(September 19, 2014 at 3:47 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: Actually, that’s not a good starting place since such a conception of God is as a thing among and apart from other things.
The conception of anything among and apart from other things is how we always identify and define it. Why should your god be treated as a special case?
(September 19, 2014 at 3:47 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: A better starting point is where all monotheistic traditions agree; God in His fullness is ineffable.
This is a joke, right? The monotheistic traditions agree that their god cannot be expressed in words and then they can't stop talking about him or writing about him? And while we are at it, you want me to start examining the god claim by assuming its definition as "something that cannot be expressed in words"? And why the hell would I start with the definition the Abrahamic faiths started with?
(September 19, 2014 at 3:47 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: Just as God is not a thing among other things as mentioned above, knowledge of God is not some piece of information that you can store alongside other facts. It is like knowing oneself as a knower, a kind of gnosis that is immediate and intimate. People gain this type of knowledge about God from either general or special revelation or both.
Blah, blah, blah.....
Is your god conscious - as in is he capable of perceiving the universe?
Does your god have agency - as in is he capable of acting upon the universe?
Is he immaterial - as in is his existence independent from anything within the material world?
If the answer is yes to all of these, then he fits my definition and we can start the examination. Not so in-fucking-effable, after all.
