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?

[Biker]

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.

Hmmm,
Sooooo, something came out of nothing?

Biker?

[LittlePig]

Biker

Hmmm,
Sooooo, something came out of nothing?

That's how I see it.

The only other option is an infinite regression of sequential events, whether divine or natural, and I find that harder to accept.

Biker?

Talking to yourself?

[Cathar1950]

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.

Hmmm,
Sooooo, something came out of nothing?

Biker?

Another one-liner?
Don't you claim, with little information, tha God created out of nothing?
Don't you claim God came from nothing or always was?

[Biker]

Biker

Hmmm,
Sooooo, something came out of nothing?

That's how I see it.

The only other option is an infinite regression of sequential events, whether divine or natural, and I find that harder to accept.

Biker?

Talking to yourself?

The only other option is an infinite regression of sequential events, whether divine or natural

I suppose there is only one other option within the closed circular world of the atheist.
I've given you a third option LP. Did you already forget?

The atheist scientist boast:

"At the heart of science is...an openess to new ideas, no matter how bizarre or counterintuitive."

The Demon Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark (New York: Ballantine Books, 1996), 304.

Just keep your atheist champion's remark in mind when contemplating something out of the atheist dogma box. If for no other reason than in the name of science.

Again, may I suggest the possibility of a being outside of space-time. Is this beyond contemplation and consideration?

Biker

[Biker]

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.

Hmmm,
Sooooo, something came out of nothing?

Biker?

Another one-liner?
Don't you claim, with little information, tha God created out of nothing?
Don't you claim God came from nothing or always was?

Another one-liner?

More is unnecessary!
I notice you didn't answer.
Did something just come out of nothing?

Don't you claim... Don't you claim...

I suggest the possibility of a being outside of space-time.
So your point of reference is useless, as a being within space-time as you are, and furthermore restricting yourself with atheist constructs as you are.


Biker

[LittlePig]

Biker

I suppose there is only one other option within the closed circular world of the atheist.

Well, there are actually many ways to construct the 'something from nothing' option. You can say that there was always something that was actually doing nothing and without cause began to do something. You can also say that the basic state of 'all that is' is a state of potential, or potential energy, or something along those lines as long as it doesn't have an infinitely regressing past.

I'm not sure what you mean by the 'closed circular world of the atheist' argument. Maybe you can be a little clearer with your charge of circularity.

I've given you a third option LP. Did you already forget?

You haven't given me any options I haven't already thought about a great deal. And I haven't seen a Christian proposal of God that is logically consistent or provides an elegant explanation for the universe we see.

Just keep your atheist champion's remark in mind when contemplating something out of the atheist dogma box. If for no other reason than in the name of science.

I hardly consider Sagan my champion. I do my best to consider all the possibilities I come across. How about yourself?

Again, may I suggest the possibility of a being outside of space-time. Is this beyond contemplation and consideration?

It is definitely not beyond contemplation and consideration. And I have considered it as best I can. But I ask you to SERIOUSLY contemplate it rather than simply spit it out as the creationist by-line it has come to be. I don't think God would be able to do ANYTHING without some kind of 'Time.' But let's go with your assumption of God existing outside of Time. Does she also exist without sequential activity? Does God actually do anything in this Timeless state? If so, is there a 'before' or 'after' to any of God's actions/thoughts? If that's the case, you still have the same problem of infinite regression of events. If it is not the case, and there is no 'before' or 'after' or sequentiality for God outside of Time, then that would seem to mean that God exists in a 'frozen' or inactive state. There might indeed be some Timeless element to some higher dimension of reality or some initial state of our universe, but that doesn't seem to jive with any Christian notion of God that I have heard of. Such a scenario would better fit a simple, mindless process rather than a God who needs to plan the universe and would have had to 'take time' to do so. A 'Timeless' state sounds nothing like the God of the Bible, but it has become vogue for creationists to rely on that idea coming from General Relativity to add some sort of 'scientific' credibility to their belief in God.

So you can believe it if you want to. The Bible doesn't ask you to. Science is silent on what reality was prior to the Big Bang. And I don't think it means what you think it means, or at least I suspect you don't want it to mean what it seems to mean. So I don't know why you would accept such a notion except for some need to think your religious Faith jives with science. To me it sounds like meaningless pseudo-science mumbo jumbo.

So, yes, I have considered it.

[Cathar1950]

I suggest the possibility of a being outside of space-time.
So your point of reference is useless, as a being within space-time as you are, and furthermore restricting yourself with atheist constructs as you are.


Biker

No one says you are grounded in space time Biker.
My point of reference within space time might be usless to your agenda but how is it you have a point of reference outside of space time when it is merely a possiblity at best? It seems your refrence to outdise space time is not only usless but also irrational not to be mistake for the non-rational such as feeling and such. I hardly restrict myself to atheist constructs but you do seem to be outside space time and lack any "real" grounding by your own admission. Was the charge I restricting myself suppose to be some kind of slur only picked up by those that agree with you or just something you made up?