A question for Christians: what IS God?

Dionysus · Post by **Dionysus** » Wed Feb 13, 2008 9:05 am

... 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?

Biker · Post by **Biker** » Wed Feb 20, 2008 5:46 pm

McCulloch wrote:
MikeH wrote:All laws of physics break down at the big bang. Since an eternal being would exist before and after these laws were put into play, that's why I would refer to that being as metaphysical.
Ever since Einstein's relativity we know that time is part of the fabric of the universe along with spacial dimensions. There is no before the big bang.

Why?

Biker

LittlePig · Post by **LittlePig** » Wed Feb 20, 2008 6:04 pm

MikeH

There is no real difference between the two if you think about it.

I'm not sure what you mean there.

God could not have created the universe if it is infinitely old. And if it is not infinitely old, at any point in the time line it is finite in duration and will always be finite in duration even though it may have the potential of infinite duration. So the universe cannot be eternal in both directions, and I doubt it is infinite in extent if it has been expanding for finite time.

Because the physical universe refers to everything that is ruled by the laws of physics we have come to know and love. We have observed that the physical laws, however, break down in certain areas like black holes, and theoretically before the big bang none of the physical laws would apply. If physics do not always apply, then that makes me think there must be 'more' than the physical universe.

Are you sure that physics does not always apply? Could it be that we have holes in our theories and suffer from incomplete and competing laws? Isn't that what TOE is meant to solve (despite Godel's suspicions)? If strings are posited to be the highest dimension(s [multiple string types]) (excepting God in your case, that'd be #12 or so?), wouldn't physics cascade 'down' the dimensions?

Honestly, dimensions hurt my head. If strings are 'above' time and yet it is their 'vibration' (a concept which implies change of state / sequentiality / time) that results in the lower dimensions and the physical universe(s), shouldn't there be 'string-time' or something like that?

Infinite past and infinite future.

That makes it awful hard to live in the present. How'd we cover an 'infinite amount' (notice the quotes - that's a contradiction there, a linguistic black hole where meaning breaks down) of the highway of yesterday to get to today? If you mean to say the snake of time eats its own tail, I think we run into problems of causality going head-to-tail (or vice versa), of God puncticularly creating the 'eternal' cycle and maintaining dual eternality, and of an infinitely expanding universe ever getting back to point 0 or any point in the opposite direction of time-flow.

Not "part of" as in "confined to." Space refers to the third dimension (length, width, height), time is just another measurement - so the fourth dimension is measured by (length, width, height, time).

Well said. I often mis-describe dimensions as I find them almost impossible to visualize. But if all dimensions always 'exist,' and strings are posited to manifest themselves even at the lowest dimensions, and you posit that God perches at the top of all dimensions, would she not always also have dimensions of length, width, height, and time? Would this not make her observable to some degree rather than invisible as most seem to claim? Would this not make God the actual universe? How does God 'act' outside of time? Wouldn't it be simpler to remove that top-most dimension from the stack?

According to theory, yes. In fact, from the seventh dimensional view, every possible timeline of our universe from beginning to the end would look like a single point.

Or 6 dimensions.

Oww, my head. Pigs aren't made to think of such things.

OpenedUp · Post by **OpenedUp** » Wed Feb 20, 2008 6:24 pm

If you are interested in dimensions, this video explains the concept and theory VERY clearly (for me at least):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JkxieS-6WuA

LittlePig · Post by **LittlePig** » Wed Feb 20, 2008 7:36 pm

OpenedUp

Thanks for the link. I had already seen that video at the author's official website (http://www.tenthdimension.com/medialinks.php). And actually that was the viewpoint from which I was trying to discuss all this with MikeH because that is where he seems to be coming from. But, unfortunately, I think that description of dimensions is inaccurate. String Theory posits 11 or more (many more) dimensions, and they are not described as the author (Rob Bryanton) describes them. From what I've read, Bryanton is actually not well-informed on String Theory and so really butchers it in an attempt to dumb down what he already does not understand. String Theory seems interesting, but I find it very difficult to grasp. From what I understand, you only start to understand it a little if you get deep into the math, and the real math of it is beyond everyone's grasp right now.

McCulloch · Post by **McCulloch** » Wed Feb 20, 2008 10:02 pm

McCulloch wrote:Ever since Einstein's relativity we know that time is part of the fabric of the universe along with spacial dimensions. There is no before the big bang.

Biker wrote:Why?

What in particular are you having difficulty understanding?

If you wish to know more about relativity, there are books available. Primer of Relativity: A Student's Introduction is one.

Look at Spacetime. There are a number of links at the bottom to basic explanatory sites.

A common but mistaken idea that many people have about the Big Bang is that it is the idea that the universe expanded from a very small compact bit into the space that existed around it. But the theory is quite different. Space and time are equivalent. Spacetime itself has been expanding from nothing since the Big Bang. There was no before the Big Bang, because that is when time started.

OpenedUp · Post by **OpenedUp** » Wed Feb 20, 2008 11:11 pm

LittlePig wrote:OpenedUp

Thanks for the link. I had already seen that video at the author's official website (http://www.tenthdimension.com/medialinks.php). And actually that was the viewpoint from which I was trying to discuss all this with MikeH because that is where he seems to be coming from. But, unfortunately, I think that description of dimensions is inaccurate. String Theory posits 11 or more (many more) dimensions, and they are not described as the author (Rob Bryanton) describes them. From what I've read, Bryanton is actually not well-informed on String Theory and so really butchers it in an attempt to dumb down what he already does not understand. String Theory seems interesting, but I find it very difficult to grasp. From what I understand, you only start to understand it a little if you get deep into the math, and the real math of it is beyond everyone's grasp right now.

Ya I plan to study string theory a little more in depth in the upcoming weeks (at least as much as I can comprehend). I have been told that the video is inaccurate, but I felt that it was a good place to start and a good way to get my mind into that mindset.

Biker · Post by **Biker** » Sat Feb 23, 2008 11:50 am

McCulloch wrote:
McCulloch wrote:Ever since Einstein's relativity we know that time is part of the fabric of the universe along with spacial dimensions. There is no before the big bang.

Biker wrote:Why?
What in particular are you having difficulty understanding?

If you wish to know more about relativity, there are books available. Primer of Relativity: A Student's Introduction is one.

Look at Spacetime. There are a number of links at the bottom to basic explanatory sites.

A common but mistaken idea that many people have about the Big Bang is that it is the idea that the universe expanded from a very small compact bit into the space that existed around it. But the theory is quite different. Space and time are equivalent. Spacetime itself has been expanding from nothing since the Big Bang. There was no before the Big Bang, because that is when time started.

Of course this is a theory with no empirical.
So your statement is actually a faith statement.
Here is my version: "God said light be, and light was."

Biker

LittlePig · Post by **LittlePig** » Sat Feb 23, 2008 12:29 pm

Biker

Of course this is a theory with no empirical.

Actually, it is empirical. It's just not conclusive, yet.

McCulloch

A common but mistaken idea that many people have about the Big Bang is that it is the idea that the universe expanded from a very small compact bit into the space that existed around it. But the theory is quite different. Space and time are equivalent. Spacetime itself has been expanding from nothing since the Big Bang. There was no before the Big Bang, because that is when time started.

You should check out this article:
"Cosmic forgetfulness" shrouds time before the Big Bang (http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/30416)

Biker · Post by **Biker** » Thu Feb 28, 2008 6:11 pm

LittlePig wrote:Biker
Of course this is a theory with no empirical.
Actually, it is empirical. It's just not conclusive, yet.

McCulloch
A common but mistaken idea that many people have about the Big Bang is that it is the idea that the universe expanded from a very small compact bit into the space that existed around it. But the theory is quite different. Space and time are equivalent. Spacetime itself has been expanding from nothing since the Big Bang. There was no before the Big Bang, because that is when time started.
You should check out this article:
"Cosmic forgetfulness" shrouds time before the Big Bang (http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/30416)

I think your oinking up the wrong tree.

Biker

Cathar1950 · Post by **Cathar1950** » Thu Feb 28, 2008 7:01 pm

Biker wrote:
LittlePig wrote:Biker
Of course this is a theory with no empirical.
Actually, it is empirical. It's just not conclusive, yet.

McCulloch
A common but mistaken idea that many people have about the Big Bang is that it is the idea that the universe expanded from a very small compact bit into the space that existed around it. But the theory is quite different. Space and time are equivalent. Spacetime itself has been expanding from nothing since the Big Bang. There was no before the Big Bang, because that is when time started.
You should check out this article:
"Cosmic forgetfulness" shrouds time before the Big Bang (http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/30416)
I think your oinking up the wrong tree.

Biker

I see we have another one of your worthless one-liners that is largely pointless.

Here is my version: "God said light be, and light was."

Biker

Speaking of not having any empirical evidence, It is not your version, it is a story written by one of the authors some 2800 to 2400 years ago and explains nothing.
You are not even oinking or aproaching a tree.