God and theists.

[Harry Nevis]

Your characterization of the Christian version of God is simplistic in the extreme. There are hundreds of passages that give us information about God--certainly qualifying as 'describing God' and way beyond 'a few descriptions'.

Even still, I think the traditional understanding of God is that He is incomprehensible. Our knowledge of God's nature is based primarily on what He is not in contrast to those things with which we are familiar. That is because limited creatures can only comprehend finite things. We know He is omnipotent only in contrast to what we know about things of limited power. We know He is omniscient only in contrast to our limited understanding. Etc.

You "knowledge" of god's nature is no knowledge at all, but based on wishful thinking.  They'd LIKE him to be omni, but, when pressed, they just make up new definitions for the tough words and contradictions.

---

God cannot be described.

The mistake of the Church and theism in general, is that it tried to describe God. 
The description of God involves installing him in a human-like form.

It begins with the body that is represented by simple to complicated structures like statues and tombstones, to psychological traits involving actions and ways of acting.


More or less, it's the mere idea of simplification that makes the idea more convenient for human minds to follow: simplicity make it easier for missionary movements to spread their theistic ideas, and make the current believers stay in belief since the belief is simple and doesn't require complicated thinking.

Christianity gave an example with the simplification of God, turning him into a father; giving birth to a human with super powers, and closing the belief with a statement of presenting the idea of the son being the father; the father being son; making God a human.

Since similar ideas worked for centuries in Ancient Greece and Ancient Egypt, it was more of an evidence that it would work in Rome.

Islam followed the same footsteps but with minor changes to the main idea.

Shiite Islam gave an example by the appointing of 12 Imams, that represent God's sacred order. Without them, God will never be known. Only them can define what God is; silencing any voices that ask for another definition; since seeking knowledge out of the Imams domain is asking knowledge from an untrustworthy source; thus easing missionary campaigns and easing up the believing process on current believers.

In all other religions, from Judaism to Sunni Islam, passing by Hinduism and Buddaism, similar terminologies can be detected; but the source is always the simplification of God into a human formula that can rest up heads and make thinking and speculations -and raising questions- as low as possible.  

God cannot be described fully. Science proved it by showing the massive scale of our universe alone; and proving that their might be other multiverses which are just as massive. God is something we know nothing about but a few descriptions.

Neither a fake son, nor a gang of 12 Imams, not a militia of Sunni shamans, nor a group of Jewish Rabbis, would conclude him in a beard or two.

Your premise that God cannot be described is not supported by the rest of your post. You are simply saying that God has been incorrectly described. 

Your characterization of the Christian version of God is simplistic in the extreme. There are hundreds of passages that give us information about God--certainly qualifying as 'describing God' and way beyond 'a few descriptions'. 

At the end you change to 'God cannot be described fully'. I would agree with that. An omnipotent, omniscient, and omni-benevolent God cannot be described fully by a finite mind. That does not mean we cannot have a robust idea of God appropriate for our purposes.

---

Interesting topic.
But you are dead wrong.

Let us do a simple exercise:

(1) Astronomy once had mythical components, but was redefined as modern evidence came along,
     and those myths were purged, but 'astronomy' was kept anyway.

 
(2) In a similar way, we can redefine "God". We can similarly remove the myths.
     That an intelligent life form created our cosmos is not founded, so the redefinition would purge that,
     along with any other unfounded properties.
 
     Now, the only type of universes that are created, are crude ones, or simulations.
 
     So redefining, we have: God is any non-omniscient thing, that can create crude universes. (eg. humans)

 
(3) You don't need to believe in the redefinition of God, as you don't need to believe in science, because
     science holds true regardless of belief.
 
     So, you can be an atheist and recognize the above as scientifically valid, without believing in it.
 
Mic drop.

First, welcome to the forum. I hope you are here to discuss and not lecture or mock.

1. I'm not sure astronomy was ever redefined. Our understanding of the mechanics changed. 
2. Why isn't the concept of a Creator founded? Do you know why there is something rather than nothing or how that something came into being? 

You are asserting that our universe is a crude one (a subjective/comparative term). Are you aware of others that are less so?

You have done nothing at all to support your redefinition of God because none of your premises are based on anything resembling reasoning and nothing logically follows from a series of unfounded opinion.

3. I was not aware that science can even comment on whether God exists or not. Said another way, science has nothing to do with the question: Does God Exists -- and certainly has nothing to say about what properties or attributes God would have.

In 3, where did he say science commented on god's existence?  All he said was that you don't have to believe science, as the fact speak for themselves.