Just what do the biblical authors mean by "God" anyways? We all know that all gods are imaginary, right? So what makes the biblical god any different than, oh let's say the 330 million deities that populate the Hindu pantheon of gods?
Well for starters, the biblical authors distinguish their "God" from the rest by pointing out that if you're imagining anything about "God", you're not imagining God at all. You're just looking at the product of your own imagination. They even have a word for it. They call it idolatry.
An idol is any object that is viewed as a god itself. In other words, the biblical authors don't believe in objectifying "God" at all. They can imagine all sorts of gods just like the next guy, and they can admit that these gods are all imaginary. In fact, they would be the first to point out that they aren't gods at all. They're simply imaginary ideas. That's not what they mean by "God", and whatever meanings or definitions they do come up with aren't God either. They're just meanings and definitions for the word "God", which they will be the first to admit is simply a symbol for its meaning. Again, words and meanings are not gods; they're words with associated meanings.
Paul also points out that Christ isn't God when he refers to him as "the image of the invisible God"(Col.1:15). The word he uses for "image" is the Greek "eikon" which is where we get words like 'icon';"iconography"; "iconoclastic" etc. An icon should not be confused with an idol. As noted previously, an idol is worshipped as god, but an icon is a representation of God, and representations are not gods themselves.
Some would hasten to note that these two terms are synonymous, but this is only in relation to "things", and the biblical authors don't include God as any thing.
Given that the word "God" is essentially undefinable, unimaginable, and unknowable, thats what Jesus represents. He is an immanent representation of transcendence.
The biblical authors have a name for their "God" which they call "YHVH" which means "I will be", or "I will be what I will be", and what will be doesn't exist. Potentiality is not actuality.
They use words like "incomparable" or "there is none beside me". In other words, there is no referent for transcendence. There is no essential difference between the word "God" and nothing. There is no referent for God other than the word "God" itself.
The New Testament's gospel of John points out essentially the same thing. The introduction doesn't begin with "in the beginning was God". Why? Because God doesn't exist. He begins with "in the beginning was the word". That's all there is to begin with.
He then continues by pointing out that everything that exists is created(vs. 3), and at no time does he or anyone else ever suggest that God is created. Therefore, for those who are lacking even rudimentary reading comprehension skills, it logically follows that God doesn't exist. This is especially so given that the biblical authors view the objective world as the created world. So by definition, God can't objectively exist in the created world.
Paul reaffirms this in his letter to the Corinthians when he points out that God is the origin (not to be confused or conflated with "beginning") of all that exists while Christ is the means by which everything exists (1 Corinthians 8:6).
For those who insist in asking the question, "Who created God?, Paul's argument refutes that by pointing out that the origin of existence cannot logically exist without creating an infinite regression. So he has simultaneously admitted that God doesn't exist and denied the need for an infinte regression.
Biblical proof God doesn't exist
Moderator: Moderators
-
tam
- Savant
- Posts: 6443
- Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2015 4:59 pm
- Has thanked: 353 times
- Been thanked: 324 times
- Contact:
Post #21
[Replying to post 20 by shnarkle]
Your argument requires the trinity to be true. Yes?
Peace again to you!
Okay, just to be clear...... they [shnarkle's arguments] are based upon logic, but also the reality of the Trinity rather than an acknowledged doctrine.
Your argument requires the trinity to be true. Yes?
Peace again to you!
Post #22
As I pointed out already, your question is too vague to respond to. If you would like to address what I've posted already, that would be the best place to start if you actually want to understand what I've actually posted.tam wrote: [Replying to post 20 by shnarkle]
Okay, just to be clear...... they [shnarkle's arguments] are based upon logic, but also the reality of the Trinity rather than an acknowledged doctrine.
Your argument requires the trinity to be true. Yes?
Peace again to you!
Post #24
Biblical characters are just that characters, and the biblical god is still just a character in these narrative stories. The problem is that there is no referent for God, and according to the writers themselves, there can't be any referent other than the word "God" itself.Stelar_7 wrote: Except that god regularly moves in the world and interacts with other bible characters. Moses, adam, eve, Abraham....
It's the difference between being in the world and being of the world. God cannot objectively exist without rendering his followers into idolaters. The biblical authors don't believe in a god that can be imagined, or objectively worshipped. They believe in a God that is beyond their world of experience and thought.
This is why when you read the texts you will find that those who do encounter God are actually only encountering "an Angel of the Lord" rather than the Lord himself. We see this repeatedly in the texts as they will constantly switch back and forth to show that the angel is presenting the words of God which are effectively (not to be confused with essentially) no different than God himself.
It is not God who moves in the world, but his spirit. God places his spirit in his creation, but that doesn't make his creation God.
