God?

[Dasein]

Who or what is God, and why should we think He exists?

I realise that there are really two questions at play ("Who or what is God?" and "Why should we think God exists?"), so feel free to deal with one part and ignore the other if you think it would be beneficial.

I also realise it's a big question, but I think the other questions I'd like to ask will raise their heads through responses.


I'm open to all types of answers here. Everything from testimony, to Biblical quotations, rational arguments, book recommendations and so on...

If possible, however, I would like some responses which recommend action for myself. In exploring religion, I don't think it's useful to just sit back and hypothesise about it all. As such, I'd like readings from the Bible to contemplate (I love Psalms at the moment!), methods of prayer which people find spiritually beneficial; anything which people feel will help me to understand or just 'get' religion through taking part in some way (though bear it in mind that I'm still not a Christian, so some things might take some effort!).

Thank you in advance for any responses, I realise there are lots of these threads on the forum.

 

[ProScribe]

The easiest answer can be found in the Cathecism of the Catholic Church

"God can be known by the light of natural reason"

 

[visionary]

The best place to start is where God said... seek ye the kingdom of God first. Well, the kingdom of God is described at Mount Sinai. When I was exploring the who, what, and where about God, I decided that I wanted to meet Him. Rev 3:20... I wanted Him to come sup with me. So I studied everything that had to do with meeting Him. What did they experience, what did they see, and what happened, and what did they feel. I wanted to find all things that God said on how to approach Him, what to look for, what to expect, and how to know the difference, so that I would not be deceived by the lying spirits. I was out to meet the real God. The Holy One .. It took me six months of prayer and study with a concordance to have all those questions answered by God and to be prepared to meet Him, but then one day, God said, Repent.. and He started to go through my sins.

When He opened up the Book of my Life, I never knew I was so sinful. Some sins were so little, I didn't think they were a big deal. They were in His eyes, and He showed me how bad they really were. I saw how sins have tentacles that invade everyone around you and have an effect of not only that moment but for years to come and even unto the next generations. I have no idea how long it took for the Lord to go through all my sins and help me understand the reason to repent of them, but He did, and I did. Then it was done, I was clean. I experienced the peace that passes all understanding.

Then the Lord came, in His Holy Presence. I had just been forgiven of all my sins, yet in His Holy Presence, I was like Isaiah, saying "woe is me for I am unclean" I was unworthy to be in His "Holy" Presence. Holy is not just a term that is stamped on books, doors, altars and churches. It is His Pure Almighty Emanating Holy Presence. [extremely hard to describe.. HOLY] If it was not for the robe of His righteousness, that was laid on my shoulders, I could not have stood in His Holy Presence. I would have melted like wax.

We talked for hours. Imagine, being able to ask God all the questions that you ever wanted to and have God answer them. Explain to you how He sees it. He answered everything with scripture and when He could not, He used the yes and no which is scriptural. I saw Him in His clearness. I was taken in vision, or like Paul says.. not sure if it was in the body or out of the body. But one thing I can tell you, I have been studying everything I was told and showed in scripture, history, and looking for it to come to pass here in the near future.

All I can say to you is when the Lord tells you to "come up hither and I will show you " Go.

 

[Dasein]

The easiest answer can be found in the Cathecism of the Catholic Church

"God can be known by the light of natural reason"

I just read the section of the CotCC that you quoted, and it was very useful! Thank you.

One problem that I have with the Catholic Church, however, which shows itself quite clearly in this context, is its reliance on Aristotelian philosophy. All of Scholastic theology (which the Catechism and the modern Catholic Church in general has an extremely intimate relation with) relies on far too much which isn't directly religious or Scriptural. I know many would profess that one of the strengths of the Catholic Church is that it attempts to draw in everything from revelation to Scripture to Tradition and so on, but I think in this case it's not obvious that the initially non-religious influence on the Church is a positive (especially considering how outdated Artistotelian Logic now is).

I think that if you are referring to something along the lines of Aquinas' proofs, or even more broadly just general modes of reasoning which suggest God, then I will need some convincing I'm afraid.

One general problem which shows itself here is how can we reason about God?

If God is that which is ultimate, ineffable, transcendent, completely Other, I don't see how we can capture this with ANY form of literal language.
This would create a drawback because it means that any language is metaphorical or symbolic at best, and that modes of reasoning which treat God as an object would be inappropriate.

To quote Kant (if mere quotations are enough for this discussion): "Reason can never prove the existence of God"

 

[solarwave]

Here are just my thoughts on who God is. He is a non-physical consciousness that is outside space and time and has all the normal attributes given to God. I think the outside time bit is important.

Have you heard the reason to believe in the ressurection of Jesus being historically true?

Otherwise I think praying and being open to God while reading the new testament would be a good idea, and also trying to find a church that suits you.

 

[Criada]

I would suggest C S Lewis if you are looking for reading material.. "Mere Christianity" is a good start.
I would also suggest reading the Bible... the psalms are an excellent starting point, but it would be good to read the gospels as well, and ask God, if He exists, to speak to you through it. I believe that He will

God bless you.

 

[ebia]

Who or what is God, and why should we think He exists?

I realise that there are really two questions at play ("Who or what is God?" and "Why should we think God exists?"), so feel free to deal with one part and ignore the other if you think it would be beneficial.

I also realise it's a big question, but I think the other questions I'd like to ask will raise their heads through responses.


I'm open to all types of answers here. Everything from testimony, to Biblical quotations, rational arguments, book recommendations and so on...

If possible, however, I would like some responses which recommend action for myself. In exploring religion, I don't think it's useful to just sit back and hypothesise about it all. As such, I'd like readings from the Bible to contemplate (I love Psalms at the moment!), methods of prayer which people find spiritually beneficial; anything which people feel will help me to understand or just 'get' religion through taking part in some way (though bear it in mind that I'm still not a Christian, so some things might take some effort!).

Thank you in advance for any responses, I realise there are lots of these threads on the forum.

I think you might appreciate +Tom Wright's: Simply Christian.

 

[Dasein]

I would suggest C S Lewis if you are looking for reading material.. "Mere Christianity" is a good start.
I would also suggest reading the Bible... the psalms are an excellent starting point, but it would be good to read the gospels as well, and ask God, if He exists, to speak to you through it. I believe that He will

God bless you.

Funnily enough I've been doing all of these things!
I've been re-reading the Screwtape Letters for guidance on life (I can't sing enough praise about the book, to be honest!).

Psalms are definitely my favourite part of the Bible at the moment also, I try to read a few new ones before I go to bed each night and I've found some brilliant ones, whatever my mood. Any recommendations would be nice.

I also read through the whole of Matthew and Romans, as well as much of 1 Corinthians and Romans. Once more I've also been praying a fair amount, and went to two services this week (one on Good Friday and one on Easter Sunday).

Here are just my thoughts on who God is. He is a non-physical consciousness that is outside space and time and has all the normal attributes given to God. I think the outside time bit is important.

I think that I'd definitely agree that if there is to be such a thing as God then it has to be non-physical, non-spatial and non-temporal. The problem I then have is how can such a thing be considered a consciousness?

If God is not spatio-temporal I genuinely don't see how it makes sense to attribute 'consciousness' or 'thought' to Him in any literal sense, as consciousness and thought (even insofar as we actually know what we mean by these) are essentially spatio-temporal processes/objects (depending on whether you want to treat them as a noun or a verb).
In general I think there's a big problem with attributing properties or predicating things of God, as they ultimately seem to end up anthropomorphosising him.
For example, even if we accept the consciousness point, what of the traditional properties of God? Benevolence (for example) is an essentially human activity (for want of a better word), one primarily shown through actions. Knowledge is, again, a primarily human attribute, and one tied to consciousness. This, and other things, create problems when any close-to-literal meaning is attached to terms like 'omnipotent' and 'omnibenevolent' and so on.

I'm not expecting all the answers here, but I think that these create problems when trying to discuss God. This is essentially where my question arose from.

Otherwise I think praying and being open to God while reading the new testament would be a good idea, and also trying to find a church that suits you

See above.

Have you heard the reason to believe in the ressurection of Jesus being historically true?

I've never heard any reason in detail, but something like this would be extremely helpful if you could enlighten me somewhat. One of the biggest problems I have is that I can't reconcile this partial theism that I'm coming to grips with, with 'facts' like the ressurection, the virgin birth and so on. I find the latter so much harder to stomach than the former.

 

[Dasein]

...The Holy One .. It took me six months of prayer and study with a concordance to have all those questions answered by God and to be prepared to meet Him, but then one day, God said, Repent.. and He started to go through my sins.

When He opened up the Book of my Life, I never knew I was so sinful. Some sins were so little, I didn't think they were a big deal. They were in His eyes, and He showed me how bad they really were. I saw how sins have tentacles that invade everyone around you and have an effect of not only that moment but for years to come and even unto the next generations. I have no idea how long it took for the Lord to go through all my sins and help me understand the reason to repent of them, but He did, and I did. Then it was done, I was clean. I experienced the peace that passes all understanding.

Then the Lord came, in His Holy Presence. I had just been forgiven of all my sins, yet in His Holy Presence, I was like Isaiah, saying "woe is me for I am unclean" I was unworthy to be in His "Holy" Presence. Holy is not just a term that is stamped on books, doors, altars and churches. It is His Pure Almighty Emanating Holy Presence. [extremely hard to describe.. HOLY] If it was not for the robe of His righteousness, that was laid on my shoulders, I could not have stood in His Holy Presence. I would have melted like wax.

We talked for hours. Imagine, being able to ask God all the questions that you ever wanted to and have God answer them. Explain to you how He sees it. He answered everything with scripture and when He could not, He used the yes and no which is scriptural. I saw Him in His clearness. I was taken in vision, or like Paul says.. not sure if it was in the body or out of the body. But one thing I can tell you, I have been studying everything I was told and showed in scripture, history, and looking for it to come to pass here in the near future.

All I can say to you is when the Lord tells you to "come up hither and I will show you " Go.

Safe to say that if I had an experience like this then I probably wouldn't have much of a problem left!
This raises another issue though: with regards to reasons that focus on religious experiences or phenomena, how do we know that any given experience is from God? How can experience be the foundation of something that goes far beyond that experience, into action, beliefs, outlook and so on?

Personally I'm probably of the opinion that if God exists He's the kind of being which is a foundation for all experience, and that instances like this are more recognition of this fact more than any kind of divine intervention. But that's just a hunch, a mere opinion.

 

[visionary]

Safe to say that if I had an experience like this then I probably wouldn't have much of a problem left!
This raises another issue though: with regards to reasons that focus on religious experiences or phenomena, how do we know that any given experience is from God? How can experience be the foundation of something that goes far beyond that experience, into action, beliefs, outlook and so on?

Personally I'm probably of the opinion that if God exists He's the kind of being which is a foundation for all experience, and that instances like this are more recognition of this fact more than any kind of divine intervention. But that's just a hunch, a mere opinion.

There is no other who is Holy. True it is a much over used word to stamp on all kinds of objects here on earth, which waters down the significance of it the One true HOLY Being. Even the devil can not be holy, he can come with brightness and imitate. But true "Holy" is something only the ONE TRUE GOD is. Everyone should make every effort to be in the presence of the One True Holy God, to really understand what all the prophets of the Bible are saying and trying to describe.

 

[Dasein]

There is no other who is Holy. True it is a much over used word to stamp on all kinds of objects here on earth, which waters down the significance of it the One true HOLY Being. Even the devil can not be holy, he can come with brightness and imitate. But true "Holy" is something only the ONE TRUE GOD is. Everyone should make every effort to be in the presence of the One True Holy God, to really understand what all the prophets of the Bible are saying and trying to describe.

I still think this needs further elaboration. Perhaps you mean the kind of numinous experience as described by Rudolf Otto? Or something closer to Schleiermacher's feeling of absolute dependence?
Please presume that I have no knowledge of what this predicate 'Holy' refers to, in the sense you are trying to convey, and work from there:
In and of itself you can surely see how without elaboration this can be of little use to anyone without experience themselves (and, in fact, even those seeking the truth of a possible religious experience they have had)?

 

[ebia]

I think that I'd definitely agree that if there is to be such a thing as God then it has to be non-physical, non-spatial and non-temporal. The problem I then have is how can such a thing be considered a consciousness?

If God is not spatio-temporal I genuinely don't see how it makes sense to attribute 'consciousness' or 'thought' to Him in any literal sense, as consciousness and thought (even insofar as we actually know what we mean by these) are essentially spatio-temporal processes/objects (depending on whether you want to treat them as a noun or a verb).
In general I think there's a big problem with attributing properties or predicating things of God, as they ultimately seem to end up anthropomorphosising him.

Of course they do, because that's the only language we have.
But, if Genesis is correct in its most important assertion - that we are created in the image of God, then we should expect that our (best) attributes are dim reflections of God's. That's what it means to be an image. The only language we have is for the image, and it won't do justice to the original, but its the best we have and we shouldn't be afraid of using it for that reason.

When that image becomes perfected in the person of Jesus of Nazareth then we get the closest glimpse of God that we can get our heads and language around.

For example, even if we accept the consciousness point, what of the traditional properties of God? Benevolence (for example) is an essentially human activity (for want of a better word), one primarily shown through actions. Knowledge is, again, a primarily human attribute, and one tied to consciousness. This, and other things, create problems when any close-to-literal meaning is attached to terms like 'omnipotent' and 'omnibenevolent' and so on.

My problem with those words is the "omni" bit, but that's another story.

I've never heard any reason in detail, but something like this would be extremely helpful if you could enlighten me somewhat. One of the biggest problems I have is that I can't reconcile this partial theism that I'm coming to grips with, with 'facts' like the ressurection, the virgin birth and so on. I find the latter so much harder to stomach than the former.

At this point I would strongly recommend reading N.T. Wright's Surprised by Hope. The resurrection makes a lot more sense if you understand what it is, and +Tom Wright does an excellent job of explaining that.

 

[Dasein]

Of course they do, because that's the only language we have.
But, if Genesis is correct in its most important assertion - that we are created in the image of God, then we should expect that our (best) attributes are dim reflections of God's. That's what it means to be an image. The only language we have is for the image, and it won't do justice to the original, but its the best we have and we shouldn't be afraid of using it for that reason.

When that image becomes perfected in the person of Jesus of Nazareth then we get the closest glimpse of God that we can get our heads and language around.

I hadn't thought of the point about Genesis before, that's definitely given me something to think about.
I think, however, that it's one thing to accept that any language we have will fall short of God, but it's another thing to do so and continue using language in a literal manner.
I guess that my implication was that it would be good to have some way of understanding the terms in an analogous or symbolic manner. I think that if you get stuck on the meaning of words such as 'consciousness' and 'goodness' as they are in human, spatio-temporal existence, you'll have an overly anthropomorphic view of God, one which probably does more harm than good in my opinion.
I'm not suggesting that we don't use language or these terms at all (although I do have something of a soft-spot for the Via Negativa!), but rather that any use should be de-literalised (for want of a real word to describe the process!).

My problem with those words is the "omni" bit, but that's another story.

That is, actually, where my problem lies also (though I have a feeling perhaps not for the same reasons). I wasn't saying that I have a problem with benevolence or knowledge because they are human faculties and terms, but rather that I don't know what to make of the literal meaning of adding the property of 'infinity' to them through the prefix 'omni'.
If these are, in fact, human things to do, human ways of looking at the world, human predicates, then I find it hard to know what to make of this 'omni' when tacked on to the front. To the average lay-man it's supposed to be relatively obvious, but I'm afraid that it's less than obvious to me, unless -once again- taken in some way analogously.

At this point I would strongly recommend reading N.T. Wright's Surprised by Hope. The resurrection makes a lot more sense if you understand what it is, and +Tom Wright does an excellent job of explaining that.

I'm afraid that with my 2nd year university examinations looming ever closer I'll have a hard time reading anything other than philosophy books and the Bible at the moment, but I'll be sure to make a note of it and when, inevitably, I have a lull in my revision, I'll try to pick it up and have a read; thank you.


With regards to this whole business of talking about God, and attributes of God, perhaps a couple of my favourite quotations are in order!

"Now pay attention: God is nameless, because no one can say anything or understand anything about Him... So if I say "God is good" that is not true. I am good, but God is not good. I can even say "I am better than God", for whatever is good can become better, and what can become better can become best of all... For these three degrees are alien to God: "good," "better," "best," for he is superior to them all.
And If I say "God is wise" that is not true. I am wiser than he. If I say: "God is a being" it is not true; he is a being transcending being and a transcending nothingness. About this, Saint Augustine says: "The best one can say about God is for one to keep silent out of the wisdom of one's inward riches". So be silent, and do not chatter about God; for when you do chatter about him, you are telling lies and sinning."
-Meister Eckhart

"Again, as we climb higher we say this. It is not soul or mind, nor does it possess imagination, conviction, speech, or understanding. Nor is it speech per se, understanding per se. it cannot be spoken of and it cannot be grasped by understanding. It is not number or order, greatness or smallness, equality or inequality, similarity or dissimilarity. It is not immovable, moving or at rest. It has no power, it is not power, nor is it light. It does not live nor is it life. It is not a substance, nor is it eternity or time. It cannot be grasped by the understanding since it is neither one nor oneness, divinity nor goodness. Nor is it a spirit, in the sense in which we understand that term. It is not sonship or fatherhood and it is nothing known to us or to any other being. It falls neither within the predicate of nonbeing nor of being. Existing beings do not know it as it actually is and it does not know them as they are. There is no speaking of it, nor name nor knowledge of it. Darkness and light, error and truth—it is none of these. It is beyond assertion and denial. We make assertions and denials of what is next to it, but never of it, for it is both beyond every assertion, being the perfect and unique cause of all things, and, by virtue its preeminently simple and absolute nature, free of every limitation, beyond every limitation; it is also beyond every denial."
- Dionysius the Areopagite: "The Mystical Theology"

 

[salida]

How can we have creation without a Creator? How can your car be built without an intelligent designer? Or a wrist watch? How can they appear in thin air? Sometime caused the stars to appear in space as you see the effect. There is a cause and effect issue. The human body cell is about at least a thousand times more complicated than an automobile. Thus, for the human body to just appear from nothing is absurd. The chance of this is one in a billion.

Who is God? The one who created all things and who has a specific purpose for every human being in this world. Its to worship Him in spirit and in truth. Why is this the christian God? Lets look at the credibility of the Bible. I'm a christian spiritually first and intellectually second. Read the Evidence That Demands A Verdict by Josh McDowell(it would stand up in a court of law without a shadow of a doubt concerning biblical evidence). No other religious or nonreligious book comes close to these attributes.

Biblical Evidence (Scratching the Surface Only)

Internal Evidences
Prophesies that are confirmed within Bible

- Life of Christ
The Tribe of Judah, Gen 49:10 - Luke 3:23-28
(Genesis was written 4004 BC to 1689 BC)
(Luke's time period is 60-70 AD)

Royal Line of David, Jer 23:5 -Matt 1:1
(Jeremiah 760 to 698 BC)/(Matthew 60-70 AD)

Born of a Virgin, Isaiah 7:14/Matt 1:18-23
(Isaiah 760 to 698 BC)/(60-70 AD)

**I can list at least 20 more of these.
-Rise of Empires
In the book of Daniel, Chapter 2 - four kingdoms are described in the interpretation of the dream of Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon: Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greek - Daniel 8:21, 10:20) and a fourth great kingdom to follow - part iron and clay - which is the Roman Empire - during this empire Christ came and the church was established - Daniel 2:44.

-Historical Accuracy
The Bible is loaded with historical statements concerning events hundreds of years ago, yet has not been proven incorrect on any.
(Bible compared to other ancient documents):
New Testament - starts at 25 years - between original and first surviving copies
Homer - starts at 500 years
Demosthenes - at 1400 years
Plato - at 1200 years
Caesar - at 1000 years

Number of Manuscript Copies
New Testament - 5,686
Homer - 643
Demosthenes - 200
Plato - 7
Caesar - 10

Consistency
Written by at least 40 men over a period of time exceeding 1400 years, and has no internal inconsistencies.

Claim of Inspiration
It claims to be spoken by God, 2 Tim 3:16-17). No other religious book makes such claims.

External Evidences
(Prophesies Outside the Bible)
These cities were prophesied to be destroyed and never be built again.
Nineveh - Nahum 1:10, 3:7,15, Zephaniah 2:13-14
Babylon - Isaiah 13:1-22)
Tyre (Ezekiel 26:1-28)

Bible before Science
He hangs the earth on nothing - Job 26:7
(Job was written at least 1000 years ago - some scholars think it could be even 3000 years ago)
Note: Man only knew this for 350 years
Earth is a sphere, Isaiah 40:22
Air has weight, Job 28:25
Gravity - Job 26:7, Job 38:31-33
Winds blow in cyclones, Eccl 1:6

Documents that Prove Bible is True
Gilgamesh Epic, The Sumerian King List, Mari Tablets, Babylonian Chronicles

Archealogoical Finds
Excavations of Ur, Location of Zoar, Ziggurats and the foundation of Tower of Babel

 

[salida]

The athiest plays russian roulette with all barrels loaded. He can't win. If the athiest is wrong and I'm right - the athiest has everything to lose. If I'm wrong and he is right I have nothing to lose. Using plain logic here. Another book is, You Can Lead an Athiest to Evidence but You Can't Make Him Think, by Ray Comfort/I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Athiest by Norman L. Geisler and Frank Turek.

 

[visionary]

I still think this needs further elaboration. Perhaps you mean the kind of numinous experience as described by Rudolf Otto? Or something closer to Schleiermacher's feeling of absolute dependence?
Please presume that I have no knowledge of what this predicate 'Holy' refers to, in the sense you are trying to convey, and work from there:
In and of itself you can surely see how without elaboration this can be of little use to anyone without experience themselves (and, in fact, even those seeking the truth of a possible religious experience they have had)?

Isaiah in the presence of Holy said..

Isaiah 6:5
Then said I, Woe is me! for I am undone; because I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips: for mine eyes have seen the King, the LORD of hosts.

There is no unclean, evil, or sin found in Holy. It is so pure, it is powerful. Sin in the presence of Holy.. by contrast in the Presence of Holy.. sinful man feels...

Psalm 22:14
I am poured out like water, and all my bones are out of joint: my heart is like wax; it is melted in the midst of my bowels.

Psalm 68:2
As smoke is driven away, so drive them away: as wax melteth before the fire, so let the wicked perish at the presence of God.

Thus God has a dilemma of how to approach man without destroying him with His Holy Presence. .. So He has ..

Ex 19:21And the LORD said unto Moses, Go down, charge the people, lest they break through unto the LORD to gaze, and many of them perish. 22And let the priests also, which come near to the LORD, sanctify themselves, lest the LORD break forth upon them.

Even if the Lord cloaks Himself, it is extremely difficult to be confronted with His Holy PResence.... Acts9:3And as he journeyed, he came near Damascus: and suddenly there shined round about him a light from heaven: 4And he fell to the earth, and heard a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? 5And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks. 6And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do. 7And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man. 8And Saul arose from the earth; and when his eyes were opened, he saw no man: but they led him by the hand, and brought him into Damascus. 9And he was three days without sight, and neither did eat nor drink.

I believe it is imparitive that all believers seek His Presence while He may be found.

Isaiah 5:19
That say, Let him make speed, and hasten his work, that we may see it: and let the counsel of the Holy One of Israel draw nigh and come, that we may know it!

It is better to receive Him in small measures and adjust to HOLINESS, than to be taken by surprise at what and the full impact of HOLY. But the day is coming when He will come in the Clouds of Glory...

Isaiah 5:24
Therefore as the fire devoureth the stubble, and the flame consumeth the chaff, so their root shall be as rottenness, and their blossom shall go up as dust: because they have cast away the law of the LORD of hosts, and despised the word of the Holy One of Israel.

Isaiah 6:3
And one cried unto another, and said, Holy, holy, holy, is the LORD of hosts: the whole earth is full of his glory.

Isaiah 17:7
At that day shall a man look to his Maker, and his eyes shall have respect to the Holy One of Israel.

 

[solarwave]

I think that I'd definitely agree that if there is to be such a thing as God then it has to be non-physical, non-spatial and non-temporal. The problem I then have is how can such a thing be considered a consciousness?

If God is not spatio-temporal I genuinely don't see how it makes sense to attribute 'consciousness' or 'thought' to Him in any literal sense, as consciousness and thought (even insofar as we actually know what we mean by these) are essentially spatio-temporal processes/objects (depending on whether you want to treat them as a noun or a verb).
In general I think there's a big problem with attributing properties or predicating things of God, as they ultimately seem to end up anthropomorphosising him.
For example, even if we accept the consciousness point, what of the traditional properties of God? Benevolence (for example) is an essentially human activity (for want of a better word), one primarily shown through actions. Knowledge is, again, a primarily human attribute, and one tied to consciousness. This, and other things, create problems when any close-to-literal meaning is attached to terms like 'omnipotent' and 'omnibenevolent' and so on.

I'm not expecting all the answers here, but I think that these create problems when trying to discuss God. This is essentially where my question arose from.

I've never heard any reason in detail, but something like this would be extremely helpful if you could enlighten me somewhat. One of the biggest problems I have is that I can't reconcile this partial theism that I'm coming to grips with, with 'facts' like the ressurection, the virgin birth and so on. I find the latter so much harder to stomach than the former.

I agree that there are problems with our normal words when applying them to God. The words we tend to use are just used because they are the easiest way to explain it to the average person who doesn't spend time thinking about these contradictions. I think is partly because we havn't the words or understanding to talk about these things which are outside our experence, but also because I worded it badly.

I would say then that God is a being which instantly acts according to His nature which would seem to us like consciousness. I think Benevolence could be said to be the human attribute of God, meaning that if God was human this is what He would be, as seen in Jesus. I suppose for God the Father it would mean in the instant eternity that He sees us it is His instant reaction of 'love' towards us. This is how best my limited understanding understands it at least.

I agree that these word do 'anthropomorphosise' God but they are the best words to practically understand Him. Philosophy/Theology may give better literal explanations, but are not so practically helpful.

The book I read which was all about the reasons to believe in the ressurection was called 'More than a Carpenter' by Josh McDowell. I may be able to give an overview of the reasons here if you want, though I could not do it anywhere near as well as the book.

What is it you find hard to 'come to grips with' with events such as the ressurection and virgin birth?

 

[ebia]

I hadn't thought of the point about Genesis before, that's definitely given me something to think about.
I think, however, that it's one thing to accept that any language we have will fall short of God, but it's another thing to do so and continue using language in a literal manner.
I guess that my implication was that it would be good to have some way of understanding the terms in an analogous or symbolic manner.

I'm not sure literal vs analogous or symbolic is the right language. Rather we should be look for the full reality of which our best is an image and to which it points. The love-of-God is the reality to which the best of human love points, the mercy-of-God is the reality to which the best of human mercy points. We are trying to understand something of the real person by looking at his image, his statue.

That is, actually, where my problem lies also (though I have a feeling perhaps not for the same reasons). I wasn't saying that I have a problem with benevolence or knowledge because they are human faculties and terms, but rather that I don't know what to make of the literal meaning of adding the property of 'infinity' to them through the prefix 'omni'.
If these are, in fact, human things to do, human ways of looking at the world, human predicates, then I find it hard to know what to make of this 'omni' when tacked on to the front. To the average lay-man it's supposed to be relatively obvious, but I'm afraid that it's less than obvious to me, unless -once again- taken in some way analogously.

Maybe meta- would be a better prefix. I don't think there is a prefix to say the thing to which x points, or the reality of which x is the image.

I'm afraid that with my 2nd year university examinations looming ever closer I'll have a hard time reading anything other than philosophy books and the Bible at the moment, but I'll be sure to make a note of it and when, inevitably, I have a lull in my revision, I'll try to pick it up and have a read; thank you.

Fair enough. Anything by Tom Wright/N.T. Wright is worth a read (he uses both names on different books).

With regards to this whole business of talking about God, and attributes of God, perhaps a couple of my favourite quotations are in order!

"Now pay attention: God is nameless, because no one can say anything or understand anything about Him...

A self-contradicting statement if taken to it's logical conclusion.

 

[ProScribe]

To quote Kant (if mere quotations are enough for this discussion): "Reason can never prove the existence of God"

Hmm, if someone could prove the existence of God, God wouldn't be God.

. . .

 

[Dasein]

Thank you for your reply, Salida, I'll have to deal with it bit-by-bit, however, as there's a lot to take in! If you have the time and patience to reply again, I would love to hear your response to some of my thoughts

How can we have creation without a Creator? How can your car be built without an intelligent designer? Or a wrist watch? How can they appear in thin air? Sometime caused the stars to appear in space as you see the effect. There is a cause and effect issue. The human body cell is about at least a thousand times more complicated than an automobile. Thus, for the human body to just appear from nothing is absurd. The chance of this is one in a billion.

Who is God? The one who created all things and who has a specific purpose for every human being in this world. Its to worship Him in spirit and in truth. Why is this the christian God? Lets look at the credibility of the Bible. I'm a christian spiritually first and intellectually second. Read the Evidence That Demands A Verdict by Josh McDowell(it would stand up in a court of law without a shadow of a doubt concerning biblical evidence). No other religious or nonreligious book comes close to these attributes.

Though I think there is a lot to be said on this particular issue (Design arguments/considerations of some form) I'm not sure if this quite deals with the issue correctly.
I think that even if the design and cosmological arguments point to some kind of creating or sustaining being, it need not be the God of the Bible, or even any Theistic conception of God.
Also I think that there is very little proved by these kinds of intellectual arguments on their own (I do not mean to give off the impression that coupled with other arguments, experience, and information, it still could not provide compelling evidence), especially to do with what kind of relationship this proved being has with us and our existence. For example, I don't think it follows at all that we should "worship Him in spirit and truth" in light of the fact that it appears we may have been created by something.
However, this does need to be considered in light of what follows.

Biblical Evidence (Scratching the Surface Only)

Internal Evidences
Prophesies that are confirmed within Bible

- Life of Christ
The Tribe of Judah, Gen 49:10 - Luke 3:23-28
(Genesis was written 4004 BC to 1689 BC)
(Luke's time period is 60-70 AD)

Royal Line of David, Jer 23:5 -Matt 1:1
(Jeremiah 760 to 698 BC)/(Matthew 60-70 AD)

Born of a Virgin, Isaiah 7:14/Matt 1:18-23
(Isaiah 760 to 698 BC)/(60-70 AD)

**I can list at least 20 more of these.
-Rise of Empires
In the book of Daniel, Chapter 2 - four kingdoms are described in the interpretation of the dream of Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon: Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greek - Daniel 8:21, 10:20) and a fourth great kingdom to follow - part iron and clay - which is the Roman Empire - during this empire Christ came and the church was established - Daniel 2:44.

There is a lot of trouble with prophesies, and though there is some compelling evidence for accepting some, there is also a lot to refuse their validity.
Firstly, many prophesies use indirect and vague language which could be fitted to many different situations, and thus there are many ways one could see a prophesy 'fulfilled'.
Secondly, many in the Bible are not fulfilled, especially more specific ones. How to account for this?
Thirdly, many of the NT writers would have had information which had been circulating via word-of-mouth through Jewish circles for many years before it was written, and thus many of the stories could have been tailored to fit certain prophesies, not maliciously or with intent to trick, but merely because of the nature of chinese whispers of this kind.
Fourthly, in a similar manner, the NT writers were writing for a Jewish audience first and foremost, and thus the manner in which the stories are recorded would be tailored to fulfil certain prophesies and make links back to OT stories, in order to create a continuity and familiarity.

I'm unsure as to the extent and relevance of those four criticisms myself. I think that prophesies are one way in which religious life shows how God and the Bible are seen in all aspects of life, but that to take them too literally is perhaps a mistake.

-Historical Accuracy
The Bible is loaded with historical statements concerning events hundreds of years ago, yet has not been proven incorrect on any.

(Bible compared to other ancient documents):
New Testament - starts at 25 years - between original and first surviving copies
Homer - starts at 500 years
Demosthenes - at 1400 years
Plato - at 1200 years
Caesar - at 1000 years

Number of Manuscript Copies
New Testament - 5,686
Homer - 643
Demosthenes - 200
Plato - 7
Caesar - 10

I'm afraid that I can't say a great deal about these statistics as, although I found these precise figures in an article on Biblical reliability (possibly the same one which you may have got the from!), I have not managed to find any other articles which bring the information together in such a way.
I will say that for the moment, the reliability of the accuracy of the Bible in comparison to the events and original texts seems to be fairly sound.
I can see the use of such statistics for aiding the battle for the reliability of the Bible as a historical text, but also I can see how this still does not secure its place as an infallible document.

With regards to not being proven incorrect, see my point below about inconsistencies in the Bible. If there are contradictory statements, they cannot both be true, and so in this respect, part of the Bible has to be incorrect if taken literally.
Also, if parts of the OT are taken literally then, depending on how strict your criterion of proof is, some have been proven to be incorrect. (6-day creation, the Flood)

Consistency
Written by at least 40 men over a period of time exceeding 1400 years, and has no internal inconsistencies.

Off of the top of my head, I recently read through the gospels and in one gospel it says that Judas hanged himself, and gave the money back to the Jewish rabbis, and they invested the blood-money into buying a field (Akeldama; the field of blood) to bury the homeless (if I remember correctly), which gave the field its name.
In another gospel it says that Judas fell and spilt his intestines over the field, which gave the field its name.
An outright contradiction.

I'm not trying to be picky here, because I don't see contradictions such as these as a problem, myself. However if you're going to claim that there are no internal inconsistencies then that's just incorrect.

Claim of Inspiration
It claims to be spoken by God, 2 Tim 3:16-17). No other religious book makes such claims.

My British NIV translation brings "All Scripture is God-breathed" as the translation of the relevant line here. I'd have to see how this is to be taken (whether the original text means something like 'all scripture is God's word' or whether it means 'all scripture is inspired by God in its writing') before I could pass judgement.
However, it seems irrelevant.
What is it to us if someone in a book claims that it is written by God? This statement only has worth if there is already reason to believe that the statement is true (think of the similar contradiction of the first statement of Papal infallibility, which was the statement claiming that the Pope can make infallible statements).
In conjunction with other evidence and an already partially-substantiated belief in the Bible I can, however, see why this is important.
Hopefully you can also see why someone who doesn't share your opinion would find this less-than-compelling, however.

Bible before Science
He hangs the earth on nothing - Job 26:7
(Job was written at least 1000 years ago - some scholars think it could be even 3000 years ago)
Note: Man only knew this for 350 years
Earth is a sphere, Isaiah 40:22
Air has weight, Job 28:25
Gravity - Job 26:7, Job 38:31-33
Winds blow in cyclones, Eccl 1:6

To deal with these individually:
Earth is a sphere: "He sits enthroned above the circle of the Earth". Interesting line, and good evidence for the already-convinced, I admit. However, I think that it's more of an anomaly in terms of the language of the Bible more than anything substantial. Though this is my skepticism coming through! Probably the most convincing and very interesting of the passages!
Air has weight: "When he established the force of the wind". Perhaps it's just my particular translation, but that doesn't seem to be saying that the air has weight. It doesn't surprise me that even at that time they thought the wind had force, that is how we know it. Sketchy.
Gravity: without quoting them directly, I don't see how either of these passages make any claims that specifically refer to gravity. At best they can be considered allusions to gravity, and only in retrospect.
Wind blows in cyclones: In context of the purpose of Ecclesiastes, this does not have the meaning you are trying to ascribe to it whatsoever. There is reference to the wind turning around itself, but this is in context of a passage concerning change and recurrence in the world. Misused scripture.




Overall, despite some of my criticisms, I found this very interesting to delve in to. I think that the great value of these observations lie in being part of an intertwined set of reasons and supports for belief. For those looking for another thread to strengthen the pattern of their faith, these make incredibly good observations. Some of their credibility is doubtful (c.f. the scientific examples!) however.
I think, though, that for the outsider they are unfortunately not sufficient reasons for believing the very grand claims made by the text. Your evidence is provided upon a backdrop of some extremely incredible claims in the text itself, and this needs to be weighed up.
I hope that I haven't been too pedantic in picking apart some of your ideas, I do not wish to be like those Militant Atheists who niggle at every piece of Biblical support as if each technicality was another hammer blow to the last nail in God's coffin. Rather I appreciate the nature of religion as a belief system, not just one belief, and I hope that I appreciate that the nature of any 'proof' or evidence given for this system of belief will always be, in and of itself, insufficient when devoid of the wider context of religious belief. For me this has proved useful if only for the fact that it is forming part of a wider tapestry of reasons for belief in Christianity, and more wide-reaching information like this is incredibly welcome. I cannot, however (and I hope you agree that I should not!), approach this tapestry with a blind-eye for some of its out-of-place stitches (completely laboured this metaphor now!!! )

Thank you.