Descriptors for Deity

[IsaiahX]

If you believe in God, how would you best describe Him in one sentence? If you do not believe in God, how would describe your hypothetical idea of God in one sentence? For me, it would have to be I AM WHO I AM.

 

[WalterTrull]

God is what is.

 

[YmirGF]

If you believe in God, how would you best describe Him in one sentence? If you do not believe in God, how would describe your hypothetical idea of God in one sentence?

A swell guy with a heck of a chip shot!

or

Partying with this guy is definitely Heaven!

 

[Earthling]

If you believe in God, how would you best describe Him in one sentence? If you do not believe in God, how would describe your hypothetical idea of God in one sentence? For me, it would have to be I AM WHO I AM.

What does that mean?

 

[Earthling]

My description would be great creator and rightful sovereign. Technically that probably isn't a complete sentence but my grammar is obviously flawed.

 

[Axe Elf]

"I am that I am" --God
"I yam what I yam" --Popeye

COINCIDENCE???

Be ye filled with the Holy Spinach...

 

[IsaiahX]

What does that mean?

To me it means that God is the stuff of being, identity, and essence, that all things are part of His being, and therefore any statement about His ultimate nature must be made in the first person. We all are who we are, so therefore we participate in God's being.

 

[Axe Elf]

But to answer the OP, my definition...

God is the being that exists and is omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent and omnibenevolent.

I will not accept any "superbeing" that doesn't meet any of those five criteria as God, and if no being meets all five criteria, then God does not exist.

I'm ok with that.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

If you believe in God, how would you best describe Him in one sentence? If you do not believe in God, how would describe your hypothetical idea of God in one sentence? For me, it would have to be I AM WHO I AM.

God is energy and (the breath of) life.

 

[Earthling]

To me it means that God is the stuff of being, identity, and essence, that all things are part of His being, and therefore any statement about His ultimate nature must be made in the first person. We all are who we are, so therefore we participate in God's being.

That's a pretty cool definition of a term that I think is very often misunderstood as some metaphysical concept. The term actually simply means that he, God, would prove to be what he proved to be, as spoken to a person in an introductory capacity. He would become to them what he purposed for them . . . is probably not as good an explanation, but what you seem to be saying is that God will become to you what he becomes to you.

But that is inherently false isn't it? It reminds me of the Latin term I use on every page of my website. Deus Ex Machina. God from the machine. God of our own design. The danger is that God becomes to us not what he purposes but what we expect or think is cool. And, even then, in a sense, God has become what he becomes in allowing us to create our own God in his stead because that is exactly what we may want in the first place.

 

[Earthling]

But to answer the OP, my definition...

God is the being that exists and is omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent and omnibenevolent.

I will not accept any "superbeing" that doesn't meet any of those five criteria as God, and if no being meets all five criteria, then God does not exist.

I'm ok with that.

Wow. I hate to break it to you, but . . . have we done this before? God isn't really those things.

 

[Axe Elf]

Wow. I hate to break it to you, but . . . have we done this before? God isn't really those things.

By my definition, He can be nothing else.

As I said, a superbeing of some kind that doesn't meet those criteria is not God to me. If that means God doesn't exist, I'm ok with that, but I won't accept anything else as God.

 

[Earthling]

By my definition, He can be nothing else.

As I said, a superbeing of some kind that doesn't meet those criteria is not God to me. If that means God doesn't exist, I'm ok with that, but I won't accept anything else as God.

That's fascinating to me. Why would you not? We're not talking about superheros, after all, we are talking about a real person.

In the animal kingdom animals who are omnivorous don't strictly eat everything, correct? So, if we have discussed this as I think we have, at least I know I have discussed it here a number of times, but, then strictly speaking in the same degree, God's omnipresence doesn't mean to you that God is everywhere all the time, correct? Or omniscient in that he knows when you are sleeping and knows when you're awake and he knows if you've been good or bad, so be good for heaven's sake?

You see such a silly thing applied to the Santa myth, and yet it's crucial for you to believe in your creator? What law or . . . well . . . where do you think that comes from in your thinking?

 

[Axe Elf]

That's fascinating to me. Why would you not? We're not talking about superheros, after all, we are talking about a real person.

YOU may be talking about a "real person"; I'm talking about God.

In the animal kingdom animals who are omnivorous don't strictly eat everything, correct? So, if we have discussed this as I think we have, at least I know I have discussed it here a number of times, but, then strictly speaking in the same degree, God's omnipresence doesn't mean to you that God is everywhere all the time, correct? Or omniscient in that he knows when you are sleeping and knows when you're awake and he knows if you've been good or bad, so be good for heaven's sake?

That seems to be a trivial argument, like saying that an "all-terrain vehicle" can't really travel on ALL terrains, right? When it comes to vehicles, no; but if I'm talking about an all-terrain God, then yeah, I would expect that God to be able to travel on literally all terrains.

I consider spacetime to be God's creation, with every point and every moment in it equally and eternally present and current to Him. I could not accept as God any being for which it was not. I could not accept as God any being who did not know something it was possible to know, or who could not wield any power that it was possible to wield, or who was not wholly benevolent.

What law or . . . well . . . where do you think that comes from in your thinking?

It is what makes sense to me; it is how I have chosen to define the God that I can accept as real and worthy of the title.