How did little old us ever take the measure of unimaginably stupendous God?

[Whateverist]

Christian theists, why is it necessary to use descriptors which apply to nothing else in describing your God.  If so why say that God is immeasurable, eternal, omnipotent and omniscient?  Do we actually possess the means to determine if any of these claims are true?  No.

For Christians, it seems, God is not the primary object of belief.  The thing they believe first and foremost is the bible.  Back then, to the best of their abilities scribes described God once and for all.  Since that time xtians have had the wagons circled defending and promoting that book as the absolute authority for knowing god.  The mystery has been replaced with a book, the WORD.  Of course, most of us here would agree that God and all that is said about gods are just words.  But is there a mystery beyond the words or is it just words all the way down?

Does this resonate for any theists here?  Do you admit that the mystery of God is first and foremost a mystery?  Or do you feel the WORD is enough, that that is all that is required.

[Mystic]

Do you recall my arguments (proofs from my point of view) regarding the nature of God when I was a Deist?

[KUSA]

Do you recall my arguments (proofs from my point of view) regarding the nature of God when I was a Deist?

There are no proofs of god, only extremely bad evidence (for lack of a better word).

[Whateverist]

Do you recall my arguments (proofs from my point of view) regarding the nature of God when I was a Deist?

As I recall, you would argue that certain prior conditions would be necessary for what we know as the universe today to exist.  Only God could provide those prior conditions.  Therefore God.

But I disagree at every point.  We're in no position to say the prior conditions are for the universe as we know it today.  We can never be sure that our perspective is comprehensive enough to account for all relevant factors.  Likewise are we in any position to determine exactly what conditions are determinative of which other conditions or systemically to understand what all the cycles may be?  I'd say no, and all we can ever do is incrementally inch away from our abysmal ignorance toward a less and less inadequate description.

Now that is as true for theists as it is for atheists.  Merely pointing to god is not to understand anything and sitting pat with goddidit amounts to wallowing comfortably in the ignorance forever.

But please tell me if I've misrepresented your arguments.

[Mystic]

Do you recall my arguments (proofs from my point of view) regarding the nature of God when I was a Deist?

As I recall, you would argue that certain prior conditions would be necessary for what we know as the universe today to exist.  Only God could provide those prior conditions.  Therefore God.

Those are arguments for a Creator, for example an argument for a creator is that consciousness if solely materially created is so complicated that to get there you would need many complex steps, yet there has to be a step from non-consciousness to consciousness because of how vastly different it is between the two states (ie. it's not like white to black with shades of grey). This put's a paradox where many steps are needed at the same time one step has to happen (ie. the shift from one state to the other). Like wise, other arguments I've presented to prove a Creator. The purpose of this thread is obviously not to argue those but how do we know God's attributes.


Arguments for just a Creator, do not prove a god or God as in capital G. All it does prove a Creator.  Spiritual knowledge also doesn't necessarily prove God. For example seeing you are a soul, all it tells you is spiritual non-material existence exists. It doesn't tell you the attributes of the Creator.
So do you remember arguments I've made for "God", and not just a Creator? And do you remember also the discussion on if God exists, why it's not logical to assume he couldn't give us knowledge of himself?

[Whateverist]

No I don't. Can you cut and paste to here or maybe just link it?

[Mystic]

No I don't.  Can you cut and paste to here or maybe just link it?

There is a few arguments, but before going into these arguments...let's discuss non-argument faith. Most people who believe in God don't do so on arguments. They just feel it's obvious he exists like morality exists. They also feel they know he is the basis to morality, that they always wonder how Atheists can come to terms to believing in objective morality without God. 

The arguments I doubt you will be convinced by them, but they do convince me. However, I believe in God before those arguments and I'm not sure if they even increased me in faith regardless of how convincing they are.

But if God exists, why do you think it's rational to assume he didn't give knowledge of himself to us?  Why do you assume it's not possible to be given knowledge of God?

[Pyrrho]

No I don't.  Can you cut and paste to here or maybe just link it?

There is a few arguments, but before going into these arguments...let's discuss non-argument faith. Most people who believe in God don't do so on arguments. They just feel it's obvious he exists like morality exists. They also feel they know he is the basis to morality, that they always wonder how Atheists can come to terms to believing in objective morality without God. 

The arguments I doubt you will be convinced by them, but they do convince me. However, I believe in God before those arguments and I'm not sure if they even increased me in faith regardless of how convincing they are.

But if God exists, why do you think it's rational to assume he didn't give knowledge of himself to us?  Why do you assume it's not possible to be given knowledge of God?

People use faith to justify their belief in Vishnu and other gods.  Since you regard faith as a kind of proof, I guess you believe in Vishnu and many other gods, right?  If not, then even you know that using "faith" is completely worthless for proving anything.

[Whateverist]

No I don't.  Can you cut and paste to here or maybe just link it?

There is a few arguments, but before going into these arguments...let's discuss non-argument faith. Most people who believe in God don't do so on arguments. They just feel it's obvious he exists like morality exists. They also feel they know he is the basis to morality, that they always wonder how Atheists can come to terms to believing in objective morality without God. 

The arguments I doubt you will be convinced by them, but they do convince me. However, I believe in God before those arguments and I'm not sure if they even increased me in faith regardless of how convincing they are.

But if God exists, why do you think it's rational to assume he didn't give knowledge of himself to us?  Why do you assume it's not possible to be given knowledge of God?

Good, I agree.  What I'd really like to know is why you assume that if gods exist they must be mega-/omni-/stupendously grand and eternal.  You feel that god exists before the arguments start.  But why do you assume you know the measure of god?

So my question does not challenge your ability to be given knowledge of God, but I do question how that gives you confidence in such a cosmically vast being.  I cannot imagine why anyone thinks they know such a thing.

[Mystic]

There is a few arguments, but before going into these arguments...let's discuss non-argument faith. Most people who believe in God don't do so on arguments. They just feel it's obvious he exists like morality exists. They also feel they know he is the basis to morality, that they always wonder how Atheists can come to terms to believing in objective morality without God. 

The arguments I doubt you will be convinced by them, but they do convince me. However, I believe in God before those arguments and I'm not sure if they even increased me in faith regardless of how convincing they are.

But if God exists, why do you think it's rational to assume he didn't give knowledge of himself to us?  Why do you assume it's not possible to be given knowledge of God?

Good, I agree.  What I'd really like to know is why you assume that if gods exist they must be mega-/omni-/stupendously grand and eternal.  You feel that god exists before the arguments start.  But why do you assume you know the measure of god?

So my question does not challenge your ability to be given knowledge of God, but I do question how that gives you confidence in such a cosmically vast being.  I cannot imagine why anyone thinks they know such a thing.

From what I understand, what gives us this knowledge is his name. Through his name, all praise belongs to him. Through his name, which is light from light, light that unites all lights, and light that is with light, we get to know him. This is also known as God's face by which we get to know him. 

However the name is the not the named, and we don't worship the name. The name points to the named, and the meaning is what we worship without knowing it to it's absoluteness.

Through his name, I can know greatness in the heavens and the earth belong to him. Through his Name, which is light with light, God is the light of the heavens and the earth.

Through his name, I can glorify God. Through his name I know, despite not being able to imagine it, that God is Ultimate, and is the most High and absolutely perfect. 

The name of God in reality contains all beautiful names and unites all perfections. Through his name, I can recognize that the Quran has been revealed and brought down through his name and reflects his identity. Through his name, I can recognize the light of the Guide of time and know it's truthful, honest, from God and a proof of God's desire.

What I mean by "name" is not like the names we give to each other which are mean random words we were picked at birth. I mean by which we can identify God. And through that, all beautiful names we know belong to God and point to God, although, in the heart, they are all known through the one name of God that encompasses all creation to various degrees. The utmost of his name is Mohammad and the family of Mohammad from the Islamic point of view. Consequently, to connect to God, one must ultimately look upon the light of God's Guides, and glorify through their glorification of God. When I say they are the utmost of his name, I mean knowledge of God in creation, and I don't mean to say they are the named or the meaning of the name. Only that they glorify God in the most perfect glorification in creation and submit to his will most perfectly.

Consequently, the guiding light of the universe unites in them.