A question for Christians: what IS God?

[Dionysus]

... and by this, I don't want your typical platitudes.

I require, in specifics, exactly what God is. I find the phrase 'God is Love', for instance, to be highly suspect: it refers to an unstable, nebulous inner passion as if it were a Platonic Form. So instead I'd like something a bit more concrete - what is the ontological nature of God? Is it a being or Being? Does it live as we do? Is it sentient in any intelligible sense? Is it static or permeable? What, if any, is its purpose? And, most importantly, what does it feel like to the believer, who supposes himself to have direct contact with it through the mediation of the Holy Spirit?

Please, no romantic semantics (lulz, rhyme). 'God is Love', 'God is Triune', and so forth will not do. In short, I want a daseinalysis of God. What is its Being?

[rusty]

Has my previous post stopped debate on this thread because the shallow argument of "evidence" was debunked?

Or, was the post written so well as to leave no argument?

Is there anyone willing to discuss the existence of right and wrong based on a love for family, friends, and neighbors?

Haven't the atheists established a wise list of what is right and wrong for society based on the evolution of man's understanding of society?

Do individual atheists/non-theists have a consistantly similar list that they all agree on?

If I violated their list of "wrongs for society" would the atheist/non-theist condemn me? Or would he try to help me understand my error and lead me into their wisdom and truth?

Does the atheist/non-theist list of wrongs include only one commandment: All religion is to be despised?

See? There is a lot of things we can discuss other than "evidence." Interested?
rusty

[Goat]

Has my previous post stopped debate on this thread because the shallow argument of "evidence" was debunked?

Or, was the post written so well as to leave no argument?

Is there anyone willing to discuss the existence of right and wrong based on a love for family, friends, and neighbors?

Haven't the atheists established a wise list of what is right and wrong for society based on the evolution of man's understanding of society?

Do individual atheists/non-theists have a consistantly similar list that they all agree on?

If I violated their list of "wrongs for society" would the atheist/non-theist condemn me? Or would he try to help me understand my error and lead me into their wisdom and truth?

Does the atheist/non-theist list of wrongs include only one commandment: All religion is to be despised?

See? There is a lot of things we can discuss other than "evidence." Interested?
rusty

As far as I can see, there is no one list that speaks for all atheists. However, the Secular Humanists seem to have a good list.

[McCulloch]

Has my previous post stopped debate on this thread because the shallow argument of "evidence" was debunked?

Or, was the post written so well as to leave no argument?

Is there anyone willing to discuss the existence of right and wrong based on a love for family, friends, and neighbors?

The topic is, "What is God?" You seem to have argued that the existance of morality as evidence that God exists. The problem with that argument is that it is entirely incomplete. There are other valid ways to explain the emergence of morality in human society than the God hypothesis. By failing to explain the linkage, your argument has failed to prove anything at all.

Logically God's forgiveness is universal and without conditions. It is offered to every man and woman, no matter what offenses they are guilty of. Universal and unconditional.

You are forgiven (or will be) when you turn from error and walk toward God.

Do you have a problem understanding the terms universal or unconditional? Is God's forgiveness unconditional or is it conditional on my turning from error? It cannot be both.

All knowledge in existance comes from man/men/women. I repeat, logically, ALL knowledge comes from mankind....... Unless you or someone has recieved the truth from "a god." Have you been guided by "a god" in your search for truth?

All of what humans know has been discovered by humans. That is almost tautologically true. Where we differ is that you claim that some knowledge has come to humans from a god, or the God. The problem is that you really only have other humans word on that, unless you have received direct revelation from God himself. Therefore, we are back at square one, All human knowledge has come by human agency.

You have rejected other men's wisdom by saying, "Show me some evidence that it is true that there is a God; that Jesus was the Son of God; that the Bible is the Word of God;" The evidence you seek cannot be authored by "the evolution" of men because you have objectively rejected the truth spoken by men and the men who wrote the Bible.

An you have rejected other humans' wisdom by saying that Islam, Baha'i, Judaism, Buddhism and Hinduism are wrong. I don't reject the truth spoken by the men who wrote the Bible. I reject the claim that the men who wrote the Bible necessarily spoke the truth.

How do you know what is truth, especially if it is spoken by men?

I have asked you the same question. How do you know what is the truth? How do you know that those who wrote the Bible wrote the truth?

We may never know all truth. But we can eliminate falsehoods and get closer to understanding truth by science. That is the only methodology that has been proven to be successful at eliminating falsehood. Test everything.

God is

the than which no greater can be thought.

Then God does not exist. God cannot exist. That which goes faster than anything that can be thought, cannot exist. Because the fastest thing exists and that which goes faster therefore, cannot. That which is greater than anything that actually exists, cannot exist. Right?

[Biker]

Has my previous post stopped debate on this thread because the shallow argument of "evidence" was debunked?

Or, was the post written so well as to leave no argument?

Is there anyone willing to discuss the existence of right and wrong based on a love for family, friends, and neighbors?

The topic is, "What is God?" You seem to have argued that the existence of morality as evidence that God exists. The problem with that argument is that it is entirely incomplete. There are other valid ways to explain the emergence of morality in human society than the God hypothesis. By failing to explain the linkage, your argument has failed to prove anything at all.

Logically God's forgiveness is universal and without conditions. It is offered to every man and woman, no matter what offenses they are guilty of. Universal and unconditional.

You are forgiven (or will be) when you turn from error and walk toward God.

Do you have a problem understanding the terms universal or unconditional? Is God's forgiveness unconditional or is it conditional on my turning from error? It cannot be both.

All knowledge in existance comes from man/men/women. I repeat, logically, ALL knowledge comes from mankind....... Unless you or someone has recieved the truth from "a god." Have you been guided by "a god" in your search for truth?

All of what humans know has been discovered by humans. That is almost tautologically true. Where we differ is that you claim that some knowledge has come to humans from a god, or the God. The problem is that you really only have other humans word on that, unless you have received direct revelation from God himself. Therefore, we are back at square one, All human knowledge has come by human agency.

You have rejected other men's wisdom by saying, "Show me some evidence that it is true that there is a God; that Jesus was the Son of God; that the Bible is the Word of God;" The evidence you seek cannot be authored by "the evolution" of men because you have objectively rejected the truth spoken by men and the men who wrote the Bible.

An you have rejected other humans' wisdom by saying that Islam, Baha'i, Judaism, Buddhism and Hinduism are wrong. I don't reject the truth spoken by the men who wrote the Bible. I reject the claim that the men who wrote the Bible necessarily spoke the truth.

How do you know what is truth, especially if it is spoken by men?

I have asked you the same question. How do you know what is the truth? How do you know that those who wrote the Bible wrote the truth?

We may never know all truth. But we can eliminate falsehoods and get closer to understanding truth by science. That is the only methodology that has been proven to be successful at eliminating falsehood. Test everything.

God is

the than which no greater can be thought.

Then God does not exist. God cannot exist. That which goes faster than anything that can be thought, cannot exist. Because the fastest thing exists and that which goes faster therefore, cannot. That which is greater than anything that actually exists, cannot exist. Right?

Then God does not exist. God cannot exist.

Isn't this atheist dogma faith statements?
How did you arrive at this conclusion?

That which goes faster than anything that can be thought, cannot exist. Because the fastest thing exists and that which goes faster therefore, cannot.

What? Who said anything about going fast or faster?
Isn't this an atheist faith statement?
Is your example of the "fastest thing that exists", faster than a thought?

That which is greater than anything that actually exists, cannot exist.

Isn't this an atheist faith statement?
I believe I said, "thought".
Question:"What is God?"
Answer:"The than which no greater can be thought."
You can think can't you?

Biker

[Flash]

I have a few questions, and I thought you would be the right person to ask. It gets tough sometimes, sitting up here in heaven with no one to talk to. I mean really talk to. I can always converse with the angels, of course, but since they don't have free will, and since I created every thought in their submissive minds, they are not very stimulating conversationalists.

Of course, I can talk with the second and with the third person of our holy trinity, but since we are all the same, there is nothing we can learn from each other. There are no well-placed repartees in the Godhead. We all know what the others know. We can't exactly play chess. They sometimes calls me "Father," and that feels good, but since they and I are the same age and have the same powers, it doesn't mean much.

You are educated. You have examined philosophy and world religions, and you have a degree which makes you qualified to carry on a discussion with someone at my level--not that I can't talk with anyone, even with the uneducated believers who fill the churches and flatter me with endless petitions, but you know how it is. Sometimes we all crave interaction with a respected colleague. You have read the scholars. You have written papers and published books about me, and you know me better than anyone else.

It might surprise you to think that I have some questions. No, not rhetorical questions aimed at teaching spiritual lessons, but some real, honest-to-God inquiries. This should not shock you because, after all, I created you in my image. Your inquisitiveness is an inheritance from me. You would say that love, for example, is a reflection of my nature within yourself, wouldn't you? Since questioning is healthy, it also comes from me.

Somebody once said that we should prove all things, and hold fast that which is good.

My first question is this: Where did I come from?

I find myself sitting up here in heaven, and I look around and notice that there is nothing else besides myself and the objects that I have created. I don't see any other creatures competing with me, nor do I notice anything above myself that might have created me, unless it is playing hide-and-seek. In any event, as far as I know (and I supposedly know everything), there is nothing else but me in-three-persons and my creations. I have always existed, you say. I did not create myself, because if I did, then I would be greater than myself. So where did I come from?

I know how you approach that question regarding your own existence. You notice that nature, especially the human mind, displays evidence of intricate design. You have never observed such design apart from a designer. You argue that human beings must have had a creator, and you will find no disagreement from me.

Then, what about me? Like you, I observe that my mind is complex and intricate. It is much more complex than your mind, otherwise I couldn't have created your mind. My personality displays evidence of organization and purpose. Sometimes I surprise myself at how wise I am. If you think your existence is evidence of a designer, then what do you think about my existence? Am I not wonderful? Do I not function in an orderly manner? My mind is not a random jumble of disconnected thoughts; it displays what you would call evidence of design. If you need a designer, then why don't I?

You might think such a question is blasphemy, but to me there is no such crime. I can ask any question I want, and I think this is a fair one. If you say that everything needs a designer and then say that not everything (Me) needs a designer, aren't you contradicting yourself? By excluding me from the argument, aren't you bringing your conclusion into your argument? Isn't that circular reasoning? I am not saying I disagree with your conclusion; how could I? I'm just wondering why it is proper for you to infer a designer while it is not proper for me.

If you are saying that I don't need to ask where I came from because I am perfect and omniscient while humans are fallible, then you don't need the design argument at all, do you? You have already assumed that I exist. You can make such an assumption, of course, and I would not deny you the freedom. Such a priori and circular reasoning might be helpful or comforting to you, but it does me little good. It doesn't help me figure out where I came from.

You say that I am eternally existent, and I suppose I would have no objection if I knew what it meant. It is hard for me to conceive of eternal existence. I just can't remember back that far. It would take me an eternity to remember back to eternity, leaving me no time to do anything else, so it is impossible for me to confirm if I existed forever. And even if it is true, why is eternal greater than temporal? Is a long sermon greater than a short sermon? What does "greater" mean? Are fat people greater than thin people, or old greater than young?

You think it is important that I have always existed. I'll take your word for it, for now. My question is not with the duration of my existence, but with the origin of my existence. I don't see how being eternal solves the problem. I still want to know where I came from. I can only imagine one possible answer, and I would appreciate your reaction. I know that I exist. I know that I could not have created myself. I also know that there is no higher God who could have created me. Since I can't look above myself, then perhaps I should look below myself for a creator. Perhaps--this is speculative, so bear with me--perhaps you created me.

Don't be shocked. I mean to flatter you. Since I contain evidence of design, and since I see no other place where such design could originate, I am forced to look for a designer, or designers, in nature itself. You are a part of nature. You are intelligent--that is what your readers say. Why should I not find the answer to my question in you? Help me out on this.

Of course, if you made me, then I could not have made you, I think. The reason that I think I made you is because you made me to think I made you. You have often said that a Creator can put thoughts in your mind. Isn't it possible that you have put thoughts in my mind, and now here we are, both of us, wondering where we each came from?

Some of you have said that the answer to this whole question is just a mystery that only God understands. Well, thanks a lot. The buck stops here. On the one hand you use logic to try to prove my existence, but on the other hand, when logic hits a dead end, you abandon it and invoke "faith" and "mystery." Those words might be useful to you as place-holders for facts or truth, but they don't translate to anything meaningful as far as I am concerned. You can pretend that "mystery" signifies something terribly important, but to me it simply means you don't know.

Some of you assert that I did not "come" from anywhere. I just exist. However, I have also heard you say that nothing comes from nothing. You can't have it both ways. I either exist or I don't. What was it that caused me to exist, as opposed to not existing at all? If I don't need a cause, then why do you? Since I am not happy to say that this is a mystery, I must accept the only explanation that makes sense. You created me.

Is that such a terrible idea? I know that you think many other gods were created by humans: Zeus, Thor, Mercury, Elvis. You recognize that such deities originate in human desire, need, or fear. If the blessed beliefs of those billions of individuals can be dismissed as products of culture, then why can't yours? The Persians created Mithra, the Jews created Yahweh, and you created me. If I am wrong about this, please straighten me out.

My second question is this: What's it all about?

Maybe I made myself, maybe some other god made me, maybe you made me--let's put that aside for now. I'm here now. Why am I here? Many of you look up to me for purpose in life, and I have often stated that your purpose in life is to please me. (Read Revelation 4:11) If your purpose is to please me, what is my purpose? To please myself? Is that all there is to life?

If I exist for my own pleasure, then this is selfish. It makes it look as if I created you merely to have some living toys to play with. Isn't there some principle that I can look up to? Something to admire, adore, and worship? Am I consigned for eternity to sit here and amuse myself with the worship of others? Or to worship myself? What's the point?

I have read your writings on the meaning of life, and don't misunderstand me, they make sense in the theological context of human religious goals, even if they don't have much practicality in the real world. Many of you feel that your purpose in life is to achieve perfection. Since you humans fall way short of perfection, by your own admission (and I agree), then self improvement provides you with a quest. It gives you something to do. Someday you hope to be as perfect as you think I am. But since I am already perfect, by definition, then I don't need such a purpose. I'm just sort of hanging out, I guess.

Yet I still wonder why I'm here. It feels good to exist. It feels great to be perfect. But it gives me nothing to do. I created the universe with all kinds of natural laws that govern everything from quarks to galactic clusters, and it runs okay on its own. I had to make these laws, otherwise I would be involved with a lot of repetitive busy work, such as pulling light rays through space, yanking falling objects down to the earth, sticking atoms together to build molecules, and a trillion other boring tasks more worthy of a slave than a master. You have discovered most of those laws, and might be on the verge of putting the whole picture together, and once you have done that you will know what I know: that there is nothing in the universe for me to do. It's boring up here.

I could create more universes and more laws, but what's the point? I've already done universes. Creation is like sneezing or writing short stories; it just comes out of me. I could go on an orgy of creation. Create, create, create. After a while a person can get sick of the same thing, like when you eat a whole box of chocolates and discover that the last piece doesn't taste as good as the first. Once you have had ten children, do you need twenty? (I'm asking you, not the pope.) If more is better, then I am obligated to continue until I have fathered an infinite number of children, and an endless number of universes. If I must compel myself, then I am a slave.

Many of you assert that it is inappropriate to seek purpose within yourself, that it must come from outside. I feel the same way. I can't merely assign purpose to myself. If I did, then I would have to look for my reasons. I would have to come up with an account of why I chose one purpose over another, and if such reasons came from within myself I would be caught in a loop of self-justified rationalizations. Since I have no Higher Power of my own, then I have no purpose. Nothing to live for. It is all meaningless.

Sure, I can bestow meaning on you--pleasing me, achieving perfection, whatever--and perhaps that is all that concerns you; but doesn't it bother you, just a little, that the source of meaning for your life has no source of its own? And if this is true, then isn't it also true that ultimately you have no meaning for yourself either? If it makes you happy to demand an external reference point on which to hang your meaningfulness, why would you deny the same to me? I also want to be happy, and I want to find that happiness in something other than myself. Is that a sin?

On the other hand, if you think I have the right and the freedom to find happiness in myself and in the things I created, then why should you not have the same right? You, whom I created in my image? I know that some of you have proposed a solution to this problem. You call it "love." You think I am lonely up here, and that I created humans to satisfy my longing for a relationship with something that is not myself. Of course, this will never work because it is impossible for me to create something that is not part of myself, but let's say that I try anyway. Let's say that I create this mechanism called "free will," which imparts to humans a choice. If I give you the freedom (though this is stretching the word because there is nothing outside of my power) not to love me, then if some of you, a few of you, even one of you chooses to love me, I have gained something I might not have had. I have gained a relationship with someone who could have chosen otherwise. This is called love, you say.

This is a great idea, on paper. In real life, however, it turns out that millions, billions of people have chosen not to love me, and that I have to do something with these infidels. I can't just un-create them. If I simply destroy all the unbelievers, I may as well have created only believers in the first place. Since I am omniscient, I would know in advance which of my creations would have a tendency to choose me, and this would produce no conflict with free will since those who would not have chosen me would have been eliminated simply by not having been created in the first place. (I could call it Supernatural Selection.) This seems much more compassionate than hell.

You can't have a love relationship with someone who is not your equal. If you humans don't have a guaranteed eternal soul, like myself, then you are worthless as companions. If I can't respect your right to exist independently, and your right to choose something other than me, then I couldn't love those of you who do choose me. I would have to find a place for all those billions of eternal souls who reject me, whatever their reasons might be. Let's call it "hell," a place that is not-God, not-me. I would have to create this inferno, otherwise neither I nor the unbelievers could escape each other. Let's ignore the technicalities of how I could manage to create hell, and then separate it from myself, apart from whom nothing else exists. (It's not as though I could create something and then simply throw it away--there is no cosmic trash heap.) The point is that since I am supposedly perfect, this place of exile must be something that is the opposite. It must be ultimate evil, pain, darkness, and torment.

If I created hell, then I don't like myself. If I did create a hell, then it certainly would not be smart to advertise that fact. How would I know if people were claiming to love me for my own sake, or simply to avoid punishment? How can I expect someone to love me who is afraid of me in the first place? The threat of eternal torment might scare some people into obedience, but it does nothing to inspire love. If you treated me with threats and intimidations, I would have to reconsider my admiration for your character.

How would you feel if you had brought some children into the world knowing that they were going to be tormented eternally in a place you built for them? Could you live with yourself? Wouldn't it have been better not to have brought them into the world in the first place? I know that some of you feel that hell is just a metaphor. Do you feel the same way about heaven?

Anyway, this whole love argument is wrong. Since I am perfect, I don't lack anything. I can't be lonely. I don't need to be loved. I don't even want to be loved because to want is to lack. To submit to the potential of giving and receiving love is to admit that I can be hurt by those who choose not to love me. If you can hurt me, I am not perfect. If I can't be hurt, I can't love. If I ignore or erase those who do not love me, sending them off to hell or oblivion, then my love is not sincere. If all I am doing is throwing the dice of "free will" and simply reaping the harvest of those who choose to love me, then I am a selfish monster. If you played such games with people's lives, I would call you insensitive, conceited, insecure, selfish and manipulative.

I know you have tried to get me off the hook. You explain that Yours Truly is not responsible for the sufferings of unbelievers because rejection of God is their choice, not mine. They had a corrupt human nature, you explain. Well, who gave them their human nature? If certain humans decide to do wrong, where do they get the impulse? If you think it came from Satan, who created Satan? And why would some humans be susceptible to Satan in the first place? Who created that susceptibility? If Satan was created perfect, and then fell, where did the flaw of perdition come from? If I am perfect, then how in God's name did I end up creating something that would not choose perfection? Someone once said that a good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit.

Here is the title for your next theological tome: Was Eve Perfect? If she was, she would not have taken the fruit. If she wasn't, I created imperfection.

Maybe you think all of this gives me a purpose--putting Humpty Dumpty back together--but it actually gives me a headache. (If you won't permit me a simple headache, then how can you allow me the pain of lost love?) I could not live with myself if I thought my actions were causing harm to others. Well, I shouldn't say that. Since I think you created me, I suppose I should let you tell me what I could live with. If you think it is consistent with my character to tolerate love and vengeance concurrently, then I have no choice. If you are my creator, then I could spout tenderness out of one side of my mouth and brutality out of the other. I could dance with my lover on the bones of my errant children, and pretend to enjoy it. I would be very human indeed.

I have a thousand more questions, but I hope you will allow me one more:

How do I decide what is right and wrong?

I don't know how I got here, but I'm here. Let's just say that my purpose is to make good people out of my creations. Let's say that I am to help you learn how to be perfect like me, and that the best way is for you to act just like me, or like I want you to act. You goal is to become little mirrors of myself. Won't that be splendid? I'll give you rules or principles, and you try to follow them. This may or may not be meaningful, but it will keep us both busy. I suppose that from your point of view this would be terribly meaningful, since you think I have the power to reward and punish. I know that some of you Protestant theologians think that I give rewards not for good deeds, but simply for believing in my son Jesus who paid the punishment for your bad deeds. Well, Jesus spent only about thirty-six hours of an eternal life sentence in hell and is now back up here in ultimate coziness with me. Talk about a wrist-slap! He was not paroled for good behavior--he was simply released. (He had connections.) If my righteous judgment demanded absolute satisfaction, then Jesus should have paid the price in full, don't you think?

Beyond that, it is entirely incomprehensible to me why you think I would accept the blood of one individual for the crime of another. Is that fair? Is that justice? If you commit a felony, does the law allow your brother to serve the jail sentence for you? If someone burglarized your home, would you think justice was served if a friend bought you new furniture? Do you really think that I am such a bloodthirsty dictator that I will be content with the death of anyone for the crime of another? And are you so disrespectful of justice that you would happily accept a stand-in for your crimes? What about personal responsibility? It is tough to open my arms to welcome believers into heaven who have avoided the rap for their own actions. Something is way out of kilter here.

But let's ignore these objections. Let's assume that Jesus and I worked it all out and that evil will be punished and good rewarded. How do I know the difference? You are insisting that I not consult any rule book. You are asking me to be the Final Authority. I must simply decide, and you must trust my decision. Am I free to decide whatever I want?

Suppose I decide that I would like you to honor me with a day of my own. I like the number seven, I don't know why, maybe because it is the first useless number. (You never sing any hymns to me in 7/4 time.) Let's divide the calendar into groups of seven days and call them weeks. For harmony, I'll divide each lunar phase into roughly seven days. The last day of the week--or maybe the first day, I don't care--I'll set aside for myself. Let's call it the Sabbath. This all feels good, so I suppose it is the right thing to do. I'll make a law ordering you to observe the Sabbath, and if you do it then I will pronounce you good people. In fact, I'll make it one of my Big Ten Commandments, and I'll order your execution if you disobey. This all makes perfect sense, I don't know why.

Help me out here. How am I supposed to choose what is moral? Since I can't consult any authority, the thing to do, it appears, is to pick randomly. Actions will become right or wrong simply because I declare them to be so. If I whimsically say that you should not make any graven or molten images of "anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth," then that is that. If I decide that murder is right and compassion is wrong, you will have to accept it. Is that all there is to it? I just decide, willy-nilly, what is right and what is wrong? Or worse, I decide based on whatever makes me feel good? I have read in some of your literature that you denounce such self-centered attitudes.

Some of you say that since I am perfect, I can't make any mistakes. Whatever I choose to be right or wrong will be in accordance with my nature, and since I am perfect, then my choices will be perfect. In any event, my choices will certainly be better than your choices, you feel. But what does "perfect" mean? If my nature is "perfect" (whatever it means), then I am living up to a standard. If I am living up to a standard, then I am not God. If perfection means something all by itself, apart from me, then I am constrained to follow its path. If, on the other hand, perfection is defined simply as conformity to my nature, then it doesn't mean anything. My nature can be what it wants, and perfection will be defined accordingly. Do you see the problem here? If "perfection" equals "God," then it is just a synonym for myself, and we can do away with the word. We could do away with either word, take your pick.

If I am perfect, then there are certain things that I cannot do. If I am not free to feel envy, lust, or malice, for example, then I am not omnipotent. I cannot be more powerful than you if you can feel and do things that I cannot. Additionally, if you feel that God is perfect, by nature, what does "nature" mean? The word is used to describe the way things are or act in nature, and since you think I am above nature, you must mean something else, something like "character," or "attributes." To have a nature or character means to be one way and not another. It means that there are limits. Why am I one way and not another? How did it get decided that my nature would be what it is? If my "nature" is clearly defined, then I am limited. I am not God. If my nature has no limits, as some of you suggest, then I have no nature at all, and to say that God has such-and-such a nature is meaningless. In fact, if I have no limits, then I have no identity; and if I have no identity, then I do not exist.

Who am I?

This brings me back to the conundrum: if I don't know who I am, then how can I decide what is right? Do I just poke around in myself until I come up with something?

There is one course I could pursue, and some of you have suggested this for yourselves. I could base my pronouncements on what is best for you humans. You people have physical bodies that bump around in a physical world. I could determine those actions that are healthy and beneficial for material beings in a material environment. I could make morality something material: something that is relative to human life, not to my whims. I could declare (by conclusion, not by edict) that harming human life is bad, and that helping or enhancing human life is good. This would be like providing an operation manual for something I designed and manufactured. It would require me to know all about human nature and the environment in which you humans live, and to communicate these ideas to you. This makes a lot of sense, but it changes my task from one of determining morality to one of communicating morality. If morality is discovered in nature, then you don't need me, except maybe to prod you along. I saw to it that you have capable minds with the ability to reason and do science. There is nothing mysterious about studying how humans interact with nature and with each other, and you should be able to come up with your own set of rules. Some of you tried this millennia before Moses. Even if your rules contradict mine, I couldn't claim any higher authority than you. At least you would be able to give reasons for your rules, which I can only do by submitting to science myself.

If morality is defined by how human beings exist in nature, then you don't need me at all. I am off the hook! From what I have read, most of you have your feet on the ground with no help from me. I could hand down some stone tablets containing what I think is right and wrong, but it would still be up to you to see if they work in the real world. I think we all agree that grounded reason is better than the whim of an ungrounded deity.

This is a wonderful approach, but what bothers me is that while this may help you know what is moral in your environment, it doesn't help me much. I don't have an environment. I'm out here flapping in the breeze. I envy you.

Nor does the humanistic approach help those of you who want morality to be rooted in something absolute, outside of yourselves. It must be frightening for you who need an anchor to realize that there is no bottom to the ocean. Well, it's frightening for me also. I don't have an anchor of my own. That's why I'm asking for your help

[LittlePig]

God bless you. I feel your pain.

[ LittlePig donated some tokens, but in his ignorance he did not use the appropriate MPG program donation. Maybe one of the deities on this board can straighten it out. ]

[Zzyzx]

.
Zzyzx has donated 1000 tokens to Flash with the following comments.

Welcome to the forum, Flash . . . err, God. Your opening post is outstanding – obviously the product of a highly intelligent and creative mind – as one might expect of a supernatural being.

Do you inhabit a human body presently? Were you “born of a virgin” this time around? In North Carolina???????? (eastern counties perhaps?) I send greetings from the western end of the Bible Belt arc (the Ozarks). When you made this place you might have done a little better a job with distribution of religious fanatics.

God, I have to tell you (as though you didn’t already know) that a lot of the fundamentalist members are NOT going to like your attitude. Many seem to think they KNOW all about supernatural things – and their descriptions differ from yours. Are they following a different god?

Have you created other gods equal to yourself? If not, why don’t you quit fooling around with humans and make yourself a real challenge – someone who is your equal. Then it would not be so much like “beating up on your little brother” (or your “child” in this case). That unfair competition is unworthy of you.

God, you have asked questions in the right place. For your eternal satisfaction, create an equal to compete and/or cooperate with. If you want a REAL challenge, make that equal female and yourself male (or vice versa).

Welcome to the forum whoever you are.


Zzyzx

[McCulloch]

God is

the than which no greater can be thought.

Isn't this an atheist faith statement?
I believe I said, "thought".
Question:"What is God?"
Answer:"The than which no greater can be thought."
You can think can't you?

Maybe I am having problems with the grammar of your statement.

The than which no greater can be thought.

There is no noun.

Did you mean,
That which no greater can be thought.
The [entity] of which no greater can be thought.

I was focusing on the word greater. It is an ambiguous term, so I thought that I would illustrate with a more specific example, hence my use of speed.

I think that God's grace would be greater if he were to forgive unconditionally, therefore the Christian God, by your definition does not exist.

[rusty]

McCulloch wrote:
The topic is, "What is God?" You seem to have argued that the existance of morality as evidence that God exists. The problem with that argument is that it is entirely incomplete. There are other valid ways to explain the emergence of morality in human society than the God hypothesis. By failing to explain the linkage, your argument has failed to prove anything at all.

Yes. The existance of morality AND "right" versus "wrong" is evidence that God exists. Also, it is evidence that man is born ignorant of morality, and "right" versus "wrong."

The "linkage" you ask for is through a spirit. A spirit is something that is invisible and cannot be placed in an evidence bag for you. Therefore, one needs to develope spiritual insight and wisdom in order to understand such a linkage.
The spirit I speak of is the spirit of "love." Yep, you guessed what I was going to say! God is love. Love wishes no harm to anyone, but love for life and family is powerful enough to defend itself and family from those who threaten life, love, and family.

Love for God is a love for His moral laws and His definition of "right" as it was established in the beginning, before mankind's fall in the Garden of Eden.

Mankind was created in the "image" of God. God's "image" is an image of love. Not only a love for morality and "right," but also a love for mankind, one another. God loves us and has shown us how to love one another. He did this by giving mankind a demonstration and example of His love through His Son. He went so far as to prove that His version of "love" leads to healing the blind, the sick, and the lame, and finally, also leads to a resurrection in which the obedient of God, the humble and meek towards God, will inherit the earth forever.

Find the "spiritual." Find the wisdom of loving your family, friends, and neighbors. If everybody did that, it would be easy to do. As it is, the vast majority of people have not found it, which makes it very difficult to love those who assault you, decieve you, take advantage of your kindness and generosity, and openly despise you. .........This is why we have a church, to gather together those who love God and one another according to HIS rules that prohibit assaults, deception, injustice, manipulation, and hate. The church should NOT be indistinguishable from the lost, rather it should be a light for the lost.

Now, the U.S. was founded on principles that are based on God's prohibition of assualts, deception, injustice, manipulation, and hate. It was an effort to allow the freedom of righteous families an opportunity to prosper under rules of common sense and common decency. If ignorance and rejection of God leads to poverty and suffering, is it the government's job to steal wealth from those who rightfully earned it and give it to those who did not? To make matters worse, the government is not allowed to TEACH obedience to common sense and common decency to those who don't know it. Therefore, welfare and the like enable irresponsibility and self destruction. Government programs exascerbate the problem. The problem actually grows! There is no god like government! Our government is an example of the foolishness of man's wisdom!

We used to say "God bless America." Now we say, "Let government programs bless America." Have you noticed all the government run "family rescource centers" going up in small towns across the U.S? What's with that? The majority, having rejected God, has turned to government to lead families. Good grief!!! Where does this lead? To more confiscation of income? To enslavement to government? To more ID numbers? To more government control?

What happens to freedom and liberty? Does the whole earth become enslaved to a central government, eventually? "Oh, give me a home, where the buffalo roam, and the deer and the antelope play. Where seldom is heard, a discourging word and the skies are not cloudy all day!......" I don't want to play! I don't want to participate in your silly game. I want my freedom and liberty! Just leave me alone. Where do I go to escape man's foolish government?

I think I got sidetracked! But, God is love. Government is not love. Bad Government destroys and never builds up. We have been blessed with good government at times in our history, ie; the gas tax funding the construction of the interstate highways was very beneficial. But, income redistribution, free health care, and the like does not promote common sense, common decency, and strong loving families. It destroys them, it even destroys common sense and common decency by hiding God and placing government in God's chair.

What is God? God is love.

Do you have a problem understanding the terms universal or unconditional?
Is God's forgiveness unconditional or is it conditional on my turning from error? It cannot be both.

Do you not WANT to turn from error? I do, did. What is the problem with ONE itsy, bitsy, teenie, weenie, condition? Having turned from error, I am very grateful of the itsy, bitsy, teenie, weenie, condition. I am very grateful of the very HIGH PRICE paid by God's Son for that itsy, bitsy, teenie, weenie, condition. THIS is reality whether you believe it or not. I'm sorry, dude. You couldn't change it if you wanted to.

All of what humans know has been discovered by humans. That is almost tautologically true. Where we differ is that you claim that some knowledge has come to humans from a god, or the God. The problem is that you really only have other humans word on that, unless you have received direct revelation from God himself. Therefore, we are back at square one, All human knowledge has come by human agency.

Consider the possibility that a loving Creator did not withdraw his Spirit from all of mankind on earth. Perhaps He preserved his Spirit and Word through some men who retained it from the beginning. He did this through ONE man, Abraham. Through one nation, Isreal. He did this in order to prevent competing families of God on earth. Can you imagine various famlies of God sunken in error competing over different versions of "truth?" This is why God said to Abrahm, "I will make you a great nation and I will bless you; I will make your name great, and you will be a blessing (to all mankind). I will bless those who bless you, and whoever curses you I will curse; and all the peoples of the earth will be blessed through you."

Yes, all knowledge that is known has come through men, but I believe some men knew God. I believe in God. He is my rock, and my instructor.

I don't reject the truth spoken by the men who wrote the Bible. I reject the claim that the men who wrote the Bible necessarily spoke the truth.

How unfortunate for you.

We may never know all truth. But we can eliminate falsehoods and get closer to understanding truth by science. That is the only methodology that has been proven to be successful at eliminating falsehood. Test everything.

Science is not spiritual. Many things can be tested by a spirit of love and righteousness. If you love your neighbor you will not steal from him. Hmmm....I just tested government and found it to not love me because it steals from me, right out of my check! Good grief! Will I even benefit from Social Security, or will it be broke when I get there? What a f------ mess! Foolishness of man seeking security from government rather than God and His righteousness. It literally turns my stomach!
rusty

[rusty]

Flash wrote:
I have a few questions, and I thought you would be the right person to ask. It gets tough sometimes, sitting up here in heaven with no one to talk to. I mean really talk to.

Wow! How did I miss that huge post? Looks like you are confused, God. If you are perfect, why are you so confused?

Do you not love your creation? Do you regret creating mankind and giving him the freedom to love you, or not?

I should think that you would love to communicate with those who love you. I should think that you would get a kick out of inspiring your physical creation. Inspiring physical beings with loving spiritual ideas would be quite fulfilling, I would think!

And what is this silly question about who created you? Haven't you existed indefinitely? I think so!

I think you were lonely in the spiritual realm and desired to associate with a life enhanced physical realm. Isn't life an enhancement over minerals and atoms? Isn't life an extension of your own life and existance? Wouldn't the physical be extremely boring without life, love, and liberty? Aren't you entertained and excited watching your creation struggle to find truth and overcome evil? And you even get to participate by inspiring your physical beings who love you. You even get to help them at times! I wish you would help them a little more, though. Have you appointed a time to do just that?

Come on! Let me shake you out of your confusion! Pay attention! You are the beginning and the end! The alpha and omega! You have done all these things for your pleasure. You are the creator who created all things, even the tools of hell etc. to keep your love and inspiration in the physical realm on track. When the battle between good and evil is won, you shall be rightfully placed on the throne of heaven and in the heart of man(the physical). Your love and light will give life to a perfect family of physical beings who will enjoy your company and feast forever. What could be better? A loving God enjoying a loving creation? How cool is that?
rusty