A Working Definition of God

But Dan...the Shadow King is a created thing.The debate here centers on whether our definitions of God are human constructs/creations or whether somehow we believers were imparted with a knowingness (as opposed to know-it-all-ness! )
that God exists apart from human definition/imagination. Did God tap some of us on the shoulder and confirm Himself?An observer could conclude that our God is made up. Our passion of attempting to convince the observers of His reality and presence is an ongoing exercise here at the friendly forum!This message has been edited by Phatboy, 04-19-2005 06:10 AM

Hi, Faith. One quick point: To whom are you asking this question?Are you asking yourself?Are you asking a scientist?

Hi, Percy...you were asking the Wizard of Irrefutabilty some basic questions such as: My answer to this question is that from a rational perspective of mere observation (unaffected by emotions) the natural world around me would be just the same as it is now.I read a good excerpt from Historian Will Durant where he commented a bit on religion. His words are thrown together so well that I thought I would share an excerpt:
Religion is the last subject that the intellect begins to understand. In our youth, we may have resented, with proud superiority, its cherished incredibilities; in our less confident years, we marvel at its prosperous survival in a secular and scientific age, its patient resurrections after whatever deadly blows by Epicurus, or Lucretius, or Lucian, or Machiavelli, or Hume, or Voltaire. What are the secrets of this resilience?

​

The wisest sage would need the perspective of a hundred lives to answer adequately. He might begin by recognizing that, even in the heyday of science, there are innumerable phenomena for which no explanation seems forthcoming in terms of natural cause, quantitative measurement, and necessary effect. The mystery of mind still eludes the formulas of psychology, and in physics the same astonishing order of nature that makes science possible may reasonably sustain the religious faith in a cosmic intelligence. Our knowledge is a receding mirage in an expanding desert of ignorance.

​

Now life is rarely agnostic; it assumes either a natural or a supernatural source for any unexplained phenomenon, and acts on the one assumption or other; only a small minority of minds can persistently suspend judgment in the face of contradictory evidence. The great majority of mankind feel compelled to ascribe mysterious entities or events to supernatural beings raised above "natural law."

​

Religion has been the worship of supernatural beings -- their propitiation, solicitation, or adoration. Most men are harassed and buffeted by life, and crave supernatural assistance when natural forces fail them; they gratefully accept faiths that give dignity and hope to their existence, and order and meaning to the world; they could hardly condone so patiently the careless brutalities of nature, the bloodshed and chicaneries of history, or their own tribulations and bereavements, if they could not trust that these are parts of an inscrutable but divine design. A cosmos without known cause or fate is an intellectual prison; we long to believe that the great drama has a just author and a noble end.
Moreover, we covet survival, and find it hard to conceive that nature should so laboriously produce man, mind, and devotion only to snuff them out in the maturity of their development.

​

Science gives man ever greater powers but ever less significance; it improves his tools and neglects his purposes; it is silent on ultimate origins, values, and aims; it gives life and history no meaning or worth that is not canceled by death or omnivorous time. So men prefer the assurance of dogma to the diffidence of reason; weary of perplexed thought and uncertain judgment, they welcome the guidance of an authoritative church, the catharsis of the confessional, the stability of a long-established creed. Ashamed of failure, bereaved of those they loved, darkened with sin, and fearful of death, they feel themselves redeemed by divine aid, cleansed of guilt and terror, solaced and inspired with hope, and raised to a godlike and immortal destiny.All of us here at EvC continue to lob the same topics back and forth at each other in our online verbal tennis game.We seek to understand why each other thinks the way that we think and feels the way that we feel. Common agreement is not necessarily our goal. Respect, understanding, and tolerance are more achievable for the moment. Think about this, however! If God does own all of the evidence, He has apparently put evidence that is not conclusive at all. Perhaps He wishes that humanity approach the topic as if no conclusion is evident. If God is the foregone conclusion of a Believer, how would any evidence be any different if there were no conclusion?
The answer in my mind is that the evidence, whatever it may be, would be no different. The inner passion to find truth would be the same and would cause humanity to ask even more questions and climb even higher mountains than we now do. To have no conclusion does not mean that the true scientist gives up on his experiment.This message has been edited by Phatboy, 04-21-2005 02:10 AMThis message has been edited by Phatboy, 04-21-2005 02:11 AM

Your comment brought up a few points that I wanted to put out:
1) In addressing such controversial issues as proof of Biblical accuracy/inerrency, theistic reality or fantasy, and or theology and so-called closed world views: Does the fact that many otherwise respectible people throughout human discourse have said otherwise about facts indicate that there is not more than one conclusion to be drawn? Translation: Yes, I see where many educated archeologists, linguists, secular theologians (like our own Brian) and overall skeptics have made some conclusions. I have also seen and read books by professing Christians who are not all idiots, by the way..that defend the faith. The entire section of Christian apologetics is not written merely by illiterates. They state different conclusions and defend their "facts". How do I know that the conclusions drawn by one way of thinking are any more sound than those drawn by the opponent?

Here is my 2 mites on the subject..Anyone who reaches these "gates" is given the option of accepting the gatekeeper for who He is. Be it the Dalai Lama, Ed Sullivan, Shirley McClain, or Kyle Gerkin! People at this point would be foolish to deny the gatekeepers position as well as His offer of relationship with them. (Yes, a narrow view) To be fair, however, I maintain that this gatekeeper is no more impressed with my Christianity than He is with anyone elses pet belief. The gatekeeper is only concerned with our honesty and willingness to be real with Him. He will not let you in as a detached observer, however. BTW Percy, I believe that nobody finds God...He finds them. There are no other gatekeepers besides His Son yet there are many paths to the gate!This message has been edited by Phatboy, 04-23-2005 05:16 AM

A fair question!
If someone were cured of disease, it would be hard to find any physical evidence.If water were turned to wine, the wine would long be gone. (As would the wineskins)Many Christian apologists have discussed the empty tomb, so I'll leave that to another thread.All that remains to prove or quantify is the matter of the current impact of God interacting with humanity. I would say that here at EvC for us at least, the jury is still out on that one.