What is God?

[URAVIP2ME]

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?........

To people who think love is a real thing, then as 1 John 4:16 says that God "IS" love.
Love to me is a concept because of the Bible's concept or definition of love is found at 1 Corinthians 13:4-6.
To me, Jesus is a real suspect because through Jesus' teachings one can determine whether there is a God or not.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

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

To me the Bible can be detected (world wide) and measured by the invisible words Jesus taught, and now in writing.

 

[Heyo]

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

That wasn't my question. I discern between being real and existing (as laid out in 5 Planes of Existence). So, again, do we agree that god(s) isn't/aren't real (but may exist in some other form)?

 

[blü 2]

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

That is, it would not be purely imaginary / conceptual, but real.

 

[blü 2]

How about nature/creation pictured by being painted by the Greatest Artist aka God.

Nope. We're after a photo or video or TV interview of the "painter" or "greatest artist" you speak of ─ who so far appears to exist only as a concept / thing imagined by individuals.

 

[blü 2]

To people who think love is a real thing, then as 1 John 4:16 says that God "IS" love.

Love is a somewhat ambiguous term, but like all human feelings, it's the result of the biochemical processes of the brain and body. Much of it is concerned with pair bonding for breeding purposes, and with the offspring for their protection till they become independent, and with grandchildren consequently. There are also evolved tendencies for the welfare of one's family more broadly, for your friends and associates, for your district, and other groups larger still with which you may identify.

Love to me is a concept because of the Bible's concept or definition of love is found at 1 Corinthians 13:4-6.

I have no objection to 1 Corinthians 13:4-6, if, as is appropriate to any aspirational statement, we add a requirement of common sense.

To me, Jesus is a real suspect because through Jesus' teachings one can determine whether there is a God or not.

But there's no meaningful definition of a real God anywhere in the bible. Certainly not Jesus, who whether in Paul's version or the versions of the authors of Mark, Matthew, Luke and John, expressly denies he's God.

 

[PearlSeeker]

That is, it would not be purely imaginary / conceptual, but real.

So you only accept physical realm as real. Why haven't you considered pantheism then? It makes more sense to regard whole nature as God than just one being, who is subject to nature and it's laws?

 

[blü 2]

So you only accept physical realm as real. Why haven't you considered pantheism then? It makes more sense to regard whole nature as God than just one being, who is subject to nature and it's laws?

If the whole of nature is God, I prefer to continue to call it nature, since (wince) its nature won't change.

 

[PearlSeeker]

If the whole of nature is God, I prefer to continue to call it nature, since (wince) its nature won't change.

Fair enough.

 

[alypius]

'Material' means composed of matter/ energy, and I can't see any way for your suggestion to be the case. Put it this way ─ what objective test can distinguish the "immaterial" from the imaginary?

Does the idea of existence necessarily include materiality?

 

[firedragon]

What real thing is denoted by the word "God"?

From a classical Islamic point of view, God is the necessary being in a contingency argument. I am answering this way because most of those qualities you have mentioned in the OP are to be taught or considered after this basic is understood or discussed. Cart before the horse.

 

[blü 2]

Does the idea of existence necessarily include materiality?

The idea of being real does. Those things are real which are found in the world external to the self, aka nature, the place where things with objective existence are.

But other things can be purely conceptual / imaginary ─ have no real referent ─ like 'two', 'divinity', 'jurisprudence', 'astronomy', 'Superman', 'unicorns' and, so far, it appears, 'God'. So Sherlock Holmes 'exists' without being real, simply as an imaginary being.

 

[blü 2]

From a classical Islamic point of view, God is the necessary being in a contingency argument. I am answering this way because most of those qualities you have mentioned in the OP are to be taught or considered after this basic is understood or discussed. Cart before the horse.

The cart is the real God ─ you locate and identify [him] in nature; and the horse is the set of procedures to determine what [his] real qualities are.

But no one seems to have found the cart. Or if they have, they're not bringing it into the workshop.

 

[firedragon]

The cart is the real God ─ you locate and identify [him] in nature; and the horse is the set of procedures to determine what [his] real qualities are.

But no one seems to have found the cart. Or if they have, they're not bringing it into the workshop.

Thats not relevant. First step is understanding or discussing the first proposal.

Maybe you just dont like to. So that's your prerogative. But that's illogical. It does seem like you just dont like logic.

 

[Heyo]

Thats not relevant. First step is understanding or discussing the first proposal.

This reminds me of my attempts at explaining science to creationists. There are a set of axioms one has to accept to do science.
It seems you start with the axiom that a god (Allah) exists. I.e. you never have to derive at his existence since you started with it.

Maybe you just dont like to. So that's your prerogative. But that's illogical. It does seem like you just dont like logic.

Logic is making inferences from given premises. You have to be clear what your premises are. You can build a valid system without ever questioning the premises. But it won't be sound.

 

[firedragon]

This reminds me of my attempts at explaining science to creationists. There are a set of axioms one has to accept to do science.
It seems you start with the axiom that a god (Allah) exists.

Absolutely wrong. Read the first comment of mine that this gentleman responded to.

Cheers,.

Logic is making inferences from given premises. You have to be clear what your premises are.

Again. Read the first comment that was responded to.

 

[Heyo]

Absolutely wrong. Read the first comment of mine that this gentleman responded to.

Cheers,.


Again. Read the first comment that was responded to.

From a classical Islamic point of view, God is the necessary being in a contingency argument.

Can you please post that argument in syllogistic form?

 

[firedragon]

Can you please post that argument in syllogistic form?

In the simplest form.

P1: Every being is either contingent or necessary.
P2: All contingent beings remain dependant on a necessary being.
Q: A necessary being must exist.

 

[blü 2]

Thats not relevant. First step is understanding or discussing the first proposal.

No,the first thing is to know what you're talking about. And when it comes to real gods, no one does ─ or if anyone does, she's not telling.

Maybe you just dont like to. So that's your prerogative. But that's illogical. It does seem like you just dont like logic.

You think it's logical not to know what you're talking about?

Then our views are irreconcilable.

 

[Heyo]

P2: All contingent beings remain dependant on a necessary being.

And there is your axiomatic assumption of a god (first being).

It contradicts the scientific assumption that life (beings) can emerge from non-life (non-beings). One has to accept your second premise to even get started in your system.
If your second premise is false, your system is not sound.