What is the main attribute of God?

[Gorgias]

I stick to my definition God is Love means that God equals to Love.

OK. I stick to my response that your assertion is logically inconsistent.

 

[STT]

OK. I stick to my response that your assertion is logically inconsistent.

Yes, it clearly leads to an inconsistency. That is why I open this thread. What is the main definition of God? God is something. What is something?

 

[Gorgias]

Yes, it clearly leads to an inconsistency.

No… it’s not that it leads to an inconsistency; rather, your take on it is what’s illogical.

 

[STT]

No… it’s not that it leads to an inconsistency; rather, your take on it is what’s illogical.

I don’t think so.

 

[Wesrock]

Give me words to describe the color red.

Bright. Angry. Caution. Blood.

In the case of God, when we talk about his Power, his Goodness, his Knowledge, etc… we’re referring to the same one “thing” using words we’re familiar with that describe this “thing” but don’t define it. These words are analogous to what God is, but goes beyond our regular use of the words when we talk to people. God is “other” enough that we can only come up with approximate descriptions, not a single comprehensive definition of what he is, even if we can be rather particular about what he is not.

 

[Gorgias]

Gorgias:

No… it’s not that it leads to an inconsistency; rather, your take on it is what’s illogical.

I don’t think so.

I noticed that this was your opinion.

 

[STT]

Give me words to describe the color red.

Bright. Angry. Caution. Blood.

In the case of God, when we talk about his Power, his Goodness, his Knowledge, etc… we’re referring to the same one “thing” using words we’re familiar with that describe this “thing” but don’t define it. These words are analogous to what God is, but goes beyond our regular use of the words when we talk to people. God is “other” enough that we can only come up with approximate descriptions, not a single comprehensive definition of what he is, even if we can be rather particular about what he is not.

Red is a color that we have the same subjective experience of it. We subjectively know what it is and agree upon this. The knowledge is subjective in the mind of knower too. Knowledge is set of all forms that mind perceive and explain reality. God should in principle has a definition otherwise the knowledge in general is not exhaustive. That applies to knowledge of God too, omniscience.

 

[STT]

I noticed that this was your opinion.

I said I don’t think so.

 

[Wesrock]

Also, when we say God is simple, we mean there is no metaphysical or physical complexity/parts to him.

We do not mean he is easy to define or comprehend. In fact, his simplicity, or lack of parts/distinct attributes/specific differences compared to others of his kind (since there is no “kind” he belongs to) is what makes it so difficult to wrap our heads around and talk about. Our way of thinking and language is based around the finite, looking at specifics and making categories.

 

[SalamKhan]

They’re distinct only in our minds, but identical in reality. Yes, that syllogism proves that they are identical.

 

[Wesrock]

Wesrock:

Give me words to describe the color red.

Bright. Angry. Caution. Blood.

In the case of God, when we talk about his Power, his Goodness, his Knowledge, etc… we’re referring to the same one “thing” using words we’re familiar with that describe this “thing” but don’t define it. These words are analogous to what God is, but goes beyond our regular use of the words when we talk to people. God is “other” enough that we can only come up with approximate descriptions, not a single comprehensive definition of what he is, even if we can be rather particular about what he is not.

Red is a color that we have the same subjective experience of it. We subjectively know what it is and agree upon this. The knowledge is subjective in the mind of knower too. Knowledge is set of all forms that mind perceive and explain reality. God should in principle has a definition otherwise the knowledge in general is not exhaustive. That applies to knowledge of God too, omniscience.

God knows himself fully, but he is transcendant to our mode of reality and our realm of experience upon which our language is based.

 

[STT]

What you are saying doesn’t make sense.

 

[STT]

God knows himself fully, but he is transcendant to our mode of reality and our realm of experience upon which our language is based.

So you mean the knowledge in which God can define himself to us does not exist in His knowledge?

 

[Wesrock]

Wesrock:

God knows himself fully, but he is transcendant to our mode of reality and our realm of experience upon which our language is based.

So you mean the knowledge in which God can define himself to us does not exist in His knowledge?

There simply may be no such thing as a real capacity for us to fully comprehend God to begin with.

 

[STT]

There simply may be no such thing as a real capacity for us to fully comprehend God to begin with.

I was asking about God’s knowledge.

 

[SalamKhan]

Consider the analogy of a white light consisting of all seven colours. The white light being God, the prism being our minds, and the separation of lights being our understanding of His attributes.

Also that syllogism proves the point. The point is that the attributes are identical to the essence, and hence identical to each other. So the figures A, B & C in the syllogism are meant to be identical to each other.

Don’t attempt something you’re not good at.

 

[Wesrock]

Wesrock:

There simply may be no such thing as a real capacity for us to fully comprehend God to begin with.

I was asking about God’s knowledge.

If there’s no real capacity for a definition we can understand, then there’s no real lack of anything-that-could-possibly-be in God.

 

[Roseeurekacross]

There are no restrictions on the attributes of God.

 

[joeybaggz]

LOVE - all God’s other attributes flow from this essential nature of God.

 

[STT]

Consider the analogy of a white light consisting of all seven colours. The white light being God, the prism being our minds, and the separation of lights being our understanding of His attributes.

Also that syllogism proves the point. The point is that the attributes are identical to the essence, and hence identical to each other. So the figures A, B & C in the syllogism are meant to be identical to each other.

Don’t attempt something you’re not good at.

But we know that color are different from each other.