A Working Definition of God

But you can't lop off what he does/what he did without losing the very characterstics that define him. It is impossible to separate his actions from what he is because what he is has been displayed by what he does.Do people not know you by your own actions? Do not actions speak louder than words?For example, you said: That's because you've started with the assumption that you cannot include what he does/what he did.However, since I agree that God the Father cannot be seen directly by any of us, I will interject that we need Christ to preceive the Father by -- and that this perception comes by Holy Spirit.When looking for God by the Holy Spirit you see that Christ is the visible image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation.You also see that by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him.You also see that he is before all things, and in him all things hold together -- that he is the head of the body, the church; that he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy.Finally, you also see that God the Father was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.But, of course, if you're not viewing him by the Holy Spirit, then you're basically left with the Shadow King -- which doesn't say much of anything.But it is still an interesting thought.If you're looking for a simple answer, I simply say that, "God is love."

"For God is love". How long and convoluted is that? To know God, who he is, not "it", we look to Jesus Christ. He is everything God is. He is everything God wanted for us.If you want to know what God "is" then look upon Christ's actions completely without.Watch a film or something, (an accurate one), and pretend you've never been preached at by a Christian, and pretend that the message is for you alone. What do you think about what God is? Was he violent, was his intentions good or bad (looking simply at his words and actions objectively with no preconceived notions or ideas whatsoever). I challenge you! Watch the passion.This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 04-18-2005 07:33 PM

If you read up a few lines in my message you'll find that I did say, "This is strictly my opinion," but to answer your question, most certainly I realize other people know things I don't. The problem comes in telling the difference between those who think they know something, and those who really do know something. Those who really know something can point to objective evidence for what they know.--Percy

Dan,You say But you qualify by saying 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."Why can't God be known simply by deed? The other things (qualities) are secondary; if you falsify them, it doesn't change WHO you're talking about, it only changes how you think about that being. However, in this case, if you falsify the deed, then it actually changes who you're looking for.For example, take William Shakespeare. When we try to discover who Shakespeare was, we come up with some essential criteria, for example "William Shakespeare is the guy who wrote Hamlet." In our search, we may come up with some secondary information about him, for example "William Shakespeare was British." It's possible to find out later that, in fact, William Shakespeare was NOT British. But it's impossible to find out that William Shakespeare did not write Hamlet. This is true even if the guy who wrote Hamlet was not named William Shakespeare.In the philosophy of language, this is called "rigid designation." It's common to designate individuals by exactly what you exclude--description of what someone did. In fact, it's common to designate someone by description of what they did, without knowing anything about the "personal attributes" of that person.If your goal is "to be asking whether or not [God] exists," then you shouldn't add your qualifiers to your question. There's no reason that someone can't "know" (i.e. identify) God by what God did or does.This message has been edited by Ben, Tuesday, 2005/04/19 10:11 AM

If I could rephrase this a bit, you are simply choosing to believe the Bible is the Word of God and that it contains accurate information about him. But perhaps it is your God that is made up.--Percy

Just wondering, would you say that you "choose" to believe in evolution, or that you simply believe in it because you are convinced it is the truth? But the point in response to brennakimi was that since I am believing an established body of teaching about God, not an idea about God that I dreamed up on my own, and that since that teaching includes that He is a God who communicates with his followers and desires that His followers may know him, it is not arrogant of me to claim to know him.This message has been edited by Faith, 04-18-2005 11:08 PM

That is true you did say it was your opinion but then you phrased it so unequivocally I forgot that. Sorry.

quote:

---

Those who really know something can point to objective evidence for what they know.

---

Is it at all a possibility that there really are invisible beings about which there is no way to point to evidence other than witness evidence or testimonies of personal experience?

Faith In order to make sense of this sentence you must allow for two mutually exclusive assumptions.You are telling us that there were witnesses and you also say there are invisible beings who,by nature of being invisible,cannot be witnessed.If we allow that these people saw the entities then this means that their eyes reponded to an electromagnetic impulse in the visible light range and thus these entities can indeed be independently corroborated.If we allow that these entities are invisible then explain how they make their presence known to people visibly.

---

And since you know you cannot see yourself,
so well as by reflection, I, your glass,
will modestly discover to yourself,
that of yourself which you yet know not of

if he communicates with his followers then why must they follow your rules. why can't they find him by what he says and not what your book says?

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?

quote:

---

But the point in response to brennakimi was that since I am believing an established body of teaching about God, not an idea about God that I dreamed up on my own, and that since that teaching includes that He is a God who communicates with his followers and desires that His followers may know him, it is not arrogant of me to claim to know him.

---

Do you think your environment had anything to do with that? When did you decide that you were hearing the Word of God?I assume it was a very young age, as most Christians do. It seems that rather than coming to a point and finding God, most Christians are raised with a knowledge of God from a young age. Through their parents, media, or what have you.If you were raised in Japan, would we be having an entirely different conversation right now? Would God have found you regardless? I doubt such a God would be bound by geography.My point is, if God is God, why is he bound by geography and human society? Shouldn't he be finding people and touching their lives regardless of other Christian interaction?Where is the lone African tribesman that God speaks to in the middle of nowhere?It's always Christians in Christian-based societies.

Hoo boy... let this sit overnight, wound up with quite a bit to nail down. 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. No, I really don't. Sorry. That's why I'm looking for someone to gimme the skinny. God is Eliza Dushku? I knew it. I have no idea, Mike. That's why I'm asking. 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. 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?" 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. Ut! Caught out!All right then, let's go with Eternity, occasional cryptic guide of Dr. Strange. 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?"

Dan, I've tried to plainly answer your question. I believe this following excerpt answers your every whim. You see, I see your problem, if no one has seen God, they might ask "what is he/it". So it's not that Dushku is God, but that the feeling you have may well be considered God to some extent, in that "love comes from God".Now treat everybody as you would her, and then you'll see God.This message has been edited by AdminPhat, 04-19-2005 07:09 AM

You shouldn't mix the terminologies of science and religion in this way. Focusing first on the phrase believe in, when someone says they believe in double-entry bookkeeping, or that they believe in the principle that a good defense defeats a good offense, or that they believe in evolution, these are not statements of religious belief. This is a common confusion of Creationists, and so many evolutionists have gotten into the habit of being more precise in their terminology by saying that they accept the theory of evolution based upon the available evidence, and they believe in God out of faith. This pretty much describes my position.You also use the word truth, and as has already been explained in the science threads, if truths are defined as eternal then scientific theories are definitely not truths because they are tentative, i.e., subject to change in light of new insights and/or new evidence. The theory of evolution is tentative and I therefore acknowledge that it could be wrong, but currently available evidence supports the theory and so, for now, I accept it as an accurate description of the natural world. I do not believe the theory of evolution, nor any scientific theory, represents truth. If I understand what you're saying, if I make up my own God, then I'm arrogant. If I then convince you to accept my God, you're not arrogant.If we assume that people have a responsibility to have evidence for what they advocate, and that to do otherwise is to display arrogance, then the lack of evidence for the Christian God, i.e., the lack of evidence that the Christian God is not simply made up, would seem to point to only one conclusion.--Percy