi pax,

Lucretius
 
The first attribute of the God of the philosophers is that he exists. See Plato, Aristotle, etc. 🙂
 
One of the reasons there is a lack of answering is that the question is setup to reject all answers.

What / who is God?

Vs.

What / who is God? be coherent!

The second sets up the asker to throw out what they don’t like, which from their own words is every answer they’ve ever seen, thus far.

All people could agree on something about God (if God is so)…

Humans can only know what’s been revealed about God.

Another angle - If God ‘is’, what we know about Him might be exactly the information meant for us / enough for us.

We cannot know the entirety of God to set into a definition to please especially someone who sets the question to reject every answer.

Of course, the more important questions are who am I? and why am I?

Those might help someone learn more about God, than putting God into a favorable defined box.

Take care,

Mike
 
Must the God of the philosophers be a single entity? In other words, can it be deduced that he is not a collective of some sort?
 
Mike_from_NJ said:
Must the God of the philosophers be a single entity? In other words, can it be deduced that he is not a collective of some sort?
Click to expand...
The Divine is ultimately One, because It is perfect by Its nature. If there were two, how would we differentiate between them? If one had a quality the other lacked, then the one lacking wouldn’t be perfect then! If neither lacked anything the other had, then they are really the same thing! So the Divine must be One.

Christi pax,

Lucretius
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top