Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   A Working Definition of God
Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 332 (199211)
04-14-2005 9:39 AM


Very straightforward question, probably with a long and convoluted answer.
What is this "God" thing people keep going on about?
Not asking for what it did. Not asking for its opinion of me, or anyone else. Asking for what it is.
If we're going to be asking whether or not it exists, we might as well start by deciding exactly what it is we're wondering about.
This message has been edited by Admin, 04-18-2005 02:13 PM

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Faith, posted 04-18-2005 3:21 PM Dan Carroll has replied
 Message 10 by Percy, posted 04-18-2005 4:10 PM Dan Carroll has not replied
 Message 17 by mike the wiz, posted 04-18-2005 8:31 PM Dan Carroll has not replied
 Message 19 by Ben!, posted 04-18-2005 9:07 PM Dan Carroll has not replied
 Message 116 by clpMINI, posted 04-20-2005 9:04 AM Dan Carroll has replied
 Message 180 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-21-2005 1:26 PM Dan Carroll has replied
 Message 216 by Trump won, posted 04-22-2005 7:50 PM Dan Carroll has not replied

Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 4 of 332 (200168)
04-18-2005 3:52 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Faith
04-18-2005 3:21 PM


Well, for starters, let's lop off what he does/what he did.
We're left with:
God is beginningless and endless uncreated invisible Spirit, Mind, without physicality, pure consciousness, a Who not an It, a Who that pervades all things but is not all things.
Which would also adequately describe the Shadow King, sworn enemy of Prof. Charles Xavier. Perhaps we can narrow the field a bit more?
This message has been edited by [Dan's Clever Alias], 04-18-2005 02:56 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Faith, posted 04-18-2005 3:21 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by jar, posted 04-18-2005 3:58 PM Dan Carroll has replied
 Message 9 by Faith, posted 04-18-2005 4:08 PM Dan Carroll has not replied
 Message 16 by Mr. Ex Nihilo, posted 04-18-2005 7:55 PM Dan Carroll has not replied
 Message 25 by Phat, posted 04-19-2005 9:06 AM Dan Carroll has replied

Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 7 of 332 (200175)
04-18-2005 4:00 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by jar
04-18-2005 3:58 PM


Well, so am I. As is my cat.
Doesn't really narrow the definition to any specific place.
(Oops, Crash beat me to it.)
This message has been edited by [Dan's Clever Alias], 04-18-2005 03:00 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by jar, posted 04-18-2005 3:58 PM jar has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by crashfrog, posted 04-18-2005 4:00 PM Dan Carroll has not replied

Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 28 of 332 (200322)
04-19-2005 9:33 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by Phat
04-19-2005 9:06 AM


Re: Dans clever creation
Hoo boy... let this sit overnight, wound up with quite a bit to nail down.
Magisterium Devolver writes:
It is impossible to separate his actions from what he is because what he is has been displayed by what he does.
So cut to the chase. Go ahead and reverse-engineer what he is by looking at what he did, then clue us in to what he is.
When looking for God by the Holy Spirit you see that...
No, I really don't. Sorry. That's why I'm looking for someone to gimme the skinny.
If you're looking for a simple answer, I simply say that, "God is love."
God is Eliza Dushku? I knew it.
Mike writes:
What do you think about what God is?
I have no idea, Mike. That's why I'm asking.
Ben writes:
In everyday life, it's perfectly fine to designate a person by what they did, or what they think, etc. For example, "we're looking for the person who killed Bob Jones."
Except that you just told us that you were describing a person. There's your "what", right there in the sentence... a person. There's no confusing this killer with a platypus, or a stapler.
Why can't God be known simply by deed?
Because then we're left with, "There's this... you know, thing. It did a bunch of stuff, like create the Earth."
To which I respond, "Well... how do we know this thing is even there? You can't even say what it is. Was it a steam engine of some kind? A leprauchan? A magic pen, handed down to the seventh son of a seventh son? If we're going to talk about whether it's there, let's ask what it is first."
Imagine we walked into a room, and found a dead body. There's nothing on the body to indicate how it died. I turn to you and say, "We're looking for the person or thing that killed this man. I know what it is, and it's in this room."
You say to me, "Well, what is it?"
I respond, "It killed that man."
Wouldn't you blink a couple times, and say, "Yes, you just said that. What is it?"
When we try to discover who Shakespeare was
Well, that's the problem, isn't it? We haven't even reached "who". We're still on "what". On the off chance it turns out there are several Gods, I have no problem defining Thor as "the one who makes lightning." But I'd still like to know what a God is first.
Phatboy writes:
But Dan...the Shadow King is a created thing.
Ut! Caught out!
All right then, let's go with Eternity, occasional cryptic guide of Dr. Strange.
An observer could conclude that our God is made up.
I know it might sound like I'm being a smart-ass here, but I'm actually trying to pay a great deal of respect to the claim of existence of God.
Specifically, I'm stitting down and saying, "Okay, you say this 'God' thing exists. I'll take an inquiry into that seriously... so let's start with the basics. What are you telling me exists?"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Phat, posted 04-19-2005 9:06 AM Phat has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by mike the wiz, posted 04-19-2005 9:59 AM Dan Carroll has replied
 Message 76 by Mr. Ex Nihilo, posted 04-19-2005 2:44 PM Dan Carroll has replied

Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 31 of 332 (200340)
04-19-2005 10:17 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by mike the wiz
04-19-2005 9:59 AM


Re: Dans clever creation
Dan, I've tried to plainly answer your question.
Congrats. You haven't succeeded.
You see Mike, your answer is so vague as to be meaningless.
To me, love is watching Donald Sutherland movies. Love is kicking ass in whirlyball. Love is breathing furiously and sweating after having sex with my girlfriend. Love is the Chef Boyardee pastas with fun cartoon shapes and imitation meatballs. Love is old issues of Kirby's run on Fantastic Four.
To you, love is an entirely different set of criteria. When you throw in six billion other people, the criteria gets even more wrinkly.
So what... Love is practically everything? So God is practically everything?
Acceptable as a neat little philosophical dealy, I suppose. However, if you're actually talking about the existence of a creator of the universe, then narrow the field. I can assure you there is someone out there who thinks my asshole is love. I can just as readily assure you that their love for my asshole did not create the universe.
Now treat everybody as you would her, and then you'll see God.
While I like to think of myself as manly and virile, I don't think I have the energy to treat everybody as I would Eliza Dushku. There are six billion people out there, Mike.
This message has been edited by [Dan's Clever Alias], 04-19-2005 09:20 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by mike the wiz, posted 04-19-2005 9:59 AM mike the wiz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by mike the wiz, posted 04-19-2005 10:40 AM Dan Carroll has replied

Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 34 of 332 (200350)
04-19-2005 10:50 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by mike the wiz
04-19-2005 10:40 AM


Re: Dans clever creation
No, you've missed it here Dan. Missed it. You're talking about pleasure/lust and things that make Dan feel good.
Which, to me, are part and parcel of love. See how wrinkly this gets with only two people?
I'm talking about fire. You're talking about self-gratification.
If you don't feel fire from art, physical accomplishment, sexual union, nourishment of the body, and nourishment of the mind, then I feel sorry for you. What exactly are you doing with your life?
How much would you desire a Sutherland movie? Would you give your life to see it?
To see it? Probably not. To ensure a world where it could exist? Absolutely.
The bible speaks of three criteria only
Bully for the Bible. What's your point?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by mike the wiz, posted 04-19-2005 10:40 AM mike the wiz has not replied

Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 36 of 332 (200352)
04-19-2005 10:55 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by nator
04-19-2005 10:43 AM


Re: Dans clever creation
Hey Dan, I'd love for you to treat me the way you would treat Eliza Dushku, but I'm married already.
I'd offer to fight Zhimbo in a battle to the death. But you'd also have to fight my girlfriend in a battle to the death, and we'd have to hire someone to play the arena theme from Star Trek for the whole thing, buy some floodlights and weapons, acquire some cool homoerotic gladiator uniforms... oy, really it'd just be a whole big to-do.
Mike, are you sure you want Dan, um, "treating" you like Eliza Dushku?
I'm fairly sure he does.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by nator, posted 04-19-2005 10:43 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by nator, posted 04-19-2005 2:02 PM Dan Carroll has not replied

Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 37 of 332 (200353)
04-19-2005 10:59 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by mike the wiz
04-19-2005 10:54 AM


Re: The LORD creates all things from Spirit.
You are the natural man Dan, (Romans). The natural man thinks the Spiritual things are foolishness.
Can I borrow your mind-reading helmet? I figure I'll make a killing at the track.
In the meantime, what on Earth makes you think there's nothing spiritual about what I posted?
These are the things that give me fire, Mike.
Meanwhile, I fail to see how the fire of which you speak, even if I am misapplying it here, is a sound definition for the thing we're talking about. Again... neat little philosophical dealy. Useless to the conversation at hand. So vague as to be meaningless.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by mike the wiz, posted 04-19-2005 10:54 AM mike the wiz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by mike the wiz, posted 04-19-2005 11:10 AM Dan Carroll has replied

Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 39 of 332 (200357)
04-19-2005 11:16 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by mike the wiz
04-19-2005 11:10 AM


Re: The LORD creates all things from Spirit.
But we're talking about what God is remember, all I'm saying is what he isn't, in an effort to help you understand this.
Great. He's also not a telephone. Or the oil-rich coastal lowlands of Venezuela. Or three-toed sloth.
We can do this all day. Perhaps you should get cracking on some concrete terms for "is", rather than "is not".
I thought I also made it clear what he is, and JC certainly shows this.
What part of "so vague as to be meaningless" was hard to get?
Maybe a doctrine of men, from a religion - has confused you as to what things are spiritual and natural?
Maybe your inability to see how others might receive spirituality from sources other than the ones that work for you is what's got you acting so condenscending?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by mike the wiz, posted 04-19-2005 11:10 AM mike the wiz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by mike the wiz, posted 04-19-2005 11:22 AM Dan Carroll has replied

Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 43 of 332 (200364)
04-19-2005 11:34 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by mike the wiz
04-19-2005 11:22 AM


Re: The LORD creates all things from Spirit.
Here's from the same book
Bully for you and the Bible. What's your point?
Since you boast of worldy things, I know that you speak of natural things and not spiritual, because you speak from the viewpoint of the world.
So you speak from the viewpoint of God, then?
That's very funny when taken alongside the statement, "I don't mean to be condescending".
Any Spirit that concedes that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of true Spirit. Do yur sources concede this?
Let me get this straight... it's not real spirituality unless it involves Jesus?
Wow.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by mike the wiz, posted 04-19-2005 11:22 AM mike the wiz has not replied

Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 56 of 332 (200396)
04-19-2005 1:11 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by Faith
04-19-2005 1:08 PM


This whole "we have truckloads of evidence, they just refuse to see it" business would be far less funny on a thread that wasn't devoted to the question, "evidence of what, exactly?"
A question as yet unanswered. So far we've got a Dr. Strange character who feels fiery about Jesus.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Faith, posted 04-19-2005 1:08 PM Faith has not replied

Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 64 of 332 (200404)
04-19-2005 1:33 PM


Never mind, Mike beat my smarmy comment to the punch.
This message has been edited by [Dan's Clever Alias], 04-19-2005 12:33 PM

Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 75 of 332 (200423)
04-19-2005 2:40 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by Faith
04-19-2005 2:22 PM


I'd be happy to discuss WHAT God is, only Dan seems to have dropped the ball long ago and meanwhile the usual challenges to the Christian God have moved in.
I'm terribly sorry. Next time I'll do a better job of...
Okay, I can't even think of a sarcastic response to this nonsense. I asked a question. As of yet, no one's given a complete or coherent answer. How that adds up to me dropping the ball, I don't know.
But don't worry... I'm sure you have mountains of evidence to support the existence of... I dunno, whatever this thing's supposed to be.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Faith, posted 04-19-2005 2:22 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by Faith, posted 04-19-2005 9:52 PM Dan Carroll has replied
 Message 108 by Mammuthus, posted 04-20-2005 3:19 AM Dan Carroll has replied

Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 79 of 332 (200429)
04-19-2005 2:53 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by Mr. Ex Nihilo
04-19-2005 2:44 PM


Re: Dans clever creation
Then why do you say things like this when we offer you an honest answer when we say God is love?
Because, as I said elsewhere, that's so vague an answer as to be meaningless.
As others have noted, she plays nasty so amazingly well it is almost scary.
Got'cher back on that count, my good fellow.
Plus, in connecting "God is love" with any roles that Eliza Dushku has played, are you not equating God with a person?
Apparently. Perhaps it's too vague a definition if includes Eliza Dushku?
Or, if you are certain that a person is involved we might ask, "Is it a killer?" If you are sure that natural causes that resulted in the person's death, then we might ask, "Was it simply natural causes?" If you suspect both (and we are not sure which), then we might ask, "Was it a killer or natural causes?"
And if I were to respond, "It killed that man" again, wouldn't it become a bit maddening dealing with me? Might you even respond by deciding that I was talking out my ass when I said I knew what killed him?
But to answer your question, if you're looking for a raw definition of God, I would probably answer, "God is spirit."
Well what's that?
This answer, of course, would most likely be pursued with other questions -- which, with further clarification, would most likely mean that it would point to Christ (from a Juedo-Christian perspective).
Well, that's considerably more specific. But all I know about Christ is that he's a human who performed super-human feats and spoke a lot about morality. Presumably there's something about God that makes him different from an Israeli Spiderman. So shall we keep refining?
For example, if the answer "God is spirit." were then retorted with something intergalactically stupid like, "Great. God is a ghost...I knew it." or something else similar like this, I would most likely conclude that their inquiry is actually a sarcasm meant to poke holes in other peoples faith systems. And I wouldn't really waste my time bothering to explain it to them anymore from there.
Well, I'm terribly sorry about that. But if the definition you offer is vague enough that it could describe a ghost, then that's hardly my fault.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Mr. Ex Nihilo, posted 04-19-2005 2:44 PM Mr. Ex Nihilo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by Mr. Ex Nihilo, posted 04-19-2005 6:35 PM Dan Carroll has replied

Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 82 of 332 (200432)
04-19-2005 3:01 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by mike the wiz
04-19-2005 2:55 PM


Crap, we broke Mike again. Someone get a screwdriver.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by mike the wiz, posted 04-19-2005 2:55 PM mike the wiz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by mike the wiz, posted 04-19-2005 3:06 PM Dan Carroll has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024