What is God?

[URAVIP2ME]

................I should add a footnote that we humans have evolved brains that can take in the number of examples we're looking at, one, two, three, four or five, at a glance, instantly as it were. Above that we have to pause and figure. Other animals can do similar things ─ crows. we know, can 'count' to three in this way.)

Judging from the daily news it seems as if humans have de-volved brains !
MAN's long history shows MAN dominated MAN to MAN's hurt, MAN's injury. That is not evolving.
Animal don't have a conscience to apologize for taking another animal's bone, etc.
Whereas, unless damaged we come equipped with an in-born conscience that can do good when properly trained.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

What is God? What is invisible?

Wind, gravity and a vacuum in space is invisible to the eye, but air/wind, gravity and a vacuum in space is Not God.
Scripture likens God to being a person, a spirit person in a heavenly location at Hebrews 9:24.

 

[Heyo]

How much does God weigh reminds me of when people would ask how many angels on the head of a pin !
By mentioning wind and gravity is just that they are Not immediately visible but the unseen is still there.
( even a vacuum in space is Not visible but still exists )
I think sound does Not travel through a vacuum but the vacuum still exists and so does invisible sound exist.
Physical phenomenon, natural phenomenon, does Not have to mean spiritual phenomenon does Not exist.
God is a Spirit Person (as are angels) a Spirit Being, so we should Not expect Him to have a physical body.
God's spirit (Psalms 104:30) is what God used in order for people to write down His words in the Scriptures.
People were simply God's secretary writing down His thoughts as God as the Bible's Author.

So we do agree that god is not real (as in measurable by scientific instruments)?
I think that was the question @blü 2 was asking.

We can "weigh" the wind even though we can't see it. We can measure the vacuum of space but there is no scale to weigh god.

 

[lukethethird]

Wind, gravity and a vacuum in space is invisible to the eye, but air/wind, gravity and a vacuum in space is Not God.
Scripture likens God to being a person, a spirit person in a heavenly location at Hebrews 9:24.

Wind, gravity, and vacuums can be detected and measured.

 

[blü 2]

Judging from the daily news it seems as if humans have de-volved brains !
MAN's long history shows MAN dominated MAN to MAN's hurt, MAN's injury. That is not evolving.
Animal don't have a conscience to apologize for taking another animal's bone, etc.
Whereas, unless damaged we come equipped with an in-born conscience that can do good when properly trained.

But if God is real, what real thing is God? Why is there no concept of a real God, such that if we found a real suspect we could determine whether it was God or not?

Because if God is not real in that sense then the only thing God can be is purely conceptual / imaginary.

 

[PearlSeeker]

You just said it wasn't, that instead it was a conclusion from experience ─ which it is.
But you need to have acquired the concepts of "taller" and "shorter". They're something you learn when you learn the words "taller" and "shorter".

Once you understand the concepts and learn the words, the conclusion itself is not from experience. Non-empirical (a priori) knowledge doesn't mean no (preliminary) experience at all.

 

[blü 2]

Once you understand the concepts and learn the words, the conclusion itself is not from experience. Non-empirical (a priori) knowledge doesn't mean no (preliminary) experience at all.

The conclusion is from application of the concepts to the question or observation at hand. Though I'd argue that the conclusion wasn't a priori knowledge since it didn't exist until the subject formed it in that response.

 

[PearlSeeker]

But if God is real, what real thing is God? Why is there no concept of a real God, such that if we found a real suspect we could determine whether it was God or not?

Because if God is not real in that sense then the only thing God can be is purely conceptual / imaginary.

It depends what concept do you mean. Writing God (with a capital) usually means the Supreme being (monotheism). Furthermore this God could be Nature itself / greater than nature but also encompassing it / separated Creator. Then this Creator could be uninvolved (deism) / involved in creation and human affairs ...

 

[blü 2]

It depends what concept do you mean.

Yes, exactly ─ a problem a real god, not purely imaginary/conceptual, one with objective existence, wouldn't have.

Writing God (with a capital) usually means the Supreme being (monotheism). Furthermore this God could be Nature itself / greater than nature but also encompassing it / separated Creator. Then this Creator could be univolved (deism) / involved in creation and human affairs ...

Or as the Romans might have said, quot homines, tot dei ─ however many humans, that many gods.

 

[PearlSeeker]

The conclusion is from application of the concepts to the question or observation at hand. Though I'd argue that the conclusion wasn't a priori knowledge since it didn't exist until the subject formed it in that response.

What makes Sherlock Holmes so fascinating is his use of pure reason to expose a criminal. It wouldn't be so fascinating if he said: You are the one because I clearly saw you doing it.

 

[blü 2]

What makes Sherlock Holmes so fascinating is his use of pure reason to expose a criminal. It wouldn't be so fascinating if he said: You are the one because I clearly saw you doing it.

It's a pity that Holmes was considerably smarter than Conan Doyle, so that all the sparkly cleverness is in the earlier stories and the later ones more based on Holmes coming back after the event and explaining that he'd noticed things you weren't told about.

But still everyone's go to private eye.

 

[PearlSeeker]

Yes, exactly ─ a problem a real god, not purely imaginary/conceptual, one with objective existence, wouldn't have.
Or as the Romans might have said, quot homines, tot dei ─ however many humans, that many gods.

That's exactly a problem a real God would have because human knowledge is subject to limitations. One truth and many views. Remember the parable of an elephant and blind people?

 

[blü 2]

That's exactly a problem a real God would have because human knowledge is subject to limitations.

Indeed. Reasoned skeptical enquiry can never protect its conclusions from unknown unknowns.

But the absence of a concept of a real God means no one actually thinks of God as real, but rather as something wholly conceptual / imaginary.

That's certainly the case around here, anyway. I ask for a meaningful description of a real god and at best I get imaginary answers ─ omniscience, omnipotent, omnipresent, perfect, eternal, infinite blah blah ─ but absolutely no mention of God's metabolism, neural system, sensory organs, reproductive systems, range of diet, morphology, genetics, the things a real and living entity must have.

 

[PearlSeeker]

But the absence of a concept of a real God means no one actually thinks of God as real, but rather as something wholly conceptual / imaginary.

For a theist concept of God means a real God. A believer thinks of God as real. For an atheist this concept means something imaginary.

That's certainly the case around here, anyway. I ask for a meaningful description of a real god and at best I get imaginary answers ─ omniscience, omnipotent, omnipresent, perfect, eternal, infinite blah blah ─ but absolutely no mention of God's metabolism, neural system, sensory organs, reproductive systems, range of diet, morphology, genetics, the things a real and living entity must have.

A Christian might say: Jesus ate bread, fish and lamb among other things.

 

[blü 2]

For a theist concept of God means a real God. A believer thinks of God as real. For an atheist this concept means something imaginary.

'Real' means existing in the world external to the self, nature.

Obviously no God is to be found there or we'd have photos of [him] everywhere.

Which means God in fact only exists as a concept / thing imagined in individual brains, no?

A Christian might say: Jesus ate bread, fish and lamb among other things.

All five versions of Jesus in the NT state unambiguously that they're not God and never claim to be God. Are they all liars? Given an historical Jesus, was his ministry one long and persistent deceit?

 

[PearlSeeker]

'Real' means existing in the world external to the self, nature.

Obviously no God is to be found there or we'd have photos of [him] everywhere.

Which means God in fact only exists as a concept / thing imagined in individual brains, no?

Your question is against reason. You want me to show you the ocean in a drop of water.

"So the cause of the universe must (at least causally prior to the universe’s existence) transcend space and time and therefore cannot be physical or material. But there are only two kinds of things that could fall under such a description: either an abstract object (like a number) or else a mind (a soul, a self). But abstract objects don’t stand in causal relations. This is part of what it means to be abstract. The number 7, for example, doesn’t cause anything." (William Lane Craig)

 

[blü 2]

Your question is against reason. You want me to show you the ocean in a drop of water.

You think? I'd have said I just want you to show me a real god, one with objective existence, one that isn't wholly conceptual / imaginary.

"So the cause of the universe must (at least causally prior to the universe’s existence) transcend space and time and therefore cannot be physical or material.

Eh? Quoi? ¿Ché? "So the cause of the universe must ... be imaginary"?

That certainly isn't my view.

Besides, William Lane Craig is an apologist, a defense attorney, paid to say whatever gets his client off the hook, one to whom truth is one of those tools you might use if you thought it might help you win.

 

[PearlSeeker]

You think? I'd have said I just want you to show me a real god, one with objective existence, one that isn't wholly conceptual / imaginary.

Eh? Quoi? ¿Ché? "So the cause of the universe must ... be imaginary"?

That certainly isn't my view.

Your "real God" would be no God at all. It would be just a part of (material) nature.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

So we do agree that god is not real (as in measurable by scientific instruments)?I think that was the question @blü 2 was asking.
We can "weigh" the wind even though we can't see it. We can measure the vacuum of space but there is no scale to weigh god.

To me the fact that we know of No known scale to weigh God does Not mean or prove He does Not exist.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

'Real' means existing in the world external to the self, nature.
Obviously no God is to be found there or we'd have photos of [him] everywhere..................

How about nature/creation pictured by being painted by the Greatest Artist aka God.
Earth is just right for mankind and we can exist without the added colors, various tastes, etc.
We see intelligence in nature/creation so where there is intelligence there is a mind, were there is an intelligent mind there is a person aka invisible God is a person. Invisible does Not have to mean imaginary.