What is God?

[DogmaHunter]

Should I take the air quotes (and the subsequent FSM references) to mean you think what I experience is an illusion?

I have no reason to doubt that you are sincere.
I have no reason to doubt that you have certain experiences.

I have much reason to doubt how you classify and explain your experiences.

If so, the situation as it appears to me is that I was asked how I recognize God, and you are now telling me that what I experience is not God. Therefore, it is no different than me telling you that your list of Internet "facts" about Obama is not Obama.

No. My list of facts is verifiable. Nore is "faith" required to accept them.
Your interpretation of your experiences is something that must be "just believed". They are not verifiable. They are not falsifiable.

They are merely your interpretation of certain things. Things you can be wrong about. And nobody can ever know, because your claims are not verifiable.

I wonder why you object to this. Such "faith" is the foundation of religion.

 

[quatona]

So if I gave you a link to a picture of God on the Internet, you would suddenly believe?

I don´t recall that you have defined "God" as referring to a physical, visible entity. Typically, the definition of the term includes claims to the opposite.

 

[Resha Caner]

No. My list of facts is verifiable. Nore is "faith" required to accept them.
Your interpretation of your experiences is something that must be "just believed". They are not verifiable. They are not falsifiable.

How did you verify these facts? For example, you mentioned height and weight. Did you personally measure the President? If not, then you are trusting a secondary source - something synonomous with faith. Unless you can give me a method by which you or I can personally make these measurements, you are always trusting a secondary source.

And this is interesting ... According to this Obama is 6'2" and 165 lbs:
How Much does Barack Obama Weigh? - Ask.com Answers

Yet, according to these, Obama is 6'1" and 180 lbs
Barack Obama Net Worth - TheRichest
How much does the celebrity Barack Obama weigh?

I have much reason to doubt how you classify and explain your experiences.

They are merely your interpretation of certain things. Things you can be wrong about. And nobody can ever know, because your claims are not verifiable.

Your doubts don't change my experiences. They are still my experiences, and see no reason why someone else should be interpreting them for me ... unless you're open to me interpreting your experiences for you.

Further, let us be clear I don't adhere to the blind faith / leap of faith type of thing where God is supposedly based on nothing. My experiences are very real.

In the end, it comes down to trust for both my faith and your facts. And it appears people can be wrong about the facts of this supposed President Barack Obama.

 

[Resha Caner]

I don´t recall that you have defined "God" as referring to a physical ...

Post #50

... visible entity.[/quote]

There are visible manifestations mentioned in the Bible, but my questions regarding whether visible evidence is somehow superior to other evidence (again, post #50) were never answered.

 

[quatona]

So there are no significant differences between Obama and God? Ok, then.
Come to think of it: With this common trait of unverifiability of their existence, Obama might be God.

 

[Resha Caner]

So there are no significant differences between Obama and God? Ok, then.
Come to think of it: With this common trait of unverifiability of their existence, Obama might be God.

In my social circle Obama is usally compared to the other end of the spectrum.

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

Does that mean you see how absurd these kinds of questions are? That was exactly my intent. For example ...

They are absurd...when discussing a physical human being made of atoms and molecules who occupies a discrete space and time.

The questions I have posed to you thus far are not absurd when it comes to a non-physical, ill-defined, immaterial being who occupies some non-discrete space and non-discrete time.

Haven't you seen people do this type of thing?

No, I haven't. I'm not sure what you're referring to.

You asked me for a list. Did any of these "traits" appear in the list I gave you? This always seems to be an issue I encounter. People ask me to define God, and then introduce all kinds of things I never mentioned.

So first of all, I'm not responding to that list. I'm responding to your ridiculous argument that describing Obama's existence is equivalent to describing God's existence.

Also, just because you can label something with traits, doesn't mean you have shown that the thing exists. Although I recognize that God's existence was not the main point of this thread; however, you were the one to bring up existence when you attempted to compare Obama's existence to God's.

Yeah, but they all present Obama differently. So which one is the real Obama? Is he a good president or a bad one? Is he an American citizen or isn't he? Is he a Christian or a Muslim? There are just so many different ideas of Obama out there that it's confusing for me. Why should I accept your version of Obama as the real Obama?

We are talking about photographs. The photographs do not present Obama as looking different. He looks the same in all the photos. A photo does not convey anything about him being a good or bad president or whether he is an American citizen.

The photos all look (roughly) the same.

And, are videos a superior form of evidence? Is that because they can't be faked? So, Obama is better established than Lincoln as a real President because we have video?

Yes, videos are a far superior form of evidence. There is more evidence that Obama is real than there is that Lincoln was real. (Of course, this does not diminish the fact that there is a high degree of certainty that Lincoln was real, but for Obama it is even higher).

Maybe you should read Isaiah sometime.

I was referring to videos of Obama giving a speech. Comparing a live video of Obama speaking does not compare to a thousand year old written text.

Furthermore, God is not only posited to exist thousands of years ago; God is posited to exist now.

All your comparisons are utterly ridiculous.

Again, your definition of a god, not mine.

What is your definition then? That is the point of this thread after all and you have yet to give me a definition.

Are you saying that you define God as something composed of atoms and molecules?

But are you saying all I have to do is posit something as material and that justifies it? I think unicorns could be posited as material.

Positing something as material is not the same as showing something exists. If you posited that unicorns were real I would again ask for photos, videos, skeletons, fossils, hair samples, personal testimonies, etc. But one type of evidence would likely not be enough. I would need a few types of evidence.

Furthermore, it is very easy to describe what types of evidence would be necessary and it is easy to imagine that such evidence could exist.

The same cannot be said of God. Can you get photos, videos, skeletons, fossils, hair samples, etc from God? No. The only thing it seems you can get are personal testimonies. Is that enough to establish something's existence?

Or later you say it must be posited as real. So, what exactly is your criteria here? Must it be material? If not, what is the difference between positing something as material and positing it as real?

Not sure where I mixed up 'real' and 'material'. I can't find it in my post.

Exactly. You can't show me the "real" Obama on the Internet. I can't show you God on the Internet. My point is that many of the arguments used against God's existence can be used against the existence of anything if someone is determined to be difficult about it.

Yes, you can't prove anything if you are difficult to the point of absurdity. Even if you and Obama were in the same room, you could still "be difficult about it" and claim that he not real.

Where does this get you? Some ridiculously misguided form of agnosticism? Solipsism?

It gets you nowhere. Which is why rational human beings accept things like videos and photographs to confirm someone's existence.

If you could kindly give me a video or photograph of God, then I, as a rational human, would accept it to confirm God's existence.

But that's the crux: God is not the same kind of thing as Obama. And that's why your analogy is ridiculous.

Right. And further, some of those people you don't know have probably done spectacular things.

So?

I'll bet you there are more people who would testify to knowing God personally than to knowing Obama personally. So you're willing to accept that?

You're still trying to compare Obama to God. It doesn't work.

Why? Because Obama isn't posited to be everywhere all the time.

I accept personal testimony all the time as evidence for humans. Different evidence is required for different things. I would require more than just personal testimony for existence of unicorns because unicorns are commonly held to be a mythical creature. Furthermore, unicorns would be a whole group of creatures whereas saying one person (Obama) exists is not the same as proving all humans exist. Humans obviously exist, and positing that Obama exists as one human being requires far less evidence than saying a whole class of beings (unicorns) exist.

Furthermore, because God is posited to be everywhere all the time (omnipresent), it stands that there should be some effect felt at all times by him that is uniquely attributable to him and not mere word games.

See, now we're getting to it. There is something you want to know. As I interpret your question, the answer would be yes, the incarnation of Christ as Jesus was a material event. That doesn't mean God is only material, but it does mean He can interact with us, which is probably what you're really after.

No, all this means is that Jesus was a human being who existed 2000 years ago.

Does God exist now? In what way?

Given I'm in the Midwest, I won't be able to make it there in time. I have no doubt there will be an African American man at the Sheraton in New York. But can you prove to me he is the one who did all the things ascribed to Barack Obama?

You're mixing up Obama and God again and how they're different. If you were to see the man up there and someone told you he's Obama, it would at least be undeniable that that person up there exists and may or may not be Obama. At that base level, it does not matter if things were attributed wrongly to him but it is undeniably clear that your eyes are perceiving some physical collection of atoms that looks and talks like every other picture and video you have seen of Obama.

There is no analogue to God. All we see of God is the past effects of God. Or can you show me God? And if you can't do it on the internet, then can you theoretically envision a way in which God could be shown to exist? And is this way at all analogous to showing that Obama exists?

I guess I thought you were asking for more than this. So if I sent you to a particular place at a particular time and say that what you experience when you get there is God, that's good enough? Yeah, I can do that. You can get the schedule here: Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod - Locate A Church, School, Worker

If I went to a church at a particular time what would I experience that would be God? Could you point to something and say, "That's God" in the same way that I could point to Obama and say, "That's Obama"?

What would you point to? The church? The pastor? The pews? The adherents? The cross? The air?

None of these things are uniquely God because they can easily be called something else and at that point is just becomes a definitional word game.

There is some "thing" that we uniquely call Obama. You could call that "thing" anything you want, but we, as a society, agree that that "thing" has a label applied to it which is "Obama".

If God is the church and the pastor and the pews and the adherents and the cross, (aka if God is everything and anything) then the label "God" has no practical purpose and should be discarded as it describes everything and at once describes nothing.

 

[Resha Caner]

The questions I have posed to you thus far are not absurd when it comes to a non-physical, ill-defined, immaterial being who occupies some non-discrete space and non-discrete time.

Last time - not my definition. I gave you specific times and places. If you really want to know, you'll talk to the people at those churches. That's all I can do. If that's not enough, then I guess I've failed.

What is your definition then? That is the point of this thread after all and you have yet to give me a definition.

Actually, I did.

Also, just because you can label something with traits, doesn't mean you have shown that the thing exists.

That's true of anything - even the atoms & molecules you speak of. If all we did was list the traits of atoms and could never experience them in some way (through a scientific experiment in that case) then listing the traits would be useless. As you say, this thread was never meant to be about proving existence - even if it drifted that direction. I'll remind you my point all along is that a person is not a list of traits (not even Obama). It's about recognizing a person, not defining them.

The purpose for listing the traits is so you know what to look for - so you can distinguish this from that. Even then it's only the starting point. So, no matter what I tell you about how one experiences God when one goes to church (in theological terms those physical experiences come through the sacraments), it is only a starting point for you.

That's all I can do - tell you where to start. The rest is between God and you.

Yes, videos are a far superior form of evidence.

You need to go see Captain America and then rethink that answer. Pay special attention to Chris Evans before and after. Yes, I know Captain America is fictional, but the point is that Chris Evans is not. Video is easily faked.

All your comparisons are utterly ridiculous.

Yes, you've made your opinion on that clear. Have I made myself clear that I find your question ridiculous?

What do you want from this? What do you honestly want? If you're looking for a half-baked sentence about omniscience so you can go to work on it and claim logic has triumphed over the weak-minded Christian idea of God, then I'll bow out and let you continue.

If you honestly think there might be a God and logic is the way you will build a tower to find Him, again, I'll bow out and let you give that a try.

If there is some shred in you that is curious about knowing God as a person, then you're going to need to address the issue I'm raising. Were you a reporter, I can see that you might ask a question like, "What is Barack Obama?" Even then you'd probably get an odd glance from him before he answered. But would you know him after he answered? What would you do if your objective was to know Obama?

How do you get to know a person? That is my challenge to you - my suggestion for the question you should ask rather than "What is God?".

 

[DogmaHunter]

How did you verify these facts?

You're reaching again.
I didn't say "verified". I said "verifiable".

Unless you can give me a method by which you or I can personally make these measurements, you are always trusting a secondary source.

Why do you play stupid like this? Yes, I trust a secondary source. The point of verifiability is that you aren't required to. The fact is that it CAN be verified. If it were really important for some reason, it could be verified.

Moreover, trust is NOT THE SAME as faith, by the way.

And this is interesting ... According to this Obama is 6'2" and 165 lbs:
How Much does Barack Obama Weigh? - Ask.com Answers

Yet, according to these, Obama is 6'1" and 180 lbs
Barack Obama Net Worth - TheRichest
How much does the celebrity Barack Obama weigh?

It's not interesting at all.

Here: god weighs 25 tons. Obama weighs 180 lbs.

One is verifiable, one is not. The first can ONLY be taken on faith. The second could be taken on faith, but if you really want to know for sure, if it were really important, it could be verified. Either by you or someone else.

But nobody, under no circumstance, could EVER verify the first.

Your doubts don't change my experiences

I didn't say they would.

They are still my experiences, and see no reason why someone else should be interpreting them for me

I do. Because I actually care about my beliefs being as correct as possible. If I interprete a certain experience in some extra-ordinary way... So extra-ordinary that I have to start believing in the existence of unproven, unsupported things (aliens, magic, ghosts, whatever), then I hope to be sane enough to question my interpretation of my experience and would go look for alternative answers or ask impartial people about it.

Because I would naturally be skeptic about my interpretation.
You see, the easiest person to fool, is yourself...

... unless you're open to me interpreting your experiences for you.

I have no problem with that, given that you are qualified to do so.
In fact, I have other people interpret my experiences all the time.

For example, last year I went to a doctor because I had a lot of pain in my upper arm and elbow. It turned out it was my shoulder that was damaged and the pain in my arm was so-called radiated pain (don't know if that's the correct english translation).

I didn't tell the doctor that he had to be wrong, because my shoulder didn't hurt - my arm did. I trusted his expertise that it was really the shoulder that was the cause. At first, I assumed it was my arm, since that was the source of the pain in my experience. But my interpretation of that experience was wrong.
I had surgery a couple days later, some revalidation and the pain went away.

My interpretation of my experience was thus wrong.

Further, let us be clear I don't adhere to the blind faith / leap of faith type of thing where God is supposedly based on nothing. My experiences are very real.

Again, why do you pretend stuff like this? Faith is the foundation of religion. Don't deny that you have it. You have faith that your interpretation of your experience is correct and you have faith that your deity of choice has something to do with it.

I'll posit right here, right now, that if you would have grown up in Pakistan or Saudi Arabia, you would be attributing exactly the same experiences to a different god.

In the end, it comes down to trust for both my faith and your facts.

No. Trust is based on evidence and a track record. Faith is the opposite. It's trust without a track record, with NO evidence. It's just a belief like there are many, not rooted in truth or demonstrable experience. Unsupported.

And it appears people can be wrong about the facts of this supposed President Barack Obama.

And the only reason we can know that is because these facts are verifiable. How can we know if you are wrong about your god?

We can't. Because all you have faith based on unsupportable, undemonstrable, subjective interpretations of thing going on in your head.

 

[Resha Caner]

Moreover, trust is NOT THE SAME as faith, by the way.

You're going to tell me what my faith is? Well, I suppose that does make it easier for you to dismiss it. But to clarify, I never said they were the same. They have similarities - one of those being trust.

Here: god weighs 25 tons. Obama weighs 180 lbs.

This is a strawman since I never said this about God.

For example, last year I went to a doctor because I had a lot of pain in my upper arm and elbow. It turned out it was my shoulder that was damaged and the pain in my arm was so-called radiated pain (don't know if that's the correct english translation).

You voluntarily submitted to the doctor's examination. I didn't ask you to analyze what you think are my unsupported experiences - the things you think are only in my head. You are trying to force those conclusions on me.

What I offer in this forum - yes, I'm opening those things to scrutiny. Whether you're "qualified" to examine them ... I'm not sure that's an issue that can be adaquately addressed on the Internet.

I'll posit right here, right now, that if you would have grown up in Pakistan or Saudi Arabia, you would be attributing exactly the same experiences to a different god.

There are also Christians, agnostics, and atheists in those nations. There are Hindus, Muslims, agnostics and athiests in the U.S. So what's your point?

No. Trust is based on evidence and a track record. Faith is the opposite. It's trust without a track record, with NO evidence. It's just a belief like there are many, not rooted in truth or demonstrable experience. Unsupported.

This is wrong. If God had done nothing in my life, or if I was unaware of what He had done in my life, I wouldn't believe in Him either. I would bet there are people in Afghanistan who don't know Obama exists, but he has had an impact on their lives.

This isn't about verifying God's weight. It's about recognizing God's actions. As such, my point remains the same. You can't prove to me what Obama's actions have been. I accept certain actions as those of Obama based on the sources I trust. I accept certain actions as God's based on the sources I trust.

[edit] Those news agencies that support Obama portray him in a positive light. Those which oppose him portray him as a horrible person - two very different pictures. Likewise, people with different agendas portray God very differently. The truth of who Obama is and who God is lies somewhere else.

I get it that you don't trust me ... or any Christian for that matter. [edit] So, you don't trust what I say about God.

 

[DogmaHunter]

You're going to tell me what my faith is? Well, I suppose that does make it easier for you to dismiss it. But to clarify, I never said they were the same. They have similarities - one of those being trust.

I know what your faith is. Your "christian" icon gives it away.

This is a strawman since I never said this about God.

I didn't say it was something you claimed. I'm making a point about the concept of verifiability.

You voluntarily submitted to the doctor's examination. I didn't ask you to analyze what you think are my unsupported experiences - the things you think are only in my head. You are trying to force those conclusions on me.

Again, merely making a point. The point being that an experience and the interpretation thereof are vastly different things. The latter is one that can easily be wrong. And indeed, we are wrong all the time about our interpretation of experiences. As my doctor example showed.

My interpretation of my experience was that there was something wrong with my arm. But there wasn't. Instead, it was my shoulder.


In exactly the same way, your interpreptation could be just as wrong. The only problem here imo, seems that you're reluctant to admit it.

There are also Christians, agnostics, and atheists in those nations. There are Hindus, Muslims, agnostics and athiests in the U.S. So what's your point?

That 99 % of the time, I can deduce your religion based purely on your geographic location and / or cultural background.
You don't think that is significant?

Haven't you ever wondered why
- christians attribute their "supernatural experiences" to jawhe
- muslims attribute their "supernatural experiences" to allah
- hindu's attribute their "supernatural experiences" to some hindu god
- ... ?

So yes, going purely by statistics, I think it's incredibly likely that you would be attributing your experience to Allah had you grown up in Pakistan. It's unfortunate that we can't test that. But let's have some intellectual honesty here....

This is wrong. If God had done nothing in my life, or if I was unaware of what He had done in my life, I wouldn't believe in Him either. I would bet there are people in Afghanistan who don't know Obama exists, but he has had an impact on their lives.

Apparantly you missed the part where I said demonstrable experiences.
As previously stated, people in Afghanistan attribute such experiences to Allah. You attribute the exact same kind of experiences to Jawhe / Jesus.

A neurologist might attribute that experience to no deity at all and just brain chemistry.

It's difference between knowledge and belief.

This isn't about verifying God's weight. It's about recognizing God's actions.

Neither. It's about verifiability.

You can't prove to me what Obama's actions have been. I accept certain actions as those of Obama based on the sources I trust. I accept certain actions as God's based on the sources I trust.

You know, your continued insistence that there is no objective difference between the existence of Barack Obama and the existence of your deity of choice is shooting your credibility completely to shreds.

I get it that you don't trust me ... or any Christian for that matter.

I have no need for your bigotry.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

100% of the available evidence suggests Barack Obama is an existing person.

0% of the available evidence suggests your god exists anywhere outside the confines of your skull.

Stop trying to draw a comparison where there is none.

 

[Resha Caner]

I know what your faith is. Your "christian" icon gives it away.

You know a label used in an Internet forum. You don't know my faith.

In exactly the same way, your interpreptation could be just as wrong. The only problem here imo, seems that you're reluctant to admit it.

That is an unfounded conclusion. Of course I make mistakes. Are you willing to admit that the doctor could have been wrong? That you might have been right? It just so happens I am a cancer survivor and the first doctor who examined me made the wrong diagnosis. When I told the doctor I thought she was wrong, she used the appeal to authority fallacy: "I'm the doctor and you're not." So, I got a second opinion.

Are you willing to admit you might be wrong about God?

The difference here is not that you're asking me to admit I make mistakes sometimes, but you're asking me to say I am wrong about God all the time.

That 99 % of the time, I can deduce your religion based purely on your geographic location and / or cultural background.
You don't think that is significant?

Of course it's significant, but you can't play this both ways. If views of religion are determined by geography, then your view of religion is determined by your geography. To say anything else is a special pleading fallacy.

If you're going to claim you overcame the prejudices dominant in your geographic area, then anyone can overcome the prejudices of their geographic area.

Apparantly you missed the part where I said demonstrable experiences.

I didn't. I've provided schedules of church services to those who ask for demonstrable experiences. But let's cut to the chase here, and I'll say two things: 1) The same thing I asked leftright: If you wanted to get to know a new person (or experience), how would you go about it? 2) Are you in the practice of using scientific measurements to demonstrably verify how much the people in your life love you?

You know, your continued insistence that there is no objective difference between the existence of Barack Obama and the existence of your deity of choice is shooting your credibility completely to shreds.

Existence was never my argument. I've argued two things using this example, so please don't misrepresent me: 1) Knowing people is not about defining them, it's about learning to recognize them, 2) Listing traits does nothing to demonstrate what actions a person takes.

I have no need for your bigotry.

This appears to be fallacy #3 for you - the ad hominem. If you can demonstrate how I have not properly tolerated your view, I would like to discuss that with you.

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

Last time - not my definition. I gave you specific times and places. If you really want to know, you'll talk to the people at those churches. That's all I can do. If that's not enough, then I guess I've failed.

But why can I only talk to people at the churches. Why not talk to God directly?

Furthermore, the common conception of God is an omnipresent being. Perhaps that is not your definition, but it is a common conception among theists. So why should I have to go to a specific place?

Actually, I did.

From what I gather from post #33, you have said that God is:
-who he is
-merciful
-righteous
-good
-upright
-great, abundant in power with understanding beyond all measure
-holy
-close
-unchanging
-love

I posited that God is immaterial and not composed of atoms or molecules. Do you agree?

That's true of anything - even the atoms & molecules you speak of. If all we did was list the traits of atoms and could never experience them in some way (through a scientific experiment in that case) then listing the traits would be useless. As you say, this thread was never meant to be about proving existence - even if it drifted that direction. I'll remind you my point all along is that a person is not a list of traits (not even Obama). It's about recognizing a person, not defining them.

So how does one recognize Obama?

....by recognizing certain traits. It may be somewhat unconscious because our brains have a good memory for faces and voices, but it is still some aspect of him that we recognize.

Also, the aspects we recognize are all physical in nature, right? We recognize his face, which is composed of physical matter and reflects physical light to our eyes. We recognize his voice which represents physical vibrations through a physical medium such as air.

What about God? How do we recognize God?

The purpose for listing the traits is so you know what to look for - so you can distinguish this from that. Even then it's only the starting point. So, no matter what I tell you about how one experiences God when one goes to church (in theological terms those physical experiences come through the sacraments), it is only a starting point for you.

Can God only be experienced at church?

That's all I can do - tell you where to start. The rest is between God and you.

I don't think you are understanding the difference between Obama and God.

You need to go see Captain America and then rethink that answer. Pay special attention to Chris Evans before and after. Yes, I know Captain America is fictional, but the point is that Chris Evans is not. Video is easily faked.

There are no videos of God. So what's your point in regards to our discussion?

If there were videos of God and Obama equal in number and quality, then it would reasonable to ask if Obama's or God's videos had been faked. But at least Obama has videos. At least it is hypothetically possible to take a video of a being posited to be like Obama. Can the same be said of God?

Yes, you've made your opinion on that clear. Have I made myself clear that I find your question ridiculous?

No, all you have done is advance some ridiculous comparison between God and Obama.

What do you want from this? What do you honestly want? If you're looking for a half-baked sentence about omniscience so you can go to work on it and claim logic has triumphed over the weak-minded Christian idea of God, then I'll bow out and let you continue.

I want you to realize that your method of arguing (using Obama as an analogue to God) is utterly ridiculous and fails at the first start out of the gate.

If you honestly think there might be a God and logic is the way you will build a tower to find Him, again, I'll bow out and let you give that a try.

Is one of the traits of God that he is illogical?

If there is some shred in you that is curious about knowing God as a person, then you're going to need to address the issue I'm raising. Were you a reporter, I can see that you might ask a question like, "What is Barack Obama?" Even then you'd probably get an odd glance from him before he answered.

You still don't realize the difference between Obama and God do you?

The reason I would get an odd glance if I asked someone what Obama is is because it is obvious and everyone knows what he is. He's a human being with a variety of obvious traits (dark skin, big ears, short hair, etc)

The reason I don't think its odd to ask what God is is because no one seems to know exactly what he is. Different definitions and conceptions abound.

But would you know him after he answered? What would you do if your objective was to know Obama?

I would know something about him. I would know that he exists.

How do you get to know a person? That is my challenge to you - my suggestion for the question you should ask rather than "What is God?".

How am I to get to know someone whom may or may not exist?

Its like saying that you, Caner, need to get to know Mbala Gorgo.

You may ask, "What is that? Is that the name of a human being? Is it the name of a dog or an African town or what? Where does Mbala live? What language does he/she/it speak? Does Mbala Gorgo exist or is he/she/it just some made up word or fictional character?"

All those questions need to be answered before you can "get to know" Mbala Gorgo on a personal level. First, you need to know basic facts about Mbala Gorgo's existence and physical traits and location. You need to know what Mbala Gorgo is before you can start to know who Mbala Gorgo is.

 

[Resha Caner]

You still don't realize the difference between Obama and God do you?

Of course I do. Do you understand the purpose of an analogy? I looked up some examples on the Internet. One I found was: A gang of boys is like a pack of wolves. An analogy of how you are responding to my analogy would be ...

What? But boys and wolves are difference species. And some wolves are female. Some are old. Don't you understand the difference between boys and wolves? What a stupid analogy.

There needs to be a logical fallacy for analogy abuse.

But why can I only talk to people at the churches. Why not talk to God directly?

Furthermore, the common conception of God is an omnipresent being. Perhaps that is not your definition, but it is a common conception among theists. So why should I have to go to a specific place?

Sigh. I did mentioned prayer and sacraments, so it is more than just talking to people. Also, you asked for a specific time and place. I was just answering your question. No, you are not limited to a church, but if you think you can demand God appear at a certain time and place that would be like demanding that Obama appear ... oh, wait, that's probably not a good analogy to use.

I posited that God is immaterial and not composed of atoms or molecules. Do you agree?

I probably wouldn't agree with everything you concluded about my list, but we would have to deal each of these one at a time - a daunting task that will get us ... where? Remember, I've said from the beginning you won't know God from the Internet. This is just a place to start.

Regardless, no I don't agree that God is immaterial. I mentioned the Incarnation earlier. If you recall, Jesus was resurrected ... and we're getting close to Easter. You really should attend an Easter service.

Is there an immaterial aspect of God? I think so, though the Bible never makes an explicit statement to that effect AFAIK. In that regard, I think we are also composed of the material and the immaterial.

What about God? How do we recognize God?

I've suggested some starting points for you.

Is one of the traits of God that he is illogical?

No. My point is that logic cannot attain all things.

Its like saying that you, Caner, need to get to know Mbala Gorgo.

I wouldn't approach it as you described. I've had people try to do this - try to describe someone so I could go find them. It didn't work. As such, it seems an obviously faulty approach to me. And even though we do depend on visual clues for recognizing people, don't we also spend a lot of time discussing how shallow it is to only use visual clues?

I would ask to be introduced to Mbala Gorgo. I can't do that for you personally in God's case, so I'm suggesting the best alternative I can.

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

Of course I do. Do you understand the purpose of an analogy? I looked up some examples on the Internet. One I found was: A gang of boys is like a pack of wolves. An analogy of how you are responding to my analogy would be ...

What? But boys and wolves are difference species. And some wolves are female. Some are old. Don't you understand the difference between boys and wolves? What a stupid analogy.

There needs to be a logical fallacy for analogy abuse.

Analogies only hold for so long. And while an analogy can be persuasive, it is not a very good logical construct to argue from.

Boys and wolves actually have a lot more in common than Obama and God. But then again, you apparently don't think that God is an immaterial, timeless, omniscient being? I'm not really sure at all what you think anymore about God.

Sigh. I did mentioned prayer and sacraments, so it is more than just talking to people. Also, you asked for a specific time and place. I was just answering your question. No, you are not limited to a church, but if you think you can demand God appear at a certain time and place that would be like demanding that Obama appear ... oh, wait, that's probably not a good analogy to use.

Your analogies keep getting mixed up!

It's NOT the same as asking Obama to appear because Obama isn't posited to exist everywhere at all times.

God is posited to be omnipresent (present at all places at all times. Maybe you don't define God that way, I'm not sure what you define God as...but that is the common conception.

So asking Obama to appear at your whim would be ridiculous because:

A) He is confined to space and time and is thus not omnipresent.
B) He doesn't even know you're asking because he's not omniscient.

Asking an omniscient, omnipresent god to appear would be a far less ridiculous request because:

A) The god is supposedly already surrounding you because he is omnipresent
B) The god knows you're asking because he's omniscient.

Now, again, I dont' know how you define God, but the common conception is that God is omniscient and omnipresent.

I probably wouldn't agree with everything you concluded about my list, but we would have to deal each of these one at a time - a daunting task that will get us ... where? Remember, I've said from the beginning you won't know God from the Internet. This is just a place to start.

Knowing someone personally is not the same as knowing something exists.

I know Obama, as a human being, exists based on various criteria. However, I don't know Obama personally.

Similarly, I know Timbuktu, Mali exists as a location based on various criteria. But I've never been there and have never experienced it personally.

I know that the Andromeda galaxy exists despite never visiting it. I know lemurs exist despite never seeing them. I know a lot of things without "personally knowing" them.

You seem to make no distinction between "knowing God exists" and "knowing God personally". As I said before, before you know who someone is, you must know what someone is.

Regardless, no I don't agree that God is immaterial. I mentioned the Incarnation earlier. If you recall, Jesus was resurrected ...

Is there an immaterial aspect of God? I think so, though the Bible never makes an explicit statement to that effect AFAIK. In that regard, I think we are also composed of the material and the immaterial.

So you don't know much about God either, then?

If you know him personally, you'd think you would know more about what he is composed of. And why reference what the Bible says about him if you know him?

Its like Michelle Obama reading Obama's biography in order to get to know Obama, despite her knowing him and meeting him and seeing him and talking to him personally. Why read the autobiography if you can just talk to the guy?

I've suggested some starting points for you.

Can you outline these in list format? I can't figure out exactly the concrete suggestions you've made.

No. My point is that logic cannot attain all things.

I think certain aspects of things can be illogical, but at a base level, there must be some logical and non-arbitrary criteria for determining if something "exists" or not.

If there is an illogical and arbitrary criteria, then anything can be said to exist and "existence" is a useless word. If there is an illogical and arbitrary criteria for existence then one could argue for the existence of unicorns, gnomes, flying spaghetti monsters, and whatever else you can conceive of.

I wouldn't approach it as you described. I've had people try to do this - try to describe someone so I could go find them. It didn't work. As such, it seems an obviously faulty approach to me. And even though we do depend on visual clues for recognizing people, don't we also spend a lot of time discussing how shallow it is to only use visual clues?

I would ask to be introduced to Mbala Gorgo. I can't do that for you personally in God's case, so I'm suggesting the best alternative I can.

So first of all, you assumed that Mbala Gorgo is a person. Do you know that? What is Mbala Gorgo? Why did you assume she/he/it is a person?

Also, lets say you and I were standing in Grand Central station and I said, "Mbala Gorgo is right over there."

You may reply, "Where?"

"Over there. Under the main clock." (I have given you a location, one current trait that Mbala Gorgo has)

"What does Mbala Gorgo look like?" You might ask, to help identify Mbala Gorgo.

"She has black hair and black skin, she is 5 foot 6. She is wearing a red shirt and blue jeans and is holding a black purse over her left shoulder."

"Ah yes, there she is" you might say once you've spotted her. Now, you know so much about Mbala Gorgo that you didn't know before. You know she is human. You know where she currently is. You know her appearance. You know what she is wearing.

Was I being shallow to describe her physical appearance so that you could recognize her? Was I being shallow in giving you a location (under the clock) where you could look for her?

Do you know Mbala Gorgo personally and intimately based on my description? No, of course not. But at least you can look at her and recognize that there is a woman over there, under the clock with the features I have described whom I have given the name "Mbala Gorgo". She exists. And even if I got her name wrong (Allah, Yahweh, God, etc), it is still clear that she exists beyond that label as a black women who is 5 foot 6 and dressed a certain way located under the clock at Grand Central Station.

Can you do the same for God?

 

[Resha Caner]

Analogies only hold for so long. And while an analogy can be persuasive, it is not a very good logical construct to argue from.

I agree analogies can only go so far. I also agree they are not logical constructs. But each situation requires what is suited to that situation. For me to say you won't find God through logic, and then respond with a logical construct would be ... well ... illogical, wouldn't it?

I've pondered all the omni questions and have my opinions about them, but that doesn't seem to count for much.

I know Obama, as a human being, exists based on various criteria. However, I don't know Obama personally.

Yes, and though existence has gotten tangled into this conversation, I thought we agreed it wasn't really the focus. So, I understand the distinction you're making, but I was speaking to something different.

If you know him personally, you'd think you would know more about what he is composed of. And why reference what the Bible says about him if you know him?

Its like Michelle Obama reading Obama's biography in order to get to know Obama, despite her knowing him and meeting him and seeing him and talking to him personally. Why read the autobiography if you can just talk to the guy?

God is not my personal butler or it might be better to say he is not my trick pony. So, He doesn't respond to my every whim. There are things I do not get an answer to ... or at least I can't discern it.

I don't see that as unique to God. I've been in relationships where that has happened, and I can give you a very specific example. After my bachelor's degree I was conflicted about whether to get a job or do some graduate work. I asked my dad his opinion, and he refused to answer. He told me that was the kind of decision he expected me to make for myself. He was fine with me discussing the issue with friends, but in his opinion being a dad was different than being a friend. Because of the authority he held over me, his advice would be taken differently than the advice of a friend, and so he chose not to answer.

Similarly, God has given us a book. It would be a bit silly to ask God, "So, what do you think about murder?" Most often those questions are just posturing and rationalizing. It's perfectly acceptable when those questions come up for God to say, "Read the book."

Finally, no, I don't know everything about God. I don't think I've ever claimed that, and I would never believe anyone who did. If I knew everything about God, I would be God. That doesn't mean I don't know Him. I've been married for over 20 years, and I still don't know everything about my wife ... [edit] that she is made of atoms is something I consider irrelevant to knowing who she is.

Can you outline these in list format? I can't figure out exactly the concrete suggestions you've made.

* Attend a church service
* Talk to people at that church about the experience you've just shared with them (again, I'm recommending the LCMS since I am LCMS)
* Read the Bible
* Pray
* Repeat - It's going to take time.

I'm not promising a formula. Again, it's just something to get you started.

So first of all, you assumed that Mbala Gorgo is a person. Do you know that? What is Mbala Gorgo? Why did you assume she/he/it is a person?

We've been talking about people. If my assumption was wrong, I assume you would correct me. It's a process. It takes time to get to know someone.

Can you do the same for God?

[edit] Not in the way you're looking for. So you've never experienced this? For example, you ask someone what cinammon smells like, and they reply with a perplexed, "Uh, well, it smells cinammony." That doesn't help. Even if they say it has a spicy smell, a sharp smell, a potent smell, does that help? Suddenly I'm imagining pepper, which is not at all the same.

Until you smell cinammon, you don't know how it smells. Once the experience is shared, you can say something smells like cinammon and people understand. It's all about common experience, and we don't have that.

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

Yes, and though existence has gotten tangled into this conversation, I thought we agreed it wasn't really the focus. So, I understand the distinction you're making, but I was speaking to something different.

Well, the question of this thread is "What is God?", not "Who is God?"

But what I'm gathering from this discussion is that your answer to the "what" is that God is a person.

Once you have established that he is a person, you've gone on to describe traits that are all attributable to personhood.

But the answer to "what" from you seems to be "a person". Is that a fair analysis?

Personhood is a very intangible, ill-defined thing. But the general idea is that personhood requires a human being. It is also assumed that a person is discrete in time and space. But perhaps this is an invalid assumption.

God is not my personal butler or it might be better to say he is not my trick pony. So, He doesn't respond to my every whim. There are things I do not get an answer to ... or at least I can't discern it.

I don't see that as unique to God. I've been in relationships where that has happened, and I can give you a very specific example. After my bachelor's degree I was conflicted about whether to get a job or do some graduate work. I asked my dad his opinion, and he refused to answer. He told me that was the kind of decision he expected me to make for myself. He was fine with me discussing the issue with friends, but in his opinion being a dad was different than being a friend. Because of the authority he held over me, his advice would be taken differently than the advice of a friend, and so he chose not to answer.

How does God speak to you? Does he speak using acoustic sound waves like your dad? Does he speak using hand gestures and eye movements, like your dad?

Does he speak to you in any way recognizable to how another person would speak to you?

Similarly, God has given us a book. It would be a bit silly to ask God, "So, what do you think about murder?" Most often those questions are just posturing and rationalizing. It's perfectly acceptable when those questions come up for God to say, "Read the book."

Yea but there are a whole host of questions that are not as clear cut as murder.

Finally, no, I don't know everything about God. I don't think I've ever claimed that, and I would never believe anyone who did. If I knew everything about God, I would be God. That doesn't mean I don't know Him. I've been married for over 20 years, and I still don't know everything about my wife ... [edit] that she is made of atoms is something I consider irrelevant to knowing who she is.

But if you wanted to know something about your wife, would it not make more sense to ask her rather than consulting a book written twenty years ago by a third party?

* Attend a church service
* Talk to people at that church about the experience you've just shared with them (again, I'm recommending the LCMS since I am LCMS)
* Read the Bible
* Pray
* Repeat - It's going to take time.

I'm not promising a formula. Again, it's just something to get you started.

Fair enough. Thanks.

We've been talking about people. If my assumption was wrong, I assume you would correct me. It's a process. It takes time to get to know someone.

Like I said, it was never established that God is part of the category known as "people". So I don't know if its a safe assumption to state that God is a person right off the bat.

Of the class of persons that I know, all of them are human beings who are confined by space and time.

I don't know any persons that are non-human and not confined by space and time. I don't know any persons that are turtles, or galaxies, or rocks, or oceans. I also don't know any persons that are defined as hate, love, or any other emotion.

God would be the first person I would know that would be non-human. That's a fairly strange claim. What qualities of personhood can a non-human have?

[edit] Not in the way you're looking for. So you've never experienced this? For example, you ask someone what cinammon smells like, and they reply with a perplexed, "Uh, well, it smells cinammony." That doesn't help. Even if they say it has a spicy smell, a sharp smell, a potent smell, does that help? Suddenly I'm imagining pepper, which is not at all the same.

Until you smell cinammon, you don't know how it smells. Once the experience is shared, you can say something smells like cinammon and people understand. It's all about common experience, and we don't have that.

But there is a hypothetical and easy way to show me cinnamon and the smell associated with it. Tell me to go to the grocery store and check out the spices aisle. So easy.

Why is God different?

 

[Resha Caner]

But the answer to "what" from you seems to be "a person". Is that a fair analysis?

Yes, that's fair.

Personhood is a very intangible, ill-defined thing. But the general idea is that personhood requires a human being. It is also assumed that a person is discrete in time and space. But perhaps this is an invalid assumption.

I would start with definition #4 here:
Person | Define Person at Dictionary.com

How does God speak to you? Does he speak using acoustic sound waves like your dad? Does he speak using hand gestures and eye movements, like your dad?

Does he speak to you in any way recognizable to how another person would speak to you?

God can "speak" to people in a variety of ways. Yes, He can speak audibly - which would be the literal method you're asking about. "Speak" can also be a more figurative term, meaning via his Word or Sacraments, through signs, or even through other people (prophets).

But there is a hypothetical and easy way to show me cinnamon and the smell associated with it. Tell me to go to the grocery store and check out the spices aisle. So easy.

Why is God different?

In one way, He's not different. Just as you suggested sending someone to the store to smell cinnamon, I'm suggesting you go to church.

In another way, He is different. As I said, God is not my trick pony. I can't give you a formula for a person.

 

[DogmaHunter]

You know a label used in an Internet forum. You don't know my faith.

Identifying yourself as a christian tells me a great deal about the things you invoke faith for.

Just like if I would identify myself as a muslim - you'ld also have a pretty good idea about the shenannigans I would believe in that case.

Why do you pretend this isn't the case?

That is an unfounded conclusion. Of course I make mistakes. Are you willing to admit that the doctor could have been wrong? That you might have been right? It just so happens I am a cancer survivor and the first doctor who examined me made the wrong diagnosis. When I told the doctor I thought she was wrong, she used the appeal to authority fallacy: "I'm the doctor and you're not." So, I got a second opinion.

Are you willing to admit you might be wrong about God?

The whole point of my rant was to show you that interpretations of experiences and facts are exactly the things that can be wrong.
Off course I can be wrong. Doctors can be wrong (and I'm sorry to hear they were in your particular case).

But when you speak about your faith in god, I'm not getting the feeling that you are ready to admit that YOU could be wrong.

Off course I can be wrong about gods. What will convince me is evidence. Not more subjective interpretations based on nothing.

Having said that.. there's no way I'm wrong about the bible or any other of the current popular religions. Because those things have been falsified. Science can't tell us anything for sure - except that which is wrong.
The bible is wrong. The quran is wrong. The bagavad is wrong.

A god could exist. But if a god exists, it won't be one of the gods portrayed in any of those books. Because those books are demonstrably wrong.

But again, what will convince me that a god actually exists will be an objective demonstration of that god's existence. Not anecdotes or unverifiable experiences and interpretations thereof.

The difference here is not that you're asking me to admit I make mistakes sometimes, but you're asking me to say I am wrong about God all the time.

No. I'm trying to make you realise that you have no solid foundation for the things that you believe.

This is why I draw parallels with other religions.
This is why I bring to your attention that other people of different religions have the exact same type of experiences as you do. They give the exact same arguments as you do. They make the exact same claims as you do.

Only, they use all those things to argue for their particular god. A god that is incompatible with your god.

Yet, somehow, when people reason about why we don't go floating into space after jumping, it doesn't matter what region of the world they come from, what their cultural background is,... All of them conclude that gravity is the best explanation.

How do you explain that?

Of course it's significant, but you can't play this both ways. If views of religion are determined by geography, then your view of religion is determined by your geography. To say anything else is a special pleading fallacy.

If you're going to claim you overcame the prejudices dominant in your geographic area, then anyone can overcome the prejudices of their geographic area.

Anyone can, yes. But most people don't.
It's not special pleading. I'm not part of the religion game.
Also, you kind of completely derailed and dodged the point being made. You acknowledge that it's significant, but you're not crossing the finish line.

What does it say about the validity of a religion if the vast majority of its followers are only followers due to cultural tradition?
What does it say about your faith in christianity?
Would you still have this faith if you would have born and living and Pakistan?
Would you still attribute your experiences to Jesus, or would you rather be attributing them to Allah?

Considering all this, do you find it surprising that I'm not impressed with your beliefs? Or indeed any other religious belief?

I didn't. I've provided schedules of church services to those who ask for demonstrable experiences.

And a muslim would give me schedules of mosque services. So what?
I've been to churches (and mosques). I didn't see anything there that was of any value.

But let's cut to the chase here, and I'll say two things: 1) The same thing I asked leftright: If you wanted to get to know a new person (or experience), how would you go about it?

Assuming you mean an actual real person, then my answer is meet up with them and have a coffee or something.

If the person is a historical person that I can't meet in person, I'll have to go look for reliable sources about the dude.

If the person is a mythical person, I'ld read the myth in question.

2) Are you in the practice of using scientific measurements to demonstrably verify how much the people in your life love you?

There's no unit to measure that.
However, I can deduce how much a person cares for me by their actions and how they treat me.

The other day I had car problems and called a friend. He drove 100km on a Friday night to come and pick me up and help me out.

When I had the shoulder surgery, my girlfiend took a week of from work to stay home and take care of me.

My dad worked for 40 years in a stinking factory doing a job he hated, just so I could go to a good university, had food on the table, etc.

Their actions and how they treat me reflect how they feel about me.

Existence was never my argument. I've argued two things using this example, so please don't misrepresent me:

Then you are misrepresenting me. The question at hand was to define god in verifiable ways. A post challenged to define Obama in the same way. I did that.

1) Knowing people is not about defining them, it's about learning to recognize them,

How can you recognize them if you can't define them? Describing them is part of defining them, you know?

2) Listing traits does nothing to demonstrate what actions a person takes.

No kidding, sherlock.
I never stated anything else.

This appears to be fallacy #3 for you - the ad hominem.

3? where are the other 2?

Also, learn what an ad hominem is. It's when a personal attack is used as an argument. I don't do that. I actually didn't insult you either.
And even if I insult you, which I might, it would be in addition to giving an actual argument.

If I give you an actual argument and then follow it up with 100 insults, then I did not engage in an ad hominem, because the insults are not the argument. At best, I'ld just be an a-hole.

If you can demonstrate how I have not properly tolerated your view, I would like to discuss that with you.

I objected to your accusation that I don't trust "any christian".