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?

[Zzyzx]

To all who responded to my last post,

Words really are a difficult form of communication. Even I fail to make myself clear. Not that I am so wise to qualify for saying, "Even I." We all fail to completely express our thoughts.

Obviously, I left out this: Clear away all of outside influence of men, their lies and misunderstanding, and the Bible IS understandable.

Keep your own heart as innocent as is possible with an earnest and strenuous effort, using the Bible as guide. Do not allow men to tell you that you have sinned(erred) when you haven't. Stand firm on the word. Memorize it. Things will pop up in life that bring forth a verse in your mind which you can apply appropriately.

Your own effort to remain innocent is not enough. You need a spirit, the Spirit of Love. Ask honestly and it will be given. Love the Word of God. It is all we have to know Him. He does not show himself to men, but He sent His Holy Spirit of Love to those who will earnestly repent and seek Him. The Holy Spirit will lead you into all truth. Learn to trust the Spirit AND the Bible, rather than the man in the pulpit, or any other man.

Obviously, if more men/women in this country did this then they would not be held back by error, and perhaps we could turn the country back to God. See Acts 2:17-21. Dig deeper than those around you. Don't stop where they stop. All the Bible asks is that you know, love, and obey the Truth. Do it to the best of your ability and see what happens.
rusty

Rusty,

The above is pure preaching. It is NOT debate. Do you understand the difference?

Is there an issue that you feel qualified to debate?

[rusty]

Zzyzx wrote:
Rusty,
The above is pure preaching. It is NOT debate. Do you understand the difference?
Is there an issue that you feel qualified to debate?

Sorry to bother you, Z. Evidently, you prefer to turn the debate back to some kind of scientific evidence?

This is a debate board which expressly states that Christianity is the subject of the debate. Now, how can anyone debate a topic with INTELIGENCE if their understanding of that topic is not complete? My post was an effort to increase the understanding of Christianity so that we can have an inteligent debate!

Debate that! Or do you want to go back to some scientific and physical evidence?
rusty

[Zzyzx]

.

The above is pure preaching. It is NOT debate. Do you understand the difference?
Is there an issue that you feel qualified to debate?

Sorry to bother you, Z. Evidently, you prefer to turn the debate back to some kind of scientific evidence?

Yes, Rusty, I prefer debate based upon evidence and reasoning.

What type of “debate” do you prefer?

This is a debate board which expressly states that Christianity is the subject of the debate.

Perhaps you overlooked the sub-titles that appear at the top of some pages:

Pressing matters of the day and of all time, debated among thoughtful participants of all faiths

The pursuit of knowledge and truth, through God, through science, through civil and engaging debate

A civil debate forum for people of all persuasions (Atheists, Agnostics, Deists, Christians, and adherents of any religion)

Note that DEBATE is mentioned in each and preach is not. The sub-titles make it very clear that the forum is NOT exclusive to Christianity. Is that a disappointment?

Now, how can anyone debate a topic with INTELIGENCE if their understanding of that topic is not complete? My post was an effort to increase the understanding of Christianity so that we can have an inteligent debate!

It is gracious of you to share great knowledge with less fortunate and less intelligent people.

You have shown NO ability or desire to debate, intelligent or otherwise. Repeated discussions of your divorce and your religious beliefs do NOT constitute debate.

Debate that! Or do you want to go back to some scientific and physical evidence?

To debate is: “to discuss a question by considering opposed arguments”.

To preach is: “to deliver a sermon”

[Cathar1950]

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.

I am not righting this for your benifit Mack. I also have no doubt you actually understand the argument and its problems.
I was having a problem with his rather poorly written Ontological Argument. It was almost unrecognizable. I might have found his source.

1.The Ontological Argument
... concept by firstly defining God as "that than nothing greater can be conceived" ... says that surely having 1000£ in my pocket is greater then imagining it ...

www.socyberty.com/Religion/The-Ontological-Argument.

There is also a version of it called:

1.Anselm's Ontological Argument
... name, for God: the "that" beyond which nothing of any greater quality (power, ... ie., affirming that God is "a being than which nothing greater can be thought" ...

www.revneal.org/Writings/anselms.htm

Here is a brief introduction that might be useful:
http://atheism.about.com/od/argumentsfo ... ogical.htm

Does God Exist Because He Must?
The Ontological Argument for the existence of God is one of the oldest arguments in Christian theology. It is also one of the most difficult to understand because it relies soley upon logical arguments and not at all upon empirical evidence.
Saint Anselm of Canterbury (1033-1109) was one of the most influential proponents of this argument, and phrased it so:
We have a concept of a Perfect Being:
Such a Perfect Being must necessarily exist.
Why? If he did not exist, then he would not be perfect.
Somewhat more difficult to understand, he also wrote:
Assuredly that, than which nothing greater can be conceived, cannot exist in the understanding alone. For, suppose it exists in the understanding alone: then it can be conceived to exist in reality; which is greater

The problem is that we can always think of something greater.
Another problem is that what we think or conceive is not the same thing as existence.
Existence would seem superiority to conceptual as an attribute.
The argument has a long history and long list of objections.

[Greatest I Am]

Biker wrote:
the than which no greater can be thought.

This is a position of stagnation.
God must be allowed to evolve and grow just as we are.
He is in our image and we in His. We evolve, so does He.

You might consider the language of thee US constitution. A more perfect union.
They saw the US as perfect but able to be better.

Regards
DL

[Biker]

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.

I am not righting this for your benifit Mack. I also have no doubt you actually understand the argument and its problems.
I was having a problem with his rather poorly written Ontological Argument. It was almost unrecognizable. I might have found his source.

1.The Ontological Argument
... concept by firstly defining God as "that than nothing greater can be conceived" ... says that surely having 1000£ in my pocket is greater then imagining it ...

www.socyberty.com/Religion/The-Ontological-Argument.

There is also a version of it called:

1.Anselm's Ontological Argument
... name, for God: the "that" beyond which nothing of any greater quality (power, ... ie., affirming that God is "a being than which nothing greater can be thought" ...

www.revneal.org/Writings/anselms.htm

Here is a brief introduction that might be useful:
http://atheism.about.com/od/argumentsfo ... ogical.htm

Does God Exist Because He Must?
The Ontological Argument for the existence of God is one of the oldest arguments in Christian theology. It is also one of the most difficult to understand because it relies soley upon logical arguments and not at all upon empirical evidence.
Saint Anselm of Canterbury (1033-1109) was one of the most influential proponents of this argument, and phrased it so:
We have a concept of a Perfect Being:
Such a Perfect Being must necessarily exist.
Why? If he did not exist, then he would not be perfect.
Somewhat more difficult to understand, he also wrote:
Assuredly that, than which nothing greater can be conceived, cannot exist in the understanding alone. For, suppose it exists in the understanding alone: then it can be conceived to exist in reality; which is greater

The problem is that we can always think of something greater.
Another problem is that what we think or conceive is not the same thing as existence.
Existence would seem superiority to conceptual as an attribute.
The argument has a long history and long list of objections.

Well then, would you mind actually refuting the statement.
All you have done is bring up some information, so what.
I say again to the question "What is God?"
The than which no greater can be thought.
I say it sufficiently answers the question.
So, can we say this thread has been satisfied?

Biker

[Biker]

Biker wrote:
the than which no greater can be thought.

This is a position of stagnation.
God must be allowed to evolve and grow just as we are.
He is in our image and we in His. We evolve, so does He.

You might consider the language of thee US constitution. A more perfect union.
They saw the US as perfect but able to be better.

Regards
DL

This is a position of stagnation.

Why?

God must be allowed to evolve and grow just as we are.

Why?

He is in our image and we in His. We evolve so does He.

Why the than? I could maybe understand the we, depending upon your definition of evolve.

Biker

[Biker]

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.

Mac,
I inadvertently missed this post somehow.

Did you mean,
That which no greater can be thought.

No! I specifically meant "The than which no greater can be thought."
In answer to the specific question "What IS God?"
Hope that helps?

Biker

[McCulloch]

Mac,
I inadvertently missed this post somehow.

NP. Things get lost here in the shuffle sometimes

Did you mean,
That which no greater can be thought.

No! I specifically meant "The than which no greater can be thought."
In answer to the specific question "What IS God?"
Hope that helps?

No, but thanks for trying.

I have learned English and the sentence "God is the than which no greater can be thought." is not an English sentence.

The word 'the' is called an article. We use it like an adjective. Adjectives are words which modify nouns. The word the in English must be followed by a noun. For example, "The big red car". Car is the noun. The article the is followed by the noun car. "The than which no greater can be thought." The article the is not followed by any nouns at all. I'm not trying to be nitpicky or difficult, but I simply cannot understand what you are saying.

[Greatest I Am]

Biker wrote:
the than which no greater can be thought.

This is a position of stagnation.
God must be allowed to evolve and grow just as we are.
He is in our image and we in His. We evolve, so does He.

You might consider the language of thee US constitution. A more perfect union.
They saw the US as perfect but able to be better.

Regards
DL

This is a position of stagnation.

Why?

If we cannot think of any way to improve or make greater in size or attribute then the picture is complete and whole. It remains the same.

God must be allowed to evolve and grow just as we are.

Why

?

If God cannot grow or change or evolve then what good is a soul? When we die we would just disappear if we cannot be added to heaven and God. As we join God, He grows.

He is in our image and we in His. We evolve so does He.

Why the than? I could maybe understand the we, depending upon your definition of evolve.

Biker

As stated above, if we have a use for God, and we do, then we must be allowed to meld with the Godhead at death. If not then we may as well all call ourselves atheists because in their philosophy, at death, we dissolve into nothingness.
Whatever we are, good or evil, God wants and will have.
See ya in heaven.

Regards
DL