Defining God in Theistic Arguments

[Percivale]

When arguing for the existence of God, one should understand what kind of God one is giving evidence for. Generally these arguments prove only a few qualities that the being they prove must have.
I believe that in arguments from effect to cause, such as the cosmological and design arguments, the definition of God that is being used is simply: 'a being that has always existed, who intentionally caused the universe to come into existence.' The being must have always existed or it would itself need a cause, and it must have significant intelligence and power to have intentionally created the universe. Whether such a being is also morally good, or entirely immaterial, or infinite in any quality besides time it has existed, is not addressed in these arguments. If someone slips these qualities in without evidence, it is right to call that out, but until they do, to keep with the topic only to discuss the evidence for the minimal type of God defined above.

A second category of theistic arguments uses a different definition of God, due to the different type of evidence under examination. These are the arguments from human experience of the supernatural. Miracles, revelation, near-death-experiences, and such, provide evidence for this definition of God: 'A superhuman being who is good, powerful, worthy of worship, and interested in the growth (in character) of humanity.' The exact qualities depend on which experiences one is presenting, but they tend to be these primarily.

By itself the first category of arguments would only support a deistic god, while the second category, depending on the specifics, might support a variety of types of gods. When you take both together, you get something closer to the Christian concept of God.

 

[Davian]

...you get something closer to the Christian concept of God.

You mean, get something closer to your personal conception of the Christian God.

Do you see the problem there? By all appearances, you are working backwards to a conclusion that you already hold to be true.

 

[quatona]

When arguing for the existence of God, one should understand what kind of God one is giving evidence for. Generally these arguments prove only a few qualities that the being they prove must have.
I believe that in arguments from effect to cause, such as the cosmological and design arguments, the definition of God that is being used is simply: 'a being that has always existed, who intentionally caused the universe to come into existence.' The being must have always existed or it would itself need a cause, and it must have significant intelligence and power to have intentionally created the universe. Whether such a being is also morally good, or entirely immaterial, or infinite in any quality besides time it has existed, is not addressed in these arguments. If someone slips these qualities in without evidence, it is right to call that out, but until they do, to keep with the topic only to discuss the evidence for the minimal type of God defined above.

A second category of theistic arguments uses a different definition of God, due to the different type of evidence under examination. These are the arguments from human experience of the supernatural. Miracles, revelation, near-death-experiences, and such, provide evidence for this definition of God: 'A superhuman being who is good, powerful, worthy of worship, and interested in the growth (in character) of humanity.' The exact qualities depend on which experiences one is presenting, but they tend to be these primarily.

By itself the first category of arguments would only support a deistic god, while the second category, depending on the specifics, might support a variety of types of gods. When you take both together, you get something closer to the Christian concept of God.

Yes, the definition of the being in question is very important for scrutinizing the validity of an argument. That´s why it should be the first question asked whenever someone talks about "God". Unfortunately, apologists are often very reluctant to give such a definition. Presumably because they hope they can silently and a posteriori mingle properties into the conclusion that wouldn´t supported by the argument presented.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

When arguing for the existence of God, one should understand what kind of God one is giving evidence for. Generally these arguments prove only a few qualities that the being they prove must have.
I believe that in arguments from effect to cause, such as the cosmological and design arguments, the definition of God that is being used is simply: 'a being that has always existed, who intentionally caused the universe to come into existence.' The being must have always existed or it would itself need a cause, and it must have significant intelligence and power to have intentionally created the universe. Whether such a being is also morally good, or entirely immaterial, or infinite in any quality besides time it has existed, is not addressed in these arguments. If someone slips these qualities in without evidence, it is right to call that out, but until they do, to keep with the topic only to discuss the evidence for the minimal type of God defined above.

A second category of theistic arguments uses a different definition of God, due to the different type of evidence under examination. These are the arguments from human experience of the supernatural. Miracles, revelation, near-death-experiences, and such, provide evidence for this definition of God: 'A superhuman being who is good, powerful, worthy of worship, and interested in the growth (in character) of humanity.' The exact qualities depend on which experiences one is presenting, but they tend to be these primarily.

By itself the first category of arguments would only support a deistic god, while the second category, depending on the specifics, might support a variety of types of gods. When you take both together, you get something closer to the Christian concept of God.

Straight off the bat, I'm going to weigh in and say that I don't see how the combination of the first and second categories of theistic argument above contribute very much to our understanding of the Christian concept of God. In fact, if all that deliberation over these two categories can do is move us to "something closer" to the Christian God, then I'm not overly thrilled since I don't want to settle for a god concept, or an actual god, that only qualifies as "something closer" to the Christian God, especially when I already have Christ as Lord.

So, what kind of god do we think we are attempting to understand? What is it to "understand" such a being, and how do we know that our understanding of such a being, if He indeed exists, truly equates to an understanding of such a being?

[edit in, , so you know the following question is tongue-in-cheek] Do we actually have the gall to think we can take on such a rational project (or a futile one, depending on which side of the Gestalt you're on)?

2PhiloVoid

 

[Ana the Ist]

Straight off the bat, I'm going to weigh in and say that I don't see how the combination of the first and second categories of theistic argument above contribute very much to our understanding of the Christian concept of God. In fact, if all that deliberation over these two categories can do is move us to "something closer" to the Christian God, then I'm not overly thrilled since I don't want to settle for a god concept, or an actual god, that only qualifies as "something closer" to the Christian God, especially when I already have Christ as Lord.

So, what kind of god do we think we are attempting to understand? What is it to "understand" such a being, and how do we know that our understanding of such a being, if He indeed exists, truly equates to an understanding of such a being? Do we actually have the gall to think we can take on such a rational project (or a futile one, depending on which side of the Gestalt you're on)?

2PhiloVoid

You seem to think that you have the gall...don't you?

After all, you're claiming to have "Christ" as your god. Why not just explain to everyone what exactly that god "is" and how you arrived at your conclusions?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

You seem to think that you have the gall...don't you?

After all, you're claiming to have "Christ" as your god. Why not just explain to everyone what exactly that god "is" and how you arrived at your conclusions?

Hi Ana,

Oops! I guess I need to add a winky-smile so everyone knows that my "gall question" can be taken tongue-in-cheek. (Yes, I was purposely trying to be a philosophical wiseacre with that last question).

As far as explaining my "claim" to have Christ as my God, as you're supposing, the kind of explanation you probably have in mind isn't something I stated I could do in any kind of comprehensive, systematic way; nor did I allude to such a thing, even as an alternative to the more "rational project" of the philosopher's god. More realistically, since Christian faith is somewhat dependent on the assumption of revelation as an auxiliary form of knowledge, although admittedly a limited form of knowledge, then the Christian project can't be so much a rational one, in a Cartesian sense, as it is an analytical one.

2PhiloVoid

 

[Ana the Ist]

Hi Ana,

Oops! I guess I need to add a winky-smile so everyone knows that my "gall question" can be taken tongue-in-cheek. (Yes, I was purposely trying to be a philosophical wiseacre with that last question).

As far as explaining my "claim" to have Christ as my God, as you're supposing, the kind of explanation you probably have in mind isn't something I stated I could do in any kind of comprehensive, systematic way; nor did I allude to such a thing, even as an alternative to the more "rational project" of the philosopher's god. More realistically, since Christian faith is somewhat dependent on the assumption of revelation as an auxiliary form of knowledge, although admittedly a limited form of knowledge, then the Christian project can't be so much a rational one, in a Cartesian sense, as it is an analytical one.

2PhiloVoid

That's fair I suppose...

Why do you think you prefer this non-rational god over the conceptually rational one the OP attempts to get at through some sort of backwards philosophical inquiry?

And, yes, I'm asking "why you think" because I imagine my answer to that question would be much different from yours.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

That's fair I suppose...

Why do you think you prefer this non-rational god over the conceptually rational one the OP attempts to get at through some sort of backwards philosophical inquiry?

And, yes, I'm asking "why you think" because I imagine my answer to that question would be much different from yours.

There are multiple nuances to my preference for Christianity, but the first one is my contention that the OP's two conceptual categories do little to indicate that, by these considerations alone, we've attained any fully rational understanding of some divine nature.

In essence, I'm positing that there is a difference in the results between Gentile philosophers who, on the one hand, rationally evaluate by way of Grecian praxis those divine attributes they've abstracted from "the ether" of their minds, so to speak, and theologians who, on the other hand, glean, collect, and analyze a different set of articulations of divine attributes from the previous writings and traditions of a specific, historically situated, set of Semitic people (i.e. the Jewish people and their rabbis).

As an analytical application of the point I'm making above, I posit that there is a difference between the exact denotation and the accompanying connotations of the qualifer, Omnipotent, and those of the biblical term, Almighty.

Peace
2PhiloVoid

 

[Ana the Ist]

There are multiple nuances to my preference for Christianity, but the first one is my contention that the OP's two conceptual categories do little to indicate that, by these considerations alone, we've attained any fully rational understanding of some divine nature.

In essence, I'm positing that there is a difference in the results between Gentile philosophers who, on the one hand, rationally evaluate by way of Grecian praxis those divine attributes they've abstracted from "the ether" of their minds, so to speak, and theologians who, on the other hand, glean, collect, and analyze a different set of articulations of divine attributes from the previous writings and traditions of a specific, historically situated, set of Semitic people (i.e. the Jewish people and their rabbis).

As an analytical application of the point I'm making above, I posit that there is a difference between the exact denotation and the accompanying connotations of the qualifer, Omnipotent, and those of the biblical term, Almighty.

Peace
2PhiloVoid

That's interesting...

What about the methods you prefer would "indicate", as you say, any fully rational understanding of some divine nature? Or is that not possible through the methods you prefer?

It would seem to me that anything "gleaned" from an ancient religious tradition is ultimately meaningless if it doesn't correspond to a rational understanding of reality. E.g. the problem of evil.

 

[Soyeong]

When arguing for the existence of God, one should understand what kind of God one is giving evidence for. Generally these arguments prove only a few qualities that the being they prove must have.
I believe that in arguments from effect to cause, such as the cosmological and design arguments, the definition of God that is being used is simply: 'a being that has always existed, who intentionally caused the universe to come into existence.' The being must have always existed or it would itself need a cause, and it must have significant intelligence and power to have intentionally created the universe. Whether such a being is also morally good, or entirely immaterial, or infinite in any quality besides time it has existed, is not addressed in these arguments. If someone slips these qualities in without evidence, it is right to call that out, but until they do, to keep with the topic only to discuss the evidence for the minimal type of God defined above.

A second category of theistic arguments uses a different definition of God, due to the different type of evidence under examination. These are the arguments from human experience of the supernatural. Miracles, revelation, near-death-experiences, and such, provide evidence for this definition of God: 'A superhuman being who is good, powerful, worthy of worship, and interested in the growth (in character) of humanity.' The exact qualities depend on which experiences one is presenting, but they tend to be these primarily.

By itself the first category of arguments would only support a deistic god, while the second category, depending on the specifics, might support a variety of types of gods. When you take both together, you get something closer to the Christian concept of God.

Once you establish the existence of a being that has characteristics that correspond to our concept of God, then it becomes important to establish the identity of that being, or in other words whether any religion is correct about this being's interactions in human history. This is why William Lane Craig always includes an argument for the resurrection of Jesus along with his arguments for the existence of God.

This video establishing the existence of being or pure act, then after about 30 minutes in he starts to argue for what attributes this being would necessarily have:

 

[GrowingSmaller]

When arguing for the existence of God, one should understand what kind of God one is giving evidence for. Generally these arguments prove only a few qualities that the being they prove must have.
I believe that in arguments from effect to cause, such as the cosmological and design arguments, the definition of God that is being used is simply: 'a being that has always existed, who intentionally caused the universe to come into existence.' The being must have always existed or it would itself need a cause, and it must have significant intelligence and power to have intentionally created the universe. Whether such a being is also morally good, or entirely immaterial, or infinite in any quality besides time it has existed, is not addressed in these arguments. If someone slips these qualities in without evidence, it is right to call that out, but until they do, to keep with the topic only to discuss the evidence for the minimal type of God defined above.

A second category of theistic arguments uses a different definition of God, due to the different type of evidence under examination. These are the arguments from human experience of the supernatural. Miracles, revelation, near-death-experiences, and such, provide evidence for this definition of God: 'A superhuman being who is good, powerful, worthy of worship, and interested in the growth (in character) of humanity.' The exact qualities depend on which experiences one is presenting, but they tend to be these primarily.

By itself the first category of arguments would only support a deistic god, while the second category, depending on the specifics, might support a variety of types of gods. When you take both together, you get something closer to the Christian concept of God.

Reminds me of IIRC what the Catholics teach, the Christian faith is built in the bible and Greek philosophy.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Once you establish the existence of a being that has characteristics that correspond to our concept of God, then it becomes important to establish the identity of that being, or in other words whether any religion is correct about this being's interactions in human history. This is why William Lane Craig always includes an argument for the resurrection of Jesus along with his arguments for the existence of God.

This video establishing the existence of being or pure act, then after about 30 minutes in he starts to argue for what attributes this being would necessarily have:

I got through about 20 mins when I realized that he shot down his own argument.

 

[Soyeong]

I got through about 20 mins when I realized that he shot down his own argument.

How so?

 

[Ana the Ist]

How so?

Well, for the first 20 mins or so he describes two types of causal relationships (he doesn't call them that...but that's what they are) linear and hierarchical. Even if I ignore the fact that there's really no difference between the two...the linear just seems more immediate of the two...and I ignore the problems with these foundational premises (the idea that we observe change...his example of coffee cooling is deceptive, yes we can observe the change of thermal energy but the net effect is constant, we know the amount of energy in the universe doesn't change) he still runs into a rather serious problem with his hierarchical causal relationship. He claims it requires an actor while the linear relationships don't. The fact is, neither do.

If I were to use his examples, I'd point out that the air conditioner doesn't just cool the coffee...it effects multiple changes. Why then, couldn't these "hierarchical" causal relationships simply be results of linear casualties? Upon examination...we can see they are (which is why I said they aren't really any different). The coffee rests upon the table, which rests upon the floor, which rests upon the foundation, which rests upon the ground, which was formed by gravity which is a linear result of a chain which began with the big bang (which is the point in the chain which is the furthest back we can see). Gravity isn't part of a hierarchical relationship...it's a linear one...and as he pointed out early in the video, linear relationships don't require any actors.

So even allowing his rather sloppily constructed premises, he still ends up back at square one.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

That's interesting...

What about the methods you prefer would "indicate", as you say, any fully rational understanding of some divine nature? Or is that not possible through the methods you prefer?

[I’m sorry if you find the following response kind of long, but it is what it is… ]

Ana, as I said previously, the Christian approach to defining God isn’t going to be (or shouldn’t be) that of the Cartesian Rationalist who, through deductive procedure, dissolves doubts and then builds certain conclusions. Instead, it is one that is more on the side of an Analytical procedure, one that takes the content that is “given” (i.e. via the Semitic writings), and breaks it down into its constituent parts and contexts in an attempt to understand what meaning may be there---or not there. Keep in mind here that our OP topic is “defining God” in relation to the existence of God. But, there is a difference between the indication of meaning about attributes of an entity and indication of its existence; one is not the other, even if there may be some overlap in the overall epistemological and/or metaphysical structures of our thoughts and intentions.

One more thing here, let me try to clarify something about what I mean by my use of the term, “fully rational.” By this, I don’t mean that the Christian project of defining God lacks some psychological dimension of rationality, that it’s all just mindless mantras and mysticism. Obviously, to go the Analytical route as I am suggesting requires the substantive use of one’s noggin and an ability to employ logic and discernment.

What about the actual “method”? We can use whatever cognitive methods are at our disposal, in fact, I’d say, try to use all reasonable human means possible. This would be a more scientific way of “doing it.”

In saying this, I mean to imply that we should glean (or dig up) divine attributes, and sift them from their embedded contexts as we would any other ancient artifacts. [I want to insert here, more specifically, that digging up, identifying, interpreting, and understanding divine attributes will, in a Biblical framework, have more to do with anthropological studies and the field of hermeneutics than it will with applying formal logic to an abstracted set of OMNI-attributes.] In doing so, I’m predicting we won’t arrive at the same conclusions as do the philosophers who rely on a fully rational, or as I would say, “merely” rational, approach.

However, after we have analyzed the Semitic writings from an ‘exterior’ method to identify divine attributes in the texts, and when we begin to analyze this given content for meaning, we may come to realize that the evident meaning given by the ancient writers tells us that our rational capacities alone will not enable us to have a complete understanding of the divine attributes of God; in other words, we won’t necessarily be able to take the Bible and say, “Aha! There He is!!” All we may be able to do on a human level is identify the biblical articulation about divine nature as distinct from other articulations that exist or have existed, whether they be those of ancient Mesopotamia and Egypt, or in this particularly case, one that relies on a modern extension of Grecian praxis (i.e. the philosopher’s god).

It would seem to me that anything "gleaned" from an ancient religious tradition is ultimately meaningless if it doesn't correspond to a rational understanding of reality. E.g. the problem of evil.

It is possible that the analytical gleaning of divine concepts from ancient Semitic sources may give us less meaning that we’d like to have, but we would have to have actually given our best shot(s) in understanding the ancient Jewish mindset before saying so. And even then, it may be objected (by me) that what some people think is meaningless isn’t really devoid of meaning, but rather that the ideas being scrutinized are just not filled with the kind of meaning which they find very relevant today. There is a difference between meaning and relevance …

As for the problem of evil, I think that’s best addressed elsewhere. Let’s focus on defining God first and discerning the difference between the Grecian/Gentile and Jewish approaches to the Divine Attributes. But, if you think that the problem of evil is relevant to this discussion since it relates to the specific divine attribute of “God’s Goodness,” then I won’t stop you from thinking that. I would just ask, "Which approach are you using?"

Peace

2PhiloVoid

 

[Percivale]

[I’m sorry if you find the following response kind of long, but it is what it is… ]

Ana, as I said previously, the Christian approach to defining God isn’t going to be (or shouldn’t be) that of the Cartesian Rationalist who, through deductive procedure, dissolves doubts and then builds certain conclusions. Instead, it is one that is more on the side of an Analytical procedure, one that takes the content that is “given” (i.e. via the Semitic writings), and breaks it down into its constituent parts and contexts in an attempt to understand what meaning may be there---or not there. Keep in mind here that our OP topic is “defining God” in relation to the existence of God. But, there is a difference between the indication of meaning about attributes of an entity and indication of its existence; one is not the other, even if there may be some overlap in the overall epistemological and/or metaphysical structures of our thoughts and intentions.

One more thing here, let me try to clarify something about what I mean by my use of the term, “fully rational.” By this, I don’t mean that the Christian project of defining God lacks some psychological dimension of rationality, that it’s all just mindless mantras and mysticism. Obviously, to go the Analytical route as I am suggesting requires the substantive use of one’s noggin and an ability to employ logic and discernment.

What about the actual “method”? We can use whatever cognitive methods are at our disposal, in fact, I’d say, try to use all reasonable human means possible. This would be a more scientific way of “doing it.”

In saying this, I mean to imply that we should glean (or dig up) divine attributes, and sift them from their embedded contexts as we would any other ancient artifacts. [I want to insert here, more specifically, that digging up, identifying, interpreting, and understanding divine attributes will, in a Biblical framework, have more to do with anthropological studies and the field of hermeneutics than it will with applying formal logic to an abstracted set of OMNI-attributes.] In doing so, I’m predicting we won’t arrive at the same conclusions as do the philosophers who rely on a fully rational, or as I would say, “merely” rational, approach.

However, after we have analyzed the Semitic writings from an ‘exterior’ method to identify divine attributes in the texts, and when we begin to analyze this given content for meaning, we may come to realize that the evident meaning given by the ancient writers tells us that our rational capacities alone will not enable us to have a complete understanding of the divine attributes of God; in other words, we won’t necessarily be able to take the Bible and say, “Aha! There He is!!” All we may be able to do on a human level is identify the biblical articulation about divine nature as distinct from other articulations that exist or have existed, whether they be those of ancient Mesopotamia and Egypt, or in this particularly case, one that relies on a modern extension of Grecian praxis (i.e. the philosopher’s god).



It is possible that the analytical gleaning of divine concepts from ancient Semitic sources may give us less meaning that we’d like to have, but we would have to have actually given our best shot(s) in understanding the ancient Jewish mindset before saying so. And even then, it may be objected (by me) that what some people think is meaningless isn’t really devoid of meaning, but rather that the ideas being scrutinized are just not filled with the kind of meaning which they find very relevant today. There is a difference between meaning and relevance …

As for the problem of evil, I think that’s best addressed elsewhere. Let’s focus on defining God first and discerning the difference between the Grecian/Gentile and Jewish approaches to the Divine Attributes. But, if you think that the problem of evil is relevant to this discussion since it relates to the specific divine attribute of “God’s Goodness,” then I won’t stop you from thinking that. I would just ask, "Which approach are you using?"

Peace

2PhiloVoid

What you're saying basically is that you prefer to start with the complete concept of God that the Bible presents, rather than building up your definition one step at a time, right? Would you then go on to look for evidence that the Biblical God exists, or just take it on faith (defined here as a decision to believe something without evidence)?

 

[Percivale]

You mean, get something closer to your personal conception of the Christian God.

Do you see the problem there? By all appearances, you are working backwards to a conclusion that you already hold to be true.

Actually, no I don't mean that; I haven't gotten nearly that specific. Aren't all the qualities I mentioned in either definition pretty universally held by theists, or at least Christians? And does anyone ever, when logically defending any belief, not work from more basic facts to the conclusion that they already hold to be true? If you catch me slipping in qualities without evidence, call me out, but don't assume ahead of time that I am going to do that. This thread is not really an argument for the existence of God anyway, just a clarification of what I think the definitions should always be in such arguments.

 

[com7fy8]

Well, I can't say I can, with words only, "define" God. You need to experience Him in order to know what the words mean, I think.

I understand God is our Heavenly Father and His Son Jesus and the Holy Spirit. And "God is love" (in 1 John 4:8&16). He is the Supreme Being of family caring and sharing love, functioning as the three family Persons of this love.

So, God is personal, not only theoretical. Love is personal . . . sharing, caring, communicating. Our God is so personally interested in us, that He as Jesus came here and went through all the things we go through in this life, except without sinning >

"For we do not have a High Priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but was in all points tempted as we are, yet without sin." (Hebrews 4:15)

To me, it is theo-logical how God is so loving and kind and caring about us, and "therefore" He has even come and joined with us, in the human form of Jesus, so He could be so fully involved in our human lives. And Jesus personally talked with people and shared with people. "And He felt for people."

So, God is personal, like this, and has demonstrated this, through how Jesus came to this earth in the flesh and so personally shared with us.

But in us God is even more personally sharing >

"Now hope does not disappoint, because the love of God has been poured out in our hearts by the Holy Spirit who was given to us." (Romans 5:5)

So, our definition . . . by the Bible . . . could include how God is the Supreme Being who is so personal that He shares His very own love with us "in our hearts"

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Hey Percivale,

What you're saying basically is that you prefer to start with the complete concept of God that the Bible presents, rather than building up your definition one step at a time, right?

That's sort of what I'm saying, so I agree with the first portion of your question, but the whole concept of "building up my own definition one step at a time" seems to me to be conceptually problematic. If not through reference to the Bible, from whence do we obtain substantive ideas about the Abrahamic God? Nowhere else that I know of other than the Bible and its Jewish stewards. So, building up my definition, or even abstracting a bunch of OMNI-attributes for scrutiny, does not seem to me to present viable (or accurate) options.

Would you then go on to look for evidence that the Biblical God exists, or just take it on faith (defined here as a decision to believe something without evidence)?

I wouldn't juxtapose these options as dichotomous in nature; they don't have to be assumed to come at us in an EITHER/OR fashion. However, I think we should keep in mind that there is no preset nature as to the quality or amount of evidence one expects or has to have--much of this will be relative for each individual. So, sure, we can look for evidence, we can search our hearts out for whatever kinds and quantities may be available, but if we are really paying attention to the epistemological indicators in the Bible, we're probably not going to be overwhelmed with an avalanche of incoming data that fills in every nook and cranny of possible inquiry.

2PhiloVoid

 

[Ana the Ist]

[I’m sorry if you find the following response kind of long, but it is what it is… ]

Ana, as I said previously, the Christian approach to defining God isn’t going to be (or shouldn’t be) that of the Cartesian Rationalist who, through deductive procedure, dissolves doubts and then builds certain conclusions. Instead, it is one that is more on the side of an Analytical procedure, one that takes the content that is “given” (i.e. via the Semitic writings), and breaks it down into its constituent parts and contexts in an attempt to understand what meaning may be there---or not there. Keep in mind here that our OP topic is “defining God” in relation to the existence of God. But, there is a difference between the indication of meaning about attributes of an entity and indication of its existence; one is not the other, even if there may be some overlap in the overall epistemological and/or metaphysical structures of our thoughts and intentions.

One more thing here, let me try to clarify something about what I mean by my use of the term, “fully rational.” By this, I don’t mean that the Christian project of defining God lacks some psychological dimension of rationality, that it’s all just mindless mantras and mysticism. Obviously, to go the Analytical route as I am suggesting requires the substantive use of one’s noggin and an ability to employ logic and discernment.

What about the actual “method”? We can use whatever cognitive methods are at our disposal, in fact, I’d say, try to use all reasonable human means possible. This would be a more scientific way of “doing it.”

In saying this, I mean to imply that we should glean (or dig up) divine attributes, and sift them from their embedded contexts as we would any other ancient artifacts. [I want to insert here, more specifically, that digging up, identifying, interpreting, and understanding divine attributes will, in a Biblical framework, have more to do with anthropological studies and the field of hermeneutics than it will with applying formal logic to an abstracted set of OMNI-attributes.] In doing so, I’m predicting we won’t arrive at the same conclusions as do the philosophers who rely on a fully rational, or as I would say, “merely” rational, approach.

However, after we have analyzed the Semitic writings from an ‘exterior’ method to identify divine attributes in the texts, and when we begin to analyze this given content for meaning, we may come to realize that the evident meaning given by the ancient writers tells us that our rational capacities alone will not enable us to have a complete understanding of the divine attributes of God; in other words, we won’t necessarily be able to take the Bible and say, “Aha! There He is!!” All we may be able to do on a human level is identify the biblical articulation about divine nature as distinct from other articulations that exist or have existed, whether they be those of ancient Mesopotamia and Egypt, or in this particularly case, one that relies on a modern extension of Grecian praxis (i.e. the philosopher’s god).



It is possible that the analytical gleaning of divine concepts from ancient Semitic sources may give us less meaning that we’d like to have, but we would have to have actually given our best shot(s) in understanding the ancient Jewish mindset before saying so. And even then, it may be objected (by me) that what some people think is meaningless isn’t really devoid of meaning, but rather that the ideas being scrutinized are just not filled with the kind of meaning which they find very relevant today. There is a difference between meaning and relevance …

As for the problem of evil, I think that’s best addressed elsewhere. Let’s focus on defining God first and discerning the difference between the Grecian/Gentile and Jewish approaches to the Divine Attributes. But, if you think that the problem of evil is relevant to this discussion since it relates to the specific divine attribute of “God’s Goodness,” then I won’t stop you from thinking that. I would just ask, "Which approach are you using?"

Peace

2PhiloVoid

In short, you're more interested in the understanding of what christianity means by "god" than attempting to arrive at a purely rational construction of "god".

Is that about right?