What is God?

[blü 2]

Are you sure?

Show me a concept as such running round in the wild and I'll admit I'm wrong. (The instantiation of a concept doesn't count, of course.)

Are you sure?

That 'mind' refers to a loosely described set of brain functions? Yes, very sure.

We can't really imagine God

I don't want to imagine God. If God is real ─ has objective existence, is found in nature ─ I want to know what a real god is, such that if I find a real candidate I can determine whether it's God or not.

 

[Ponder This]

There are no infinities in nature that I'm aware of. Or do you have something else in mind when you say 'immeasurable'?

I mean immeasurable or uncountable.
For example, we don't know how many stars there are. We can't count them.

 

[blü 2]

I mean immeasurable or uncountable.
For example, we don't know how many stars there are. We can't count them.

I'd say the stars were uncounted, not in principle uncountable.

 

[Brian2]

Show me a concept as such running round in the wild and I'll admit I'm wrong. (The instantiation of a concept doesn't count, of course.)

Are you saying that it is only what is in nature that exists?
How do you know that?
Are you saying that if there is only one example of a being with all the qualities you mentioned that this being does not exist?

That 'mind' refers to a loosely described set of brain functions? Yes, very sure.

How are you so sure?
Isn't there something watching the thoughts of the brain.

I don't want to imagine God. If God is real ─ has objective existence, is found in nature ─ I want to know what a real god is, such that if I find a real candidate I can determine whether it's God or not.

You already have a description.
It might mean asking your candidate all the possible questions there are and knowing the answers yourself.
It might mean going everywhere to make sure this thing is everywhere.
It might mean doing all sorts of things that you cannot do.
The qualities of God are in the realm of faith just as belief in God is and as belief in no God is.

 

[blü 2]

Are you saying that it is only what is in nature that exists?

In effect. I'm saying that nature is another word for the world external to the self, where things with objective existence are found. If God has objective existence, that's where [he] will be found. If [he] doesn't, then [he]'s not real; instead [he]'s just an idea in someone's head.

How do you know that?

I assume three things ─ and I assume them because I can't demonstrate they're correct without first assuming they're correct. They are ─

That a world exists external to me,
That my senses are capable of informing me of that world
That reason is a valid tool.​

Fortunately, anyone who posts here demonstrates by doing so that they agree with the first two, and with ordinary luck the third as well.

From this basis the distinction between subjective and objective is much clearer. To have objective existence, a thing must exist in the world external to me, also called nature.

Whereas mermaids and unicorns and magic and ghosts and souls and "the immaterial" exist only as concepts / things imagined in individual brains.

Are you saying that if there is only one example of a being with all the qualities you mentioned that this being does not exist?

I'm saying that the qualities/properties I listed are not found in nature any more (it appears) than God is.

How are you so sure?
Isn't there something watching the thoughts of the brain.

At least one of our brain functions is overseeing (some of) the workings of the brain. This interconnectivity has been hypothesized to be the basis of creative thought, mixing and matching ideas from one set of concepts, one style of thinking, with another, different one. It's also a fundamental part of human learning.

More specifically on your question, I don't believe there are any absolute statements about reality; nothing protects the best theories of our science from unknown unknowns. Any God will have the same problem, being unable to show there's nothing [he] doesn't know [he] doesn't know, nor that [he] did not come into existence ex nihilo, along with [his] memories and the rest of the universe, at ten to midday Rejkjavik time last Thursday.

You already have a description.

No, no one has offered a description of a real God ─ size, sex, number of limbs, number and nature of sensory organs, metabolism, brain functions &c. Instead, total silence.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

Why not?

Not all gods are uncreated.

 

[Lain]

Not all gods are uncreated.

Indeed, for the pure spirits and saved human beings can all be called and are called gods but I am not speaking of those beings, but the Uncreated Divinity.

 

[Lain]

This doesn't describe him as an unknowable essence (or any nature at all). It needs to say the nature of what one creates to make sense of who/what is doing the action and who/what is perfect. If you don't have that you can talk about the father all day but we wouldn't know exactly what you're talking about.



If I said you were cute, fat, and cuddly that doesn't tell me anything about what you are. You could be a bear, a cat, stuff animal, or human. Saying cute/fat/cuddley are adjectives but we don't know which noun you're speaking of.

Proof is looking for the source you're describing. We already know love exists (but perfection?). Cat lovers say cats love just as much as humans if not more. You have to be more specific in your Source.

This only applies if you have conversations with people who aren't on the same footing as you.



The forest analogy?

Alright I get it now. The most specific it gets is to reason from His operations/acts/roles as you called them into what sort of being it can be (this is how the traits affirmed come into being, immaterial, simple, infinite, eternal, etc). Ultimately it leads you to these ideas of what the nature is (and it can only be one thing specifically), and when people say "God is eternal" they are affirming things about Him, and so all can know exactly what is being discussed.

 

[1213]

...
That is, there's no version of God that has objective existence, no?

That is actually an interesting question, can anything be objective, when according to the dictionary it would mean “expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations”. Maybe there is no objective matter.
Definition of OBJECTIVE

...Yes, the biochemicals that produce our human emotions, including love and bonding, are remarkable. Personally, I wouldn't be without them ─ testosterone, adrenaline, oxytocin, a long list.

In this case I think we have a different definition for love, I don't think it is an emotion.

 

[Estro Felino]

To be clear, I'm not remotely claiming it is true, or even possible, that we'll ever find such things. I mentioned Randi's challenge just the other day to @Estro Felino here (actually it was in Discord).

But we simply don't have enough information to declare dogmatically that such a thing definitively does not exist. That's the trouble with proving negatives. And it's my issue with the kind of 'gnostic' atheism that says, "God does not exist." We simply don't know that. We have no way of knowing it.

A juridic expression I would use is : God does not exist unless (or until) evidence of the contrary is provided.

 

[Left Coast]

A juridic expression I would use is : God does not exist unless (or until) evidence of the contrary is provided.

I would disagree. I would say we cannot rationally assert God exists unless evidence is provided. But just because no evidence is provided does not mean God does not exist.

In a court of law, if the prosecution does not have the evidence needed to convince a jury of guilt...does that mean the defendant is truly innocent? The truth is, we don't know. They might be innocent, they might be guilty. All we know is we don't have sufficient evidence to convict.

 

[Estro Felino]

I would disagree. I would say we cannot rationally assert God exists unless evidence is provided. But just because no evidence is provided does not mean God does not exist.

In a court of law, if the prosecution does not have the evidence needed to convince a jury of guilt...does that mean the defendant is truly innocent? The truth is, we don't know. They might be innocent, they might be guilty. All we know is we don't have sufficient evidence to convict.

The burden of proof is on the person who claims something.
So the procurator (the accuse) is the one who claims something.

 

[Left Coast]

The burden of proof is on the person who claims something.
So the procurator (the accuse) is the one who claims something.

Right. So the prosecution's job is to demonstrate, in this case, that God is guilty of existing. If they don't present convincing evidence of God's existence, does that mean he doesn't exist/he's innocent? No, it just means the prosecution's case wasn't strong enough to render a guilty verdict.

 

[blü 2]

That is actually an interesting question, can anything be objective, when according to the dictionary it would mean “expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations”. Maybe there is no objective matter.
Definition of OBJECTIVE

I agree that humans can never be perfectly objective, not least because if they were, they would have no motive, no feeling of curiosity or need or ambition or wish to impress, to ask any question at all, let alone go looking for the answer. What we mean by 'objective' then is the desire to be purely informed about what's there, as far as possible without letting our expectations, wishes or feelings of requirement affect the results. That's why reasoned skeptical enquiry, of which scientific method is a subset, has procedures to maximize objectivity ─ for example, in science the requirements of reporting one's method in detail, as well as one's results, so that others can scrutinize them; peer review; the requirements of honesty; and so on; and in tests involving people, double blind procedures and the like.

In this case I think we have a different definition for love, I don't think it is an emotion.

I don't see how it can fail to be an emotion, or at least part of a set of emotions. Humans without their endocrine systems will have no motives at all.

 

[rational experiences]

Does science own the natural reason why natural presence exists?

No.

But you try to coerce belief.

A long time ago natural light immaculate balanced with clear immaculate. The heavens observed discussed observed by a self present human theist.

Reviewed by a father's adult male psyche. His own human teaching. With the claim I own dominion over all things. Human.

His man confession.

He however was not the equal human female life body with him in life balances owning creative life continuance as human two babies. Ignored by theism.

In review the only self identification was his own human self. He is not identified in the voiding burning gas light natural constant. He is not identified in clear immaculate.

As a human.

The scientists ignored his owned adult man father advice. Natural thought. Natural vision natural while in observation.

Natural healer science only. Holy.

So today would rather believe in his thesis how to activate a God reaction by placating imposing a scientific introduced zero. To do a Sion a conversion.

So men conjured evil by scientific design in opposition to their life. As God owned no form says his advice it existed as natural bodies of masses as ash dusts stone and Multi spirit gases. As the God forms.

None of which owned form as a being a stated image.

Is exactly your man's scientific self advice about destroying life on earth. Who you were first very healthy and spiritual. The heavens and earth different.

Not actually a human father yet when he invented science Sion to practice. Was his owned advice. When no human babies had yet existed. An adult man not a father but was a scientist satanist sacrificed our origin life.

By burning day hotter he set alight evening sky for six days. He never converted immaculate sacrificed gases light back into cold clear.

His adult advice said the immaculate had evolved cold clear non burning naturally. So how was he going to O whole convert it into his status science by maths time O?

He wanted O maths immaculate which is mass as one whole state only. Back in time historic cosmic meant no sun blasting attack on earth. No earths heavens gas alight burning.

Daylight gone. No daylight no life living either. Is his satanic idea how to overcome natural life that owns natural death thesis. As satanisms.

The conversion he theoried actually opposed his thesis gases the spirit went into a minus hotter state. Which is your own teaching liar human scientists the practice.

It is why biology study said it was how body DNA of the adult man father was removed so his firstborn children already Inherited a changed human life being.

As his man's father choice.

How females given a male named Fe male title inherited unnatural inequality in your man's behaviours....as fact of all evidence.

As men in psyche claim dominion over everything. By mens words. As to be named a fe male the human males have to exist and infer it.

Once Sion the practice convert of God conversion was fought against and outlawed in life. We knew science was evil.

Satanism already won. What you all ignore.

In natural planet earth God thesis Satanism was the human science practice which you discuss daily. Once science the practice never existed.

God the planet and heavens was always formed and natural. And men never owned any thesis why a human self existed.

 

[Link]

Gods just means what you value the most, it can be your dick and vagina and sexy butts of women if you value it the most (there is from the paradigm of how Quran uses the word, I don't know to much about English literature to argue one way or the other).


As for the True God

(1) he is a Unity (no division, pure undivided essence) (Ahad)
(2) He is worth of being loved exalted and revered to a level of what we call "worship" and since that is the highest word and everything pales to him, he is the only God. (Allah)
(3)He is FULL of all possible positives and life amount and all positive qualities and pleasures and peace and blessings (remember though he is one essence and so this all united in one single essence) (Samad)
(4)Because of this, it's impossible for him to beget (since he is full of life amount, there can't be any "life" beside it nor can there be an increase in an amount of life) (Lam Yaled)
(5)And because of this, we can conclude he was not begotten either and couldn't have attained this status from a lesser existence to this state.(walam Yulad)
(6)With all this, we can see nothing is his peer (Wa lam yakun kuwfan Ahad)

The question is how do we know all these 6 facts?

By the name of God, The (all) Compassionate, The (especially) Compassionate say he is.... (this equivalent of God "I am" and he is known through his name)

So we know him through his name.

What is his name, that's a big topic, but it's his living word of light. If we hold on to that, we will know God easily and remember him.



By the name of God, The (all) Compassionate, The (especially) Compassionate say he is God; One.(1)
God is Full (lacks nothing).(2)
He begets nor is he begotten.(3)
Nor is on par with him anyone.(4)

Thus is my Lord, my King, my God.

 

[Brian2]

In effect. I'm saying that nature is another word for the world external to the self, where things with objective existence are found. If God has objective existence, that's where [he] will be found. If [he] doesn't, then [he]'s not real; instead [he]'s just an idea in someone's head.

People in the past seem to have had contact with this God in the Bible and He has shown Himself to them and us, through them, to be real.

I assume three things ─ and I assume them because I can't demonstrate they're correct without first assuming they're correct. They are ─

That a world exists external to me,
That my senses are capable of informing me of that world
That reason is a valid tool.​

Fortunately, anyone who posts here demonstrates by doing so that they agree with the first two, and with ordinary luck the third as well.

From this basis the distinction between subjective and objective is much clearer. To have objective existence, a thing must exist in the world external to me, also called nature.

Whereas mermaids and unicorns and magic and ghosts and souls and "the immaterial" exist only as concepts / things imagined in individual brains.

Reason is a valid tool but does rely to a large extent on the assumptions we make. If we make different assumptions then the reasoned conclusions can be completely different.

At least one of our brain functions is overseeing (some of) the workings of the brain. This interconnectivity has been hypothesized to be the basis of creative thought, mixing and matching ideas from one set of concepts, one style of thinking, with another, different one. It's also a fundamental part of human learning.

Isn't hypothesising such things as a brain function that oversees, just part of the assumption of nature being all there is.
It works in science which cannot find a God or spirits either, and so ends up hypothesising things that are magical, such as matter becoming conscious, but make it look like legitimate scientific research.

No, no one has offered a description of a real God ─ size, sex, number of limbs, number and nature of sensory organs, metabolism, brain functions &c. Instead, total silence.

Sounds right for an invisible spirit.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

.................God says [he] can and does lie eg ─

1 Kings 22:23 Now, therefore, behold, the Lord has put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these your prophets; the Lord has spoken evil concerning you.”
Ezekiel 14:9 And if the prophet be deceived and speak a word, I, the Lord, have deceived that prophet​

....................... That is, God doesn't exist in reality, can't be found there, but only in imagination.

To me, in the Bible we can learn or God's existence and the Bible does exist in reality.
God allows an operation of error to go to persons who prefer lies/falsehoods - 2 Thessalonians 2:9-12
Lying prophets assured Ahab of success. God's prophet Micaiah foretold disaster.
As revealed to Micaiah, God allowed a deceptive spirit in the mouth of Ahab's prophets (saying what Ahab wanted to hear) even though forewarned Ahab preferred to be fooled by their lies - 1 Kings 22:1-38; 2 Chronicles 18:1-34.
God did Not prevent false prophets from saying their misleading messages.
In other words, God did Not send those false prophets but neither did He prevent them, thus it's the people who choose and if the people want to be mislead. Because God did Not stop the misleading ones but allowed that to happen. Or, as Job 34:10-12 says God does Not act wickedly.... perverting judgement,

 

[Ponder This]

I'd say the stars were uncounted, not in principle uncountable.

If you are able to count them, then how, in principle, would you count them?

 

[blü 2]

People in the past seem to have had contact with this God in the Bible and He has shown Himself to them and us, through them, to be real.

But none of the stories answers my question ─ what is God? In the Tanakh [he] begins as a naive Bronze Age magician and alpha male, creating the universe as it was then understood in seven literal days, and frank that [his] chief concern is to protect [his] own position from the humans, as with the fruit and at Babel. To argue this is not just a folktale is to take on the task of explaining the method by which [he] made the world and its living things, but then the answer is, by magic. The tale has no concept of science or technology.

And if, literally, 'man' is made in [his] image, then it's fair to ask the color of [his] skin and hair, how tall ─ and of course the size of [his] penis and the reason for [his] divorce from Asherah.

In this scenario we're looking for a magician ─ and as James Randi showed, real magicians are very very thin on the ground.

Reason is a valid tool but does rely to a large extent on the assumptions we make. If we make different assumptions then the reasoned conclusions can be completely different.

But if God is real then there's a great deal less that needs to be assumed ─ [he]'s a particular kind of living creature, just as we, and pandas, and ants, and squid, and humming birds are.

And if [he]'s not real then [he]'s only conceptual / imaginary.

Isn't hypothesising such things as a brain function that oversees, just part of the assumption of nature being all there is.

I assume nature exists and that my senses can inform me of nature and my assumptions are justified by the fact that this works, allows investigation, makes nature potentially explicable, whether at the level of conceiving and raising children or at the level of quantum mechanics.

If we're faced with the stipulation that God is real, not just conceptual/imaginary, then God has to be in nature because nature is the only place a real entity can be. And if God is real then God has a description appropriate to a real entity.

So the fact that no one has a clue what that description is, is non-trivially significant.