The Definition of God

[Delphi]

God is often defined as having various extraordinary characteristics. Infinitely loving, all powerful, omniscient, the creator of the Universe, etc.

How can we know that this is indeed true? How can we verify such grandiose assertions? No greater claims could possibly be made!

Normally, we make definitions based on verifiable evidence and observation. For example, we define a giraffe as being a large four-legged grazing mammal with a long neck, hooves, a mouth, a tongue, teeth, and two eyes. We can rationally define a giraffe this way based on verifiable observation. We define a giraffe by going out and finding a giraffe, then defining it based on its attributes.

Yet somehow, God is defined in the opposite manner. We do not go out and find god and define it based on its attributes. Instead, we apply god's characteristics to him without ever observing god. Definitions seem to fabricated out of imagination. I find this extremely dubious.

It seems to me that we are applying these definitions to the concept of a god. We cannot verify nor falsify these attributes.

What is going on here?

[dio9]

[Replying to Delphi]

Just because Paul said said it , does that alone make it so?

James the Just said Paul's teaching was different than the mother church which he oversaw in the holy city of Jerusalem . And sent his representatives to rebuke Paul's different teaching about Jesus . James' Jesus was Jewish, Paul's was beyond Jewish.

Rom. 8;3
"God sent his own son in the likeness of sinful flesh and concerning sin condemns sin in the flesh."
8:29 Whom he did foreknow , predestine and conform to the image of his son , first born among brothers."


Paul made Jesus the Christ we know today, but this wasn't the Jesus James and those who walked with him in Galilee knew.
James sent representatives to every city where Paul had established churches to correct (what he felt ) was this wrong teaching of Paul.

Question for discussion : Who was right ? Should we all be Jewish?

[JehovahsWitness]

James sent representatives to every city where Paul had established churches to correct (what he felt ) was this wrong teaching of Paul.

Where did you get this idea?

[hoghead1]

[Replying to post 211 by dio9]

I don't understand what this has to do with the OP. How does your point relate to the attributes we ascribe to God?

[hoghead1]

[Replying to post 212 by JehovahsWitness]

I also don't understand what your post has to do with the OP. I don't know about you guys, but I came here to discuss the OP, which I understand as asking where doss our picture of God come from, why do we ascribe the attributes to God that we do?

To me, the answer is no mystery. The classical or traditional Christian picture or model of God as he is in his own nature came largely from the influx into the early church of Hellenic metaphysics and standards of perfection, not Scripture. The Greeks enshrined the immune and the immutable. The "really real," the truly divine, was thought of as wholly simple, immutable, passionless, simple, independent of the world. Translated into Christian dogma, the church fathers, as well as the major creeds, confessions, and dogmas stated that God is void of body, parts, passions, compassion, wholly immutable, wholly outside creation, wholly independent of it. So, what we are essentially dealing with here is a matter of philosophy, basic concepts of reality and perfection.

[onewithhim]

[Replying to post 204 by onewithhim]

The reason I have not replied is because it seems to me that you are inadvertently derailing the original conversation.

Back in post #142, you inexplicably bring up evolution and altruism. I answered that both are inconsequential to the matter at hand. Perhaps another thread would allow us to explore these topics in greater detail.

But I will answer your #179 post if you insist.

How are colors necessary for our survival? As I said, colorblind people get along. "Greatly helpful" is not on the table here.

In this modern age, polychromatic vision is not necessary for human survival. You are absolutely correct about that.

There are people who are quadriplegic without the use of limbs, but they can also survive thanks to wheelchairs, technology, medical science, and assistance from other humans. A few hundred years ago, such a disability would have been an early death sentence.

I appreciate functioning limbs, and trichromatic vision. I'm not sure what your point is.

You argue against altruism. What besides this attribute could explain the existence of the ability to see in color at all?

Altruism is a very useful aspect of survival for social groups in the animal kingdom (such as humans). I'm all for altruism.

Altruism means caring about others. Benefiting others in your group at one's own expense in order to further the prosperity of the group as a whole. This makes perfect sense to me!

What does not make sense to me is why you think benefiting others has anything at all to do with color vision.

I don't know what you are driving at.

We COULD get along without arms or legs or vision (or taste), so why do we have these things?

Why don't we have 6 eyes? Or wings? Or additional gills for breathing underwater?

Evolutionary biology shows that we evolved from bilaterally symmetrical tetrapod ancestors. Limbs and vision helped them survive. If they died out, we would not be here to talk about it.

Well, you're absolutely right that I would not knowingly derail the original discussion. I always try to listen to others' pov and then treat them from all angles. I don't remember how the subject of evolution and altruism came up, but I would guess that I thought I was making a valid point.

My whole point, if I remember correctly, was that there must be a Designer who cares about our comfort and happiness or else we might be bodies crawling along on tentacles or some such means of locomotion, and we might be colorblind and perhaps not even able to taste. So many of these things are not necessary for survival. It is obvious to me that we are created in such a way as to actually enjoy life. Blind evolution doesn't care about enjoyment and laughter. It's all about survival of the fittest. Isn't it? So why are there tens of thousands of kinds of flowers and trees and animals? Why do we have the ability to laugh? Why do we have the ability to really enjoy so many types of food? Why are there thousands of varieties of fruit?

[Willum]

To approach the problem positively...
If God is defined as omnipotent, then that is the ONLY definition you need.

Love, creator, anything you can possibly imagine, mean nothing to an omnipotent creature.
If God didn't create the universe, but decided one day, that it wanted to, it would be the creator of the universe.

If God wanted love to be raspberry pudding, then love would be raspberry pudding. It doesn't matter if that doesn't make sense to you, it would suddenly make sense and be logical.

The big questions about God, mean nothing to it, because this creature can change your perceptions and even history at a whim.

So, assigning a definition to God, is silly, HE IS THE ONE ASSIGNING DEFINITIONS, and what you call it has as much impact as your loudest scream does on the Centaurus A galaxy.

The only time definitions become even remotely of interest is if God isn't all-powerful. If it has beliefs that wouldn't instantly warp reality.

If you do that, then you can have a conversation.

[hoghead1]

[Replying to post 216 by Willum]

Sorry, but I don't follow your logic here at all. For one thing, I think divine omnipotence is a major theological mistake, a point which I explained in previous posts. I do agree that if God were omnipotent, then no, God could not be said to be loving, as God would then be the author of terrible human suffering, the author of all evil. Plus, if you truly love others, you do not seek to manipulate them by threats and bribes, force it, dictate it all. Since an omnipotent God would do just that, no, such a God would not at all be loving.
For another the traditional or classical picture of God as he is in his own nature said more than just God was omnipotent. It provided a long list of other attributes of God, such as claiming God was immutable, wholly simple, without body, parts, passion, wholly independent of creation, the supreme cause and never the effect, wholly outside the whole order of creation, fully actualized, containing no potentiality, without any "real relationship" to creation, etc.

[dio9]

[Replying to Delphi]

[Zog Has-fallen]

God is often defined as having various extraordinary characteristics. Infinitely loving, all powerful, omniscient, the creator of the Universe, etc.

How can we know that this is indeed true?

We can wait to see if there's a final judgment that is presided over by an All-Powerful Being. Until then, why can't we just live by the axiom that an All-Powerful Being exists and be satisfied with the amazing hints of His existence?

[brianbbs67]

God says in the OT that He reveals Himself to everyone at some point. Some He talks to, some have visions, some have dreams, some feel lead, but all see some of Him. I have no doubt in this, never have. Its faith/belief that guides one who does good. They are not good because they have to be, they are good because they chose to be, over and over. Why do they choose this?