Who or what is God?

roosh

I just wanted to start this thread, to try and get an idea of what peoples own personal understandings of what God actually is. I must state that I believe in God myself, but will refrain from going into my own personal understanding for now so as to allow people to put their own understanding.

So what does God mean to you?

PDN

The one righteous Supreme Being who is the Creator of everything in the universe. A personal God who has chosen to reveal Himself to man and, in spite of man's disobedience and sin, who has opened up a way for us to be saved and to spend eternity in His presence.

kelly1

Hello Mangaroosh, to be honest, it's very difficult to get a handle on God and many say it's impossible. My understand of God is that "He" is an infinite Spirit who's omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent. I believe God is ultimate Good and is kind, caring and merciful. But I also believe God abhors sin and is a God of justice.

I don't believe in the God of Deism. After all, when we made a mess of things, "God so loved the world, that He sent His only Son to die for us". This shows me how much God loves us but also how big an issue sin is for God.

It's far easier for us humans to relate to Jesus Christ as the human compassionate, caring face of God. I think Christians have an easier time relating to God, compared say with Jews and Muslims, for this very reason.

God bless,
Noel.

bubonicus

....a metaphysical claim.

Soul Winner

mangaroosh wrote: »

I just wanted to start this thread, to try and get an idea of what peoples own personal understandings of what God actually is. I must state that I believe in God myself, but will refrain from going into my own personal understanding for now so as to allow people to put their own understanding.

So what does God mean to you?

Paul Tillich said that it is in some ways as blasphemous to define God as it is to deny Him. But we can only give our personal views about God if we can lay down some basic markers as to what would define God if He does indeed exist.

If God exists then by definition He must be all powerful. And if such a Being exists then only He could have created our universe. If that is so, then everything in our universe was brought about by His hand, including mankind. If God created mankind, who are personal beings, then He Himself must be personal. As the creator of all matter, space and time itself He cannot be defined in these temporal ways. If space, time, matter and energy all have their origins in a finite time in the past that mankind's science calls the 'Singularity', then the One who brought them into being must be defined in terms which are independent and external to these creations, because He had to have been around before He could bring these things into being. Which means that He must be, amongst other things, immaterial and timeless, hence eternal and uncaused. But that does not mean that He cannot manifest Himself in a material way or enter into time to effect His purposes.

As a Christian I believe that this all powerful being has revealed Himself in many different ways throughout mankind's history but has decisively revealed Himself in the Person of Jesus Christ. He is the God of grace and peace and is willing and able to give eternal life to all who trust in Him. He is a God of love and everlasting mercy, ready to enter in to the life of anyone who give themselves to Him in trust in order that He might work His good toward them and lead them to His salvation. I believe that the life we live on this earth is but a drop in the ocean of what He has prepared and that we cannot even begin to fathom His love for us.

Frederick M. Lehman might have got off to a good start though when he penned the following:

"Could we with ink the ocean fill,
And were the skies of parchment made,
Were every stalk on earth a quill,
And every man a scribe by trade,
To write the love of God above,
Would drain the ocean dry.
Nor could the scroll contain the whole,
Though stretched from sky to sky"

All our definitions of God cannot contain Him, He is so much bigger than what all of our limited perceptions of Him can allow.

roosh

One of the reasons I started the thread was because in various discussions with atheists, I found that many people either consciously or [I presume] subconsciously, believed that those who actually believe in God, believe in the existence of an old man that lives in the clouds.

Personally, I seriously question whether this is the belief that anyone actually holds, but equally would question anyone who holds this belief. One thing I do notice however, that perhaps leads to some confusion, is the constant reference to God as "he". For those that refer to God as "he", do they actually see God as a male figure? As some incarnation of a man or a person?

Also, do peopel see a creator as having to be a person?

kelly1

mangaroosh wrote: »

One thing I do notice however, that perhaps leads to some confusion, is the constant reference to God as "he". For those that refer to God as "he", do they actually see God as a male figure? As some incarnation of a man or a person?

God isn't male because God is a spirit. But Jesus referred to God as His Father so people tend to think of God as male even though He can't be. I suppose Father has connotations of being a strong provider.

mangaroosh wrote: »

Also, do peopel see a creator as having to be a person?

Yes, I see God as a person, but not a human person. You could say God is a "being".

krudler

mangaroosh wrote: »

One of the reasons I started the thread was because in various discussions with atheists, I found that many people either consciously or [I presume] subconsciously, believed that those who actually believe in God, believe in the existence of an old man that lives in the clouds.

Personally, I seriously question whether this is the belief that anyone actually holds, but equally would question anyone who holds this belief. One thing I do notice however, that perhaps leads to some confusion, is the constant reference to God as "he". For those that refer to God as "he", do they actually see God as a male figure? As some incarnation of a man or a person?

Also, do peopel see a creator as having to be a person?

Mormons do..

As for the man in the clouds thing, its been depicted that way for centuries in art and religious iconography, a lot of people would view heaven as being in the clouds and all that as has been depicted countless times. God being a man or male figure would be a pretty common notion I'd imagine, its He not She or It in the bible

BrianCalgary

God is a person, with a personality and has the ability for action.

He is spirit, ominiscient, omnipresent and omnipotent. I think God is without a gender yet I refer to Him in the male becuase He has revealed Himself as Father and Son.

He is love and the ultimate good. He is also unmistaken in His justice.

PDN

mangaroosh wrote: »

One of the reasons I started the thread was because in various discussions with atheists, I found that many people either consciously or [I presume] subconsciously, believed that those who actually believe in God, believe in the existence of an old man that lives in the clouds.

The old man, I suspect, is a straw man. It's easy to mock a caricature of what someone believes rather than genuinely engaging with what they do believe.

One thing I do notice however, that perhaps leads to some confusion, is the constant reference to God as "he". For those that refer to God as "he", do they actually see God as a male figure? As some incarnation of a man or a person?

The Bible uses the male pronoun, so I find it useful to do likewise. God, however, is pictured in the Bible as having male and female characteristics. For example, he is compared to a mother hen that protects its chicks with its wings (Luke 13:34). I think the use of a gender-specific pronoun emphasises God's personality rather than referring to Him as an 'it'.

Also, do peopel see a creator as having to be a person?

I would see it more as something that we believe because it is revealed to us by scripture, rather than it being a logical necessity for the creator to be personal.

Fanny Cradock

mangaroosh wrote: »

Personally, I seriously question whether this is the belief that anyone actually holds, but equally would question anyone who holds this belief. One thing I do notice however, that perhaps leads to some confusion, is the constant reference to God as "he". For those that refer to God as "he", do they actually see God as a male figure? As some incarnation of a man or a person?

Whether it´s a correct way of doing such things is certaibly debatable, but I would normally distinguish between gender based on sexual organs as well as certain emotional characteristics that are associated with "maleness" and "felmaleness". It the latter that I think of when I speak of God as He.

Soul Winner

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Whether it´s a correct way of doing such things is certaibly debatable, but I would normally distinguish between gender based on sexual organs as well as certain emotional characteristics that are associated with "maleness" and "felmaleness". It the latter that I think of when I speak of God as He.

Don't you mean former?

Soul Winner

mangaroosh wrote: »

One of the reasons I started the thread was because in various discussions with atheists, I found that many people either consciously or [I presume] subconsciously, believed that those who actually believe in God, believe in the existence of an old man that lives in the clouds.

Any atheist who holds to the view that Christians believe in a man who lives in the clouds is just revealing their ignorance of what the Christian faith actually teaches. Preconceived notions of what a certain religion says without actually going to the trouble to do some research on the subject is not a viable basis on which to build your case against that particular religion. Christians believe that Jesus is seated at the right hand of God in glory and will return on clouds of glory to set up His Kingdom on earth.

mangaroosh wrote: »

One thing I do notice however, that perhaps leads to some confusion, is the constant reference to God as "he". For those that refer to God as "he", do they actually see God as a male figure? As some incarnation of a man or a person?

God reveals Himself in many different ways. Spirit, Burning Bush, Man, Father and even Mother. Elshadai is one of His names in the OT. It literally means 'God the breasted one'. He speaks of His comfort in motherly terms, 'As on whom a mother comforts so shall I comfort you' Isaiah 66:13

mangaroosh wrote: »

Also, do peopel see a creator as having to be a person?

Like PDN says, it is not logically necessary that He be personal, He has just revealed Himself to be, so you could say that His nature is such that being personal is simply an intrinsic atribute of His nature.

kelly1

b12mearse wrote: »

God is death

Wow!! So simple, yet so profound! You must be very wise! :rolleyes:

santing

St Patrick says in his Confessio:

There is no other God, nor ever was, nor will be, than
God the Father

• unbegotten,
• without beginning,
• from whom is all beginning,
• Who upholds all things, as we have been taught;

And His Son Jesus Christ,

• Whom we acknowledge to have been always with the Father,
• Who before the beginning of the world was spiritually present with the Father;
• Begotten in an unspeakable manner before all beginning;
• By Him are made all things visible and invisible.
• He was made man, and,
• having defeated death, was received into heaven by the Father;
• and He has given Him a name which is above every names:
• that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow of things in heaven, on earth, and under the earth,
• and every tongue shall confess that Jesus Christ is Lord and God,
• in whom we believe, and
• whose coming we expect soon to be,
• judge of the living and of the dead,
• who will render to every man according to his deeds;
• And He has poured forth upon us abundantly ...

the Holy Spirit,

• the gift and pledge of immortality,
• who makes those who believe and obey sons of God the Father
• and joint heirs with Christ;

Whom we confess and adore, one God in the Trinity of the Holy Name.

lmaopml

Soul Winner wrote: »

Paul Tillich said that it is in some ways as blasphemous to define God as it is to deny Him. But we can only give our personal views about God if we can lay down some basic markers as to what would define God if He does indeed exist.

If God exists then by definition He must be all powerful. And if such a Being exists then only He could have created our universe. If that is so, then everything in our universe was brought about by His hand, including mankind. If God created mankind, who are personal beings, then He Himself must be personal. As the creator of all matter, space and time itself He cannot be defined in these temporal ways. If space, time, matter and energy all have their origins in a finite time in the past that mankind's science calls the 'Singularity', then the One who brought them into being must be defined in terms which are independent and external to these creations, because He had to have been around before He could bring these things into being. Which means that He must be, amongst other things, immaterial and timeless, hence eternal and uncaused. But that does not mean that He cannot manifest Himself in a material way or enter into time to effect His purposes.

As a Christian I believe that this all powerful being has revealed Himself in many different ways throughout mankind's history but has decisively revealed Himself in the Person of Jesus Christ. He is the God of grace and peace and is willing and able to give eternal life to all who trust in Him. He is a God of love and everlasting mercy, ready to enter in to the life of anyone who give themselves to Him in trust in order that He might work His good toward them and lead them to His salvation. I believe that the life we live on this earth is but a drop in the ocean of what He has prepared and that we cannot even begin to fathom His love for us.

Frederick M. Lehman might have got off to a good start though when he penned the following:

"Could we with ink the ocean fill,
And were the skies of parchment made,
Were every stalk on earth a quill,
And every man a scribe by trade,
To write the love of God above,
Would drain the ocean dry.
Nor could the scroll contain the whole,
Though stretched from sky to sky"

All our definitions of God cannot contain Him, He is so much bigger than what all of our limited perceptions of Him can allow.

Fabulous response soulwinner! That's it for me..:) SoulWinner won..lol......even down to it feeling almost as blasphemous to try to 'describe' God as it is to deny him - and it's just so true that the only way we actually can come closer to understanding in any personal way the nature of God, is by his son Jesus.

Really well put!

eblistic

Hi,
Non believer here (but here to try to understand, not to put down this time). Perhaps a believer could start a poll in this forum on this topic? You could ask "which characteristics can be attributed to the god you believe in?" or something like that. Or you could just answer this post with yes/no beside each and add any additional ones you think of. (I'm honestly not trying to be facetious with any of the summaries so apologies in advance if any seem that way. I've just tried to list all the ones mentioned so far + a couple from the Nicean Creed)...

• Personal (characteristics of a person).
• Omniscient.
• Omnipotent.
• Omnipresent.
• Absolutely good.
• Can be evil.
• Can possess other personal traits not generally considered "good".
• Punishes sin.
• Forgives sin.
• Created earth.
• Created universe.
• Created life.
• Began time.
• Created space.
• Was himself created from nothing.
• Intervenes occasionally.
• Answers prayers (physically).
• Is the universe and everything in it.
• Is the (as yet) unknown.
• Is/has been responsible for miracles.
• Is three entities in one (including his own son).
• Resides in heaven.
• Came to earth and was made human for a while in the form of Jesus.
• Will come to earth in human form again.
• Was the main contributor to the bible (i.e. the bible is the word of god).
• Requires benevolence.
• Requires people to believe in him or they'll suffer after death.

(I'm sure there are some biggies I've missed).

Soul Winner

eblistic wrote: »

Non believer here (but here to try to understand, not to put down this time). Perhaps a believer could start a poll in this forum on this topic? You could ask "which characteristics can be attributed to the god you believe in?" or something like that. Or you could just answer this post with yes/no beside each and add any additional ones you think of. (I'm honestly not trying to be facetious with any of the summaries so apologies in advance if any seem that way. I've just tried to list all the ones mentioned so far + a couple from the Nicean Creed)...

Ok I'll bite:

· Personal (characteristics of a person). - Yes
· Omniscient. - Yes
· Omnipotent. - Yes
· Omnipresent. - Yes
· Absolutely good. - Yes
· Can be evil. - Not intrinsically evil but can do evil things from the point of view of the recipient. i.e. when the earth swallowed up Korah and such like.
· Can possess other personal traits not generally considered "good". - Not sure what you mean by that. Can you elaborate please?
· Punishes sin. - Yes
· Forgives sin. - Yes
· Created earth. - Yes
· Created universe. - Yes
· Created life. - Yes
· Began time. - Yes
· Created space. - Yes
· Was himself created from nothing. - No. If he created time then He is not bound by it and if He is not bound by time then He operates outside of and independent of time, hence, is eternal, hence, is uncaused and hence is uncreated.
· Intervenes occasionally. - Yes
· Answers prayers (physically). - Yes. He also chooses not to answer prayers too.
· Is the universe and everything in it. - Not really. Everything consists by Him but He is more than everything that we know, including the universe.
· Is the (as yet) unknown. - There is more than likely a lot more things that we don't know about God than what we do know about Him, so Yes, but what He has revealed about Himself is sufficient for us down here and is certainly sufficient to get us over there.
· Is/has been responsible for miracles. - Yes
· Is three entities in one (including his own son). - Yes
· Resides in heaven. - Yes
· Came to earth and was made human for a while in the form of Jesus. - Yes
· Will come to earth in human form again. - Yes
· Was the main contributor to the bible (i.e. the bible is the word of god). - Yes
· Requires benevolence. - Yes and No. He requires us to have faith in Him. This faith (trust) is key to Him responding to us and depositing a substance of His own nature in us. As long as the connection of faith is maintained then this substance/spirit works itself out through us and produces fruit which we call good deeds. Without faith we cannot perform there truly good deeds. So even though He does require us to do good deeds our salvation does not stand or fall because of them. James said that faith without works is dead but when you put it in the perspective, works without faith is dead. Jesus said that apart from Him we can do nothing at all, hence we must commit ourselves to Him in trust and keep that connection alive daily through re-commitment of way to His way. Maintain that connection and good deeds are the inevitable outcome.
· Requires people to believe in him or they'll suffer after death. - No. He requires that people to trust in Him and what He says and for that faith He gives eternal life. Not a bad deal in fairness.

How's that?

Turtwig

Soul Winner wrote: »

[/font][/COLOR]Was himself created from nothing. - No. If he created time then He is not bound by it and if He is not bound by time then He operates outside of and independent of time, hence, is eternal, hence, is uncaused and hence is uncreated.

How's that?

Em.....

Ok your point is God is uncaused. Yet in previous posts you've often stated that everything that exists has a cause. God, however, has no cause? I would say that means God doesn't exist - by your own logic.

santing

eblistic wrote: »

(I'm sure there are some biggies I've missed).

I would like to add:

God is

• Love
• Righteous
• (Eternal) Life
• Holy
• The Truth

Soul Winner

Malty_T wrote: »

Em.....

Ok your point is God is uncaused. Yet in previous posts you've often stated that everything that exists has a cause. God, however, has no cause? I would say that means God doesn't exist - by your own logic.

You miss quoted me. I never said that everything that exists has a cause; I said that everything that begins to exist has a cause. The universe (i.e. space, time, matter etc) began to exist, therefore it had a cause independent of what was caused. If there is a causer of the universe then that causer must have been in existence before the universe came into being or at least when the universe came into being. And if that's the case then that cause exists independent of time, because time itself began to exist at a finite time in the past which Science calls T=0. So the cause of the universe, being independent of time, is timeless i.e. eternal i.e. uncaused.

Before Science discovered that the universe had a cause, scientists had no problem affirming that it didn’t need one. Astrophysicists had no problem holding to the view that the universe just always existed in a kind of ‘steady-state’ model. But since the discovery that the universe did indeed begin to exist, theist have been put on the defensive about positing an eternal creator of the cosmos, an uncaused causer if you like. All of a sudden it is no longer permissible or even scientific to hold to the view that even the cause of the universe might be eternal, even though at one time it was very intellectual to get away with fobbing off the explanation of the universe with the idea the universe itself just is eternal.

BrianCalgary

eblistic wrote: »

Hi,
Non believer here (but here to try to understand, not to put down this time). Perhaps a believer could start a poll in this forum on this topic? You could ask "which characteristics can be attributed to the god you believe in?" or something like that. Or you could just answer this post with yes/no beside each and add any additional ones you think of. (I'm honestly not trying to be facetious with any of the summaries so apologies in advance if any seem that way. I've just tried to list all the ones mentioned so far + a couple from the Nicean Creed)...

• Personal (characteristics of a person).Yep
• Omniscient.Yep
• Omnipotent.yep
• Omnipresent.yep
• Absolutely good.yep
• Can be evil.may seem so to us, but in fact isn't
• Can possess other personal traits not generally considered "good".maybe considered by us as 'not good', yet is by God's standards
• Punishes sin.allows the consequences of sin, which is death
• Forgives sin.yep
• Created earth.yep
• Created universe.yep
• Created life.yep
• Began time.yep
• Created space.yep
• Was himself created from nothing.Absolutely not
• Intervenes occasionally.intervenes more than occasionally, is always there for those that love Him
• Answers prayers (physically).yep
• Is the universe and everything in it.nope, is everywhere in the universe, but is not the universe
• Is the (as yet) unknown.not completely unknown, He has revealed Himself to us in certain ways
• Is/has been responsible for miracles.yep
• Is three entities in one (including his own son).one entity, three persons
• Resides in heaven.uuhhmm, Is everywhere and whose homebase is in Heaven, maybe is better said.
• Came to earth and was made human for a while in the form of Jesus.yep
• Will come to earth in human form again.not necessarily, Jesus will coem again, not necessarily as human
• Was the main contributor to the bible (i.e. the bible is the word of god).Inspred mankind to write it
• Requires benevolence.Requires us to follow His lead on our life
• Requires people to believe in him or they'll suffer after death.Asks for people to follow Him, even the even Satan believs in God, yet Satan goes against God.

(I'm sure there are some biggies I've missed).

Hope that helps.

Beeker

God is a creation of man. A comfort and a way to make sense of our world to our ancestors. God is nothing more then that.

BrianCalgary

Beeker wrote: »

God is a creation of man. A comfort and a way to make sense of our world to our ancestors. God is nothing more then that.

How do you arrive at that conclusion?

Beeker

BrianCalgary wrote: »

How do you arrive at that conclusion?

It pure logic! We have zero proof for the existence of a god or gods. We may wish he exists, we may take comfort from this wish, but despite this there is just no proof.

Fanny Cradock

Beeker wrote: »

It pure logic! We have zero proof for the existence of a god or gods. We may wish he exists, we may take comfort from this wish, but despite this there is just no proof.

You better bone up on the difference between "proof" and "evidence". There is no proof, and there can be no proof, for God´s (non)existence. There is plenty of evidence for God. That you happen to think it tosh doesn´t unmake it as evidence. I get tired of having to make this distinction.

You claim that logic is backing up your claims, but when it comes down to it, all you are doing is giving us your subjective opinion. Read the charter and stick by it. Because I don´t want to see any more posts from you along the lines of: "God is a creation of man..."

Soul Winner

Beeker wrote: »

It pure logic! We have zero proof for the existence of a god or gods.

So absence of evidence is proof of absence? Great logic that. There is no evidence that the Higgs Boson particle exists either, yet if it can be shown that it doesn't exists then science will have to go back to the drawing board about practically everything that it has assumed to be true up till now.

From DoesTimeExist.com

"What if the Higgs Boson doesn't exist?

As of now, the Higgs boson particle is of extreme importance in theoretical physics.


Should the Higgs boson be dismissed, as suggested in gravimotion:

1. In view of the fact that mass would not exist in reality, physics' mechanic equations written by Newton (force = mass acceleration ) and Einstein ( E = m C2 ) would have to be thought again!
   While our concept of mass would turn out to be fiction, these equations would still be valuable for real applications, but would be useless as far as telling us what is Nature.
2. The part of quantum theory that deals with the atomic number, coincidental to the atom's protons and their mass would have to be re-evaluated too with respect to reality!
3. As can be seen, should the Higgs boson be dismissed, entire sections of theoretical physics edifice would break apart and sink, just as the polar glaciers tumble and sink into the polar sea!"

More here

Beeker wrote: »

We may wish he exists, we may take comfort from this wish, but despite this there is just no proof.

What would constitute proof of God for you? What would you need to see before you could be convinced that He exists?

Turtwig

Most physicists I would think don't actually want to find Higgs.
So your analogy is faulty.
Try String theory...maybe?

Soul Winner

Malty_T wrote: »

Most physicists I would think don't actually want to find Higgs.
So your analogy is faulty.
Try String theory...maybe?

Malty, when you make a statement like that can you please back it up with a why please?

Please explain why my analogy is faulty and please explain why physicists don't want to find the Higgs boson. All our theoretical physics relies on the Higgs being a reality. If they don't want to find the Higgs then why are they going to so much trouble to find it? In fact over €9Billion worth of trouble. If they can conclude that the Higgs particle does not exist then they will have to practically rewrite science. Why would they want to do that?

Sam Vimes

Soul Winner wrote: »

Before Science discovered that the universe had a cause, scientists had no problem affirming that it didn’t need one. Astrophysicists had no problem holding to the view that the universe just always existed in a kind of ‘steady-state’ model. But since the discovery that the universe did indeed begin to exist, theist have been put on the defensive about positing an eternal creator of the cosmos, an uncaused causer if you like. All of a sudden it is no longer permissible or even scientific to hold to the view that even the cause of the universe might be eternal, even though at one time it was very intellectual to get away with fobbing off the explanation of the universe with the idea the universe itself just is eternal.

You've got a few misunderstandings there. Firstly the big bang is not a description of the creation of the universe ex-nihilo, it goes to a singularity before which we don't know what happened.

Secondly, science doesn't necesssarily have a problem with something always existing, we don't know enough about matter to say for sure either way. The problem we have is with the theistic position that everything has to have been created except your god.

and let's not forget the quite large jump from "if something was created it must have a creator"

Turtwig

Soul Winner wrote: »

Malty, when you make a statement like that can you please back it up with a why please?

Please explain why my analogy is faulty and please explain why physicists don't want to find the Higgs boson. All our theoretical physics relies on the Higgs being a reality. If they don't want to find the Higgs then why are they going to so much trouble to find it? In fact over €9Billion worth of trouble. If they can conclude that the Higgs particle does not exist then they will have to practically rewrite science. Why would they want to do that?

Hi Soul,

That's one for the more expert physicists in the P&C forum to answer.
Worse case scenario, I think, is finding Higgs and nothing else.
Best case scenario is finding Higgs and SUSY (and whatever else new comes the way) then we are ushering in a new era and stepping forward.
Currently the standard model is wrong and we know it is so we need experiments to show us what theories we can start eliminating. If we only found Higgs then the model would be completed, but it would be wrong.
Least, that's my understanding of it anyway. Ask the guys in the Physics forums they should have a better answer - take mine with a pinch of salt.