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?

[JoelWildtree]

JoelWilder,hello again.
I have read your reply.
Is your statement true in that you can think of something greater and prove God a fake?
Is your statement a meaningless statement ?
Thanks for the reply.

Thanks, I'll explain this again to clear up any confusion here. The initial claim by Biker was that "God is the greatest thing that we can think of." So, I asked him to then carry through with that, and actually think of the greatest thing he can (ie: God). At that point, we then have a working definition of God, a description with attribute and characteristics which can be judged on their "greatness". If he makes it that far, then I will offer my input on his description of God. My comment about proving his God a "fake" relies on my confidence though that if he approaches any workable definition for God, that there are plenty here including myself who will point out the lack of supporting evidence for this God.

[Biker]

... 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?

I require in specifics, exactly what God is.

The than which no greater can be thought.

Biker

Post 15 again which got largely ignored.

Biker

I guess I do not understand why the statement is not self explanatory?
It relies on no data from experience.
It is a reasonable definition.
It is simple and easily comprehendible.
We all understand the idea of God to correspond to a supreme being that stretches- even transcends - the limits of our imagination.
Anyone can acknowledge and understand the definition, and to do so we must have some idea of God in our mind.
A mental picture of God is not necessary as a representation.
Our minds can comprehend as a logical possibility the idea of God as
"THAT THAN WHICH NO GREATER CAN BE THOUGHT."
To say one can think of something greater if one acknowledges and comprehends the idea is to contradict oneself.

Biker

[Biker]

Don't be too hard on him. At least he managed to post a reply on this thread. Don't forget Hope for the Hopeless, Biker.

If I didn't know you better Fallibleone I would think you were insulting my intelligence. But, since I know you better than that I am sure your not but your just frustrated.
In addition I try to give hope to the hopeless, thats why I talk to you skeptic/atheist/secularists every day telling you of the bottomless love and grace and mercy and kindness extended to you by Jesus Christ. It is right there available to you 24/7/365. Go swim in it.

Biker

[OpenedUp]

Don't be too hard on him. At least he managed to post a reply on this thread. Don't forget Hope for the Hopeless, Biker.

If I didn't know you better Fallibleone I would think you were insulting my intelligence. But, since I know you better than that I am sure your not but your just frustrated.
In addition I try to give hope to the hopeless, thats why I talk to you skeptic/atheist/secularists every day telling you of the bottomless love and grace and mercy and kindness extended to you by Jesus Christ. It is right there available to you 24/7/365. Go swim in it.

Biker

Sorry, your not supposed to swim within a lifetime after ingesting the truth about life. I don't wanna cramp up.

lol sorry, I couldn't help myself

[LittlePig]

Biker

I guess I do not understand why the statement is not self explanatory?
It relies on no data from experience.
It is a reasonable definition.
It is simple and easily comprehendible.
We all understand the idea of God to correspond to a supreme being that stretches- even transcends - the limits of our imagination.
Anyone can acknowledge and understand the definition, and to do so we must have some idea of God in our mind.
A mental picture of God is not necessary as a representation.
Our minds can comprehend as a logical possibility the idea of God as
"THAT THAN WHICH NO GREATER CAN BE THOUGHT."
To say one can think of something greater if one acknowledges and comprehends the idea is to contradict oneself.

Well, let's look more closely at your statement.

Although no greater thing can be thought of than that which God is, God apparently can be thought of (per your statement). We just can't think of anything greater, right? So what is this greatest thing someone has thought of? Was it thought of by you or someone else? Was it thought of 3,000 years ago or today? What your statement says is that God is that thing that can be thought of but is at the outermost edge of what can be thought of (by some unnamed thinker).

You say that God transcends the limits of our imagination. But your definition says God can be thought of. Which is it? Saying that God transcends the imagination is equivalent to saying that God cannot be thought of, so we don't know what she is.

So if you take your 'greatest thing' definition, we aren't being told what God is, just that God is at the edge of our imagination. That is not a definition. Saying that chocolate syrup is a thing that can be tasted is not a particularly good definition of chocolate syrup in that it does not distinguish it at all from the multitude of other things that can be tasted.

The definition of Definition is

1. the act of defining or making definite, distinct, or clear.
2. the formal statement of the meaning or significance of a word, phrase, etc.
3. the condition of being definite, distinct, or clearly outlined.

Your 'definition'

"THAT THAN WHICH NO GREATER CAN BE THOUGHT."

is an empty definition because no one can define what that greatest thing is. Saying that God is the greatest flujirtyspickelet would be an equally useful definition.

[Biker]

Don't be too hard on him. At least he managed to post a reply on this thread. Don't forget Hope for the Hopeless, Biker.

If I didn't know you better Fallibleone I would think you were insulting my intelligence. But, since I know you better than that I am sure your not but your just frustrated.
In addition I try to give hope to the hopeless, thats why I talk to you skeptic/atheist/secularists every day telling you of the bottomless love and grace and mercy and kindness extended to you by Jesus Christ. It is right there available to you 24/7/365. Go swim in it.

Biker

Sorry, your not supposed to swim within a lifetime after ingesting the truth about life. I don't wanna cramp up.

lol sorry, I couldn't help myself

I actually sort of enjoyed your gay (meaning lighthearted, funny) quip. Don't want to get the homosexual crowd riled up again.

Biker

[Biker]

Biker, you said in reference to the Big Bang ....

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."

so I said....

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

to which you replied...

What?
I'll tell you what, when it is conclusive, get back to me.

So let me explain. The Big Bang theory is supported by physical, empirical evidence. But it has not been proven. Another theory could come along and better explain the same physical evidence. Therefore it is not conclusive.

Your claim about 'Let there be light' would only qualify as a theory in the loosest sense of the word (speculation).

See my post in 'A question for Christians: what IS God?' for the rest of your repeated non-sense.

for the rest of your repeated non-sense

Aww, here I thought we were going to be friends and play nice.
Was it something I said, that offended your deluded little circular worldview?

Big Bang, Light Be. Same thing, semantics. Atheists need for it to be big bang, it all was done by God anyway.

Biker

[Biker]

Biker, you said in reference to the Big Bang ....

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."

so I said....

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

to which you replied...

What?
I'll tell you what, when it is conclusive, get back to me.

So let me explain. The Big Bang theory is supported by physical, empirical evidence. But it has not been proven. Another theory could come along and better explain the same physical evidence. Therefore it is not conclusive.

Your claim about 'Let there be light' would only qualify as a theory in the loosest sense of the word (speculation).

See my post in 'A question for Christians: what IS God?' for the rest of your repeated non-sense.

Let me explain this real slow so you understand.
My reference to his statement "there is no before the big bang" was this "you have no empirical" it is in fact an atheist faith statement. I then went on to address the big bang.
Bang smang who cares God did it all anyway.Since the universe is expanding at the speed of light, safe bet is on the "Light BE" for you all who have money down.

Biker

[OpenedUp]

Don't be too hard on him. At least he managed to post a reply on this thread. Don't forget Hope for the Hopeless, Biker.

If I didn't know you better Fallibleone I would think you were insulting my intelligence. But, since I know you better than that I am sure your not but your just frustrated.
In addition I try to give hope to the hopeless, thats why I talk to you skeptic/atheist/secularists every day telling you of the bottomless love and grace and mercy and kindness extended to you by Jesus Christ. It is right there available to you 24/7/365. Go swim in it.

Biker

Sorry, your not supposed to swim within a lifetime after ingesting the truth about life. I don't wanna cramp up.

lol sorry, I couldn't help myself

I actually sort of enjoyed your gay (meaning lighthearted, funny) quip. Don't want to get the homosexual crowd riled up again.

Biker

Oh no, we don't need that. After all, that would lead to far too much hate and slander spilled over from those who condem it. It makes most people pretty uncomfortable to deal with such ignorance.

[LittlePig]

Biker

Let me explain this real slow so you understand.
My reference to his statement "there is no before the big bang" was this "you have no empirical" it is in fact an atheist faith statement. I then went on to address the big bang.

Ah, ok, then I misunderstood you. I wouldn't say there is empirical evidence of anything before a Big Bang.

Bang smang who cares God did it all anyway.Since the universe is expanding at the speed of light, safe bet is on the "Light BE" for you all who have money down.

Well, now that remains to be seen, now doesn't it? I think the goal of science is to discover truth in a more reliable fashion than simply assuming 'Light BE.' Now who has the bad methodology?

As for 'no time before the Big Bang,' I'd put my money on the idea that at some point in the past, the past began, and before that, there was nothing (or nothing happening), not even God, or at least a God that could do anything. And if God couldn't act before the past began, I don't see why we need to insert such a complicated device to add nothing of explanatory power to the theory.