God and theists.

[FatAndFaithless]

Hi new poster, welcome to the forum, you might wanna make a thread in the intro section to say hi.

But please..don't end your posts with 'mic drop'..

[Mister Agenda]

Welcome, Face of a model. I hope you like it here and look forward to reading your future contributions.

[SteveII]

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.

[Neo-Scholastic]

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.

[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.

[Minimalist]

God cannot be described.

God is a figment of the human imagination.

There.  Perfectly described.

[SteveII]

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.

(1) Astronomy was redefined/updated/changed. Take your pick of a word that means change.

(2) I did not assert that our universe was crude. I said that there is zero evidence that our universe was created by intelligent being/s (eg. typical theistic Gods), and instead, the only type of universes created are crude universes, such as simulations. (look closely on the work: 'simulations')

So, now you see that the redefinition then follows logically, just like how astronomy was updated, in a similar way, the God concept is able to be redefined using modern evidence/science. 

Also, as Harry points out, I did not say that science comments on any existence of any theistic God creator of our universe. In clearer words, I said that after redefining God using science, you don't have to believe in the redefinition, as you don't need to believe in science. [3]

This is because science has a property where it holds true whether or not you believe in it. [4]

2. You didn't answer my question. There are reasons to believe that God did create the universe. Why is there anything rather than nothing? How did a universe (or a multiverse) come into being out of nothing? Why is our universe, against all probability, fine-tuned to support any kind of life? You say there is zero evidence for God, but you are equivocating. What you really mean is that there is no scientific evidence. The problem with this reasoning is that these are not questions that science can answer--these are metaphysical questions. 

I have no idea what you are talking about with 'simulations'.

No redefinition needed. You have presented nothing that requires me to rethink the God of Christianity in the slightest. 

3. There is no way in the world science can define God. Science literally means study of the natural world and God is clearly a supernatural (not natural) being. The former cannot inform on the latter by definition. 

4. No, that is not a property of science. That is simply the definition of 'truth' (which can be a scientific truth, a matter of fact, a metaphysical truth, a moral truth, or a mathematical truth--among others).

[brewer]

Off island again???

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Of course God can be described. Here:

A little under 6' tall, 172 lbs.

Brown eyes, brown hair, neatly trimmed van dyke.

Small scar on left cheek, floral tattoo on right scapular area.

Walks with a slight limp, due to a botched surgery as a child.

There you have it - a perfectly accurate, factually unassailable description of God. Dunno why people make shyte like this sound so complicated.

Boru

[Zenith]

God cannot be described.

If you lived your whole life in a closed box, you would never guess what exists outside the box. And if you were to imagine, anything you may say would be based solely on what you have seen in the box.

So it is with "God" - anything about him, from how he looks to his voice to what he thinks to what he wants and what he stands for, to what he wants you to do or not to do, everything is trimmed down to man's limitations (perception, imagination, knowledge, beliefs, etc.). Which makes him no better than an imaginary person. So I can't take it for more than imaginary.

If he'd existed and wanted us to understand him, he would've done something about it.

But, imagining there's a god out there: Understanding God = being able to live a correct religious life. That is, if one understands how God thinks and feels, then he better understands the whats, hows and whys about everything in his own life. Not understanding God means twisting his commandments, teachings, etc. to man's own understanding. Which makes one a "false" servant of God... Something like, << you said "Thou shalt not kill?", oops, I must've read it without the "not". Silly me! >>

But hey, I think this is something all abrahamic religions have in common: Perfect God made you, but it's still your fault if you can't live to his expectations. Perfect God gave you a choice, but it's still your fault if you choose something else from what he wanted you to choose. So is with "understanding God" dilemma: God is beyond your understanding, but it's still your fault if you misunderstand him.