Characteristics that God should have.

Cynical Apathy

From a think 'outside of the box' point of view, what characteristics or attributes should we expect God to have? This I feel is important especially in monotheism, where the writings of the 3 major faiths warn in extreme fearful mannerisms against those who are deceived. I would like to have a discussion based on this with all sides. I'm fairly well versed in the Bible and have a reasonable knowledge of other religions, I will try to remain as unbiased as I am able for my secular beliefs as I find religion very interesting. Here are a couple of topics to start.

He/It created the Universe! To comprehend this we need to get an idea of what the Universe consists of...there are between 100-400 billion stars in our galaxy (lots of these will have planets and solar systems like our own), there are at least 100-400 billion galaxies in the VISIBLE Universe. That means there are more stars in the sky than grains of sand on every beach and desert on planet Earth.

He/It is concerned for and loves mankind! To comprehend this, we have to decide how we would define love and what we should expect from it... because of the concept of free will, we can't blame He/It for letting bad things happen which could be argued was a clever twist of responsibility, at the very least I would expect at least one divine miracle to prove beyond a doubt to the entire population of the planet (not just the very limited select few, who can be easily refuted) of His/It's divine existence, power and love. Yet in the 200-300 years of credible science, there hasn't even been one minor miracle which can't be undoubtedly explained by placebos, or other natural occurrences.

philologos

I don't see why God should have any characteristics. We don't define what God is, God just is. The interesting question if we are to say that God "should" have certain characteristics is if we are made in God's image, or indeed if God is created in our image. You seem to be pointing towards the latter.

Fanny Cradock

Cynical Apathy wrote: »

Yet in the 200-300 years of credible science, there hasn't even been one minor miracle which can't be undoubtedly explained by placebos, or other natural occurrences.

That's because science deals in natural explanations. But assuming science dealt in proof - which it doesn't - how could it prove that something was a miracle from a divine source?

PDN

I think you're in the wrong forum. Christianity is a revealed religion. That means we learn what qualities God has, not what qualities our imagination thinks He should have.

Maybe the Spirituality forum would be more up your street for such a discussion of a hypothetical god, rather than the God worshipped by Christians?

Cynical Apathy

Jakkass wrote: »

I don't see why God should have any characteristics. We don't define what God is, God just is. The interesting question if we are to say that God "should" have certain characteristics is if we are made in God's image, or indeed if God is created in our image. You seem to be pointing towards the latter.

I disagree, I think we have to define what God is. You might say "God just is" another might say with equal merit "God just is not". Likewise if "God just is" then how can we discern if God is good or bad. Therefore it would be pointless to believe or not to believe.

Who's created in who's image? Another important question, being secular I would lean toward the latter, but that is because nearly every other religious god throughout recorded history were mostly created in our image.

philologos

If we define what God is, God isn't real. Therefore it doesn't seem much a discussion for those who genuinely believe that God is real. I don't think God should have any characteristics bar the ones that He actually has. I didn't create Him, He created me as far as I see.

That's the problem with your question. It makes an assumption.

Fanny Cradock

Cynical Apathy wrote: »

Who's created in who's image? Another important question, being secular I would lean toward the latter, but that is because nearly every other religious god throughout recorded history were mostly created in our image.

Given that the only respondents to your thread have been Christians, I would think that the opinion you encounter would be that we are created in God's image. It 101 stuff that God is uncreated and we are created in his image. Of course, that is not to say that we can't pervert this by attempting to make God in our image. People do it all the time.

BTW, when you say you are secular do you actually mean atheistic? Christians are also concerned with secular things and many broadly support the goals of secularism.

hivizman

To be fair to the OP, theologians and philosophers of religion have often tried to use logic to deduce the characteristics or attributes that an entity qualifying as God would have to possess. These logical arguments tend to start with various presuppositions. For example, back in the 1940s, the philosopher J. N Findlay wrote a paper called "Can God's existence be disproved?", in which he started from what he considered to be a necessary attribute of God - Findlay claimed that, for an entity to qualify as God, then it must be an adequate object of religious attitudes. The main religious attitude, for Findlay, was worship, so God must necessarily be an adequate object of worship. Findlay then attempted to deduce what attributes God would require in order to constitute an adequate object of worship. (Parenthetically, I am reminded of the Muslim testimony of faith: "There is nothing worthy of worship except Allah alone", which may have subconsciously influenced Findlay's argument).

The weakness of Findlay's argument is that it is premised on there being an adequate object of worship in the first place - in effect, it assumes the existence of God and then asks what attributes God would need to have in order to be an adequate object of worship. Findlay actually used his approach to disprove the existence of God (or at least the necessary existence of something corresponding to a religiously satisfactory conception of God) - he argued that one of the necessary characteristics of an adequate object of worship is that such an object of worship exists, but then noted that this is basically St Anselm's ontological argument for the existence of God. If we believe that the ontological argument fails, then, Findlay concludes, we cannot deduce logically the existence of an adequate object of worship.

So, while we can use logical arguments to try to work out what attributes God would have to possess, if God exists, we can't use this approach to prove logically that God exists in the first place.

homer911

This is a bit like the blind men and the elepant - the elephant knows how big he is, and what he looks like, but the blind men all end up with a different perspective, none of them are correct, but they do have part of the truth. Even the sum of all their knowledge fails to adequately describe the elephant

strobe

homer911 wrote: »

This is a bit like the blind men and the elepant - the elephant knows how big he is, and what he looks like, but the blind men all end up with a different perspective, none of them are correct, but they do have part of the truth. Even the sum of all their knowledge fails to adequately describe the elephant

It rings a bell, but I can't recall the story. How does the elephant/blind men story go again?

himnextdoor

There was nothing before God and nothing but God. Therefore the essence of God must reside in every phenomena in nature.

God must be violent, destructive and chaotic; all that is required to ensure a constantly changing universe.

PDN

strobe wrote: »

It rings a bell, but I can't recall the story. How does the elephant/blind men story go again?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_men_and_an_elephant

Keylem

One characteristic of God, 1 John 8.

God Is Love!

himnextdoor

Keylem wrote: »

One characteristic of God, 1 John 8.

God Is Love!

That's what I said.

StudentDad

For me, God is that which we would like to be ourselves. We take all the imagined best bits of ourselves and transpose them onto the idea of an omnipotent being who can absolve us of our responsibilities, give us a safety blanket, so that no matter how awful life is for us we can aspire to life after death.

God has been used as an excuse by us humans for centuries to absolve us of responibility for our actions. Unfortunately it's still going on today.
Frankly that's just depressing.

SD

Cynical Apathy

himnextdoor wrote: »

There was nothing before God and nothing but God. Therefore the essence of God must reside in every phenomena in nature.

God must be violent, destructive and chaotic; all that is required to ensure a constantly changing universe.

I could accept that on some level, a level that the Universe is God. Isn't that Pantheism?

PDN

Cynical Apathy wrote: »

I could accept that on some level, a level that the Universe is God. Isn't that Pantheism?

Indeed it is. Christianity teaches something very different - that God is distinct from His creation.

Soul Winner

If God exists then whatever characteristics He has are the ones He has. Us projecting other characteristics onto Him that we think He should have and doing away with the ones we think He shouldn't have, does nothing to the reality of His existence in the first place.

We are entitled to wish that God had whatever characteristics we would like Him to have, but if He exists then He is more entitled to be the way He chooses to be. The fact that some of us do not like that is not going to knock Him off His throne. We either learn to like it or stay in the state of not liking it. And if the latter causes a coming to a head on the matter, then there is only going to be one winner.

But if you are already convinced that He doesn't exist, then it's pretty stupid to postulate any kind of characteristics onto Him isn't it?

dead one

The drop is a weak part of the sea, yet from its heart the voice emerges, 'I am the sea', and it goes and mingles with the sea. Then why bother to inquire about us? From the instrument of every drop the tune of 'I am the sea' is emerging. That is, every created thing is calling for the creator.
What is your source of existence, that is God.

Cynical Apathy

dead one wrote: »

The drop is a weak part of the sea, yet from its heart the voice emerges, 'I am the sea', and it goes and mingles with the sea. Then why bother to inquire about us? From the instrument of every drop the tune of 'I am the sea' is emerging. That is, every created thing is calling for the creator.
What is your source of existence, that is God.

That is deep and very well written but... (forgive the critique) it characterises "weak parts of the sea" looking for a creator so they can feel they matter to which they never get a reply. It's quite sad really reminds me of The Children of Lir.

Cynical Apathy

Soul Winner wrote: »

If God exists then whatever characteristics He has are the ones He has. Us projecting other characteristics onto Him that we think He should have and doing away with the ones we think He shouldn't have, does nothing to the reality of His existence in the first place.

We are entitled to wish that God had whatever characteristics we would like Him to have, but if He exists then He is more entitled to be the way He chooses to be. The fact that some of us do not like that is not going to knock Him off His throne. We either learn to like it or stay in the state of not liking it. And if the latter causes a coming to a head on the matter, then there is only going to be one winner.

But if you are already convinced that He doesn't exist, then it's pretty stupid to postulate any kind of characteristics onto Him isn't it?

During the reign of Augustus early in the first century, Haley's Comet passed the Earth. The Romans were awestruck until their great emperor declared that it was the divine Julius Caesar returning to heaven and since Augustus was the adopted son of Caesar, he was in effect The Son of the Divine or The Son of God. The whole of Rome rejoiced at this great news.

How can we assume the Bible or Christianity is the will of God, when we don't know what God is? Why should we be too afraid, or think it's disrespectful to think outside the dogma and beyond the realms that ancient bishops and authors decreed acceptable. What if they were wrong?

If you look at history you will undoubtedly find that all of the major religions were written from postulation, it would be "pretty stupid" to conclude otherwise.

I would like to there to be a God, but I am not going to accept it on blind faith (by the rules of blind faith anyone can conceive a God).... nor would a God who loves truth, expect me to.

Fanny Cradock

Cynical Apathy wrote: »

How can we assume the Bible or Christianity is the will of God, when we don't know what God is?

You are on the Christianity forum. I think it is safe to assume that this means we do have set beliefs as to who and what God is.

Cynical Apathy wrote: »

I would like to there to be a God, but I am not going to accept it on blind faith (by the rules of blind faith anyone can conceive a God).... nor would a God who loves truth, expect me to.

I think you will find that many Christians would deny the charge of "blind faith". We would say that our belief is based upon evidence.

Cynical Apathy

You might have set beliefs about what Christianity is but unfortunately the Bible is very quiet when it comes to God, just some vague riddles and parables. Actually there are numerous literal descriptions of Hell in the Bible but not one description of Heaven.

Anyway I'm not trying to bash Christianity, I'm trying to see what people think God is like.
Is he/it a physical being made of matter?
Is Heaven in this Universe or a different dimension?
Ect.

Fanny Cradock

Cynical Apathy wrote: »

You might have set beliefs about what Christianity is but unfortunately the Bible is very quiet when it comes to God, just some vague riddles and parables.

How much of the Bible have you read?

Cynical Apathy wrote: »

Is he/it a physical being made of matter?

God is an immaterial being. He is transcendent.

Cynical Apathy wrote: »

Is Heaven in this Universe or a different dimension?

Heaven existed before creation, so heaven can't be the same as creation.

We are also told many other things about the nature of God. He is a personal God who acts in the world and is concerned with salvation, judgement and ultimately putting the world to rights. Most Trinitarians would suggest that the Bible tells something about his triune nature and there are other passages which suggest that God is omnipotent etc.

Much like you mistaken understanding that the Bible give us numerous "literal" descriptions of hell, I think you are also mistaken when you assert that all we have are vague riddles and parables about the nature of God. In fact, I don't think there are any parables about the nature of God

But all this aside, given what the Bible does tell us about God's nature - transcendent, omnipotent, eternal, omnipresent etc. - I would suggest that the very best we could ever hope for is the vaguest of understandings.

PDN

Cynical Apathy wrote: »

You might have set beliefs about what Christianity is but unfortunately the Bible is very quiet when it comes to God, just some vague riddles and parables.

I think you're just taking the mick.

Soul Winner

Cynical Apathy wrote: »

If you look at history you will undoubtedly find that all of the major religions were written from postulation, it would be "pretty stupid" to conclude otherwise.

Was the crucifixion of Jesus postulated by the Gospel writers when we have a secular record of the same event? Did Paul postulate that he saw the risen Christ on the road to Damascus or was he retelling a genuine experience that he had?

No, such things as these either happened or they didn't. Whether you believe in any of them or not is besides the point, but you cannot say that they are mere postulations, they are foundational events that have formed the foundation of Christianity from its inception.

Cynical Apathy wrote: »

I would like to there to be a God, but I am not going to accept it on blind faith (by the rules of blind faith anyone can conceive a God).... nor would a God who loves truth, expect me to.

Nobody is asking you to. You can study it for yourself and draw your own conclusions. If you like I can recommend some books to get you started. If I were you I go straight for the jugular, the resurrection of Jesus. That is the central event of all Christianity. If you can be convinced that that happened as a fact of history then the journey starts there. If you cannot be convinced of that then there is no point in messing around with anything else to do with Christianity, you'd be just wasting your time. If Christ be not risen then our faith is vain.

himnextdoor

Soul Winner wrote: »

Was the crucifixion of Jesus postulated by the Gospel writers when we have a secular record of the same event?

Do we? I would be interested in seeing that; can you provide more info on that secular record?

Cynical Apathy

These are supposedly the main "facts" about God according to the Bible (forgive the copy and paste)

//God is eternal.
(Deuteronomy 33:27; Jeremiah 10:10; Psalm 90:2)
God is infinite.
(1 Kings 8:22-27; Jeremiah 23:24; Psalm 102:25-27; Revelation 22:13)
God is self-sufficient and self-existent.
(Exodus 3:13-14; Psalm 50:10-12; Colossians 1:16)
God is omnipresent (present everywhere).
(Psalm 139:7-12)
God is omnipotent (all powerful).
(Genesis 18:14; Luke 18:27; Revelation 19:6)
God is omniscient (all knowing).
(Psalm 139:2-6; Isaiah 40:13-14)
God is unchanging or immutable.
(Psalm 102:25-27; Hebrews 1:10-12; 13:8)
God is sovereign.
(2 Samuel 7:22; Isaiah 46:9-11)
God is wise.
(Proverbs 3:19; Romans 16:26-27; 1 Timothy 1:17)
God is holy.
(Leviticus 19:2; 1 Peter 1:15)
God is righteous and just.
(Deuteronomy 32:4; Psalm 11:7; Psalm 119:137)
God is faithful.
(Deuteronomy 7:9; Psalm 89:1-8)
God is true and truth.
(Psalm 31:5; John 14:6; John 17:3; Titus 1:1-2)
God is good.
(Psalm 25:8; Psalm 34:8; Mark 10:18)
God is merciful.
(Deuteronomy 4:31; Psalm 103:8-17; Daniel 9:9; Hebrews 2:17)
God is gracious.
(Exodus 34:6; Psalm 103:8; 1 Peter 5:10)
God is love.
(John 3:16; Romans 5:8; 1 John 4:8)
God is spirit.
(John 4:24)
God is light.
(James 1:17; 1 John 1:5)
God is triune or trinity.
(Matthew 28:19; 2 Corinthians 13:14)//

Surely you can see through this. The authors are writing words of worship, as one writes about a king in hope of gaining favour from him. This doesn't give any descriptive account. The book of Job is credited with giving the most insight into God I think, but I remember feeling disturbed after reading it and that was when I would have been reasonably devout.

Fanny Cradock

Cynical Apathy wrote: »

Surely you can see through this. The authors are writing words of worship, as one writes about a king in hope of gaining favour from him. This doesn't give any descriptive account. The book of Job is credited with giving the most insight into God I think, but I remember feeling disturbed after reading it and that was when I would have been reasonably devout.

See through what? If you don't believe in God that is fine. But I don't understand what your beef is. If we had divine revelation that God enjoys vanilla ice cream and long walks on the beach we would probably be having a conversation in the opposite direction.

God revealed himself in part to man. Whatever we do know is subject to our rather dim and limited perspective. In other words, a finite creature gazing upon the infinite can not see or know everything. Jews and Christians believe that we only know certain things about God because he wills it.

Cynical Apathy

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

See through what? If you don't believe in God that is fine. But I don't understand what your beef is. If we had divine revelation that God enjoys vanilla ice cream and long walks on the beach we would probably be having a conversation in the opposite direction.

God revealed himself in part to man. Whatever we do know is subject to our rather dim and limited perspective. In other words, a finite creature gazing upon the infinite can not see or know everything. Jews and Christians believe that we only know certain things about God because he wills it.

Surely you can see that they are not literal attributes of God but attempts at worship. I don't have a beef, just discussing an opinion on a topic we are both interested in.

Long walks on a beach and eating ice-cream at the very least gives a descriptive and insightful picture that we could contemplate. It would be a picture that one can accept or refute.

Is God infinite? The Bible tells us yes, but did the author understand the concept of infinity. Some of the greatest minds of the last century were driven to insanity over it. I assume it is more rhetoric worship, a concept that wasn't diligently examined before being set in stone.

Cynical Apathy

himnextdoor wrote: »

Do we? I would be interested in seeing that; can you provide more info on that secular record?

The Roman historian Tacitus mentioned "Christ" in a piece about how Nero was persecuting the Christians to take attention off of himself starting the Great Fire of Rome in 64AD.

The account by Josephus had been doctored by early Christians to make it sound like Josephus (a devout Jew) believed Jesus was the messiah. It gives both of Josephus accounts on the wikipeadia page.

I think all other accounts are considered forgeries by scholars.

It has to be understood that the Romans were crucifying people everyday of the week in every town and province of the Empire. The crucifixion of Jesus wouldn't have stood out much from normal everyday occurrences.

Fanny Cradock

Cynical Apathy wrote: »

Surely you can see that they are not literal attributes of God but attempts at worship. I don't have a beef, just discussing an opinion on a topic we are both interested in.

I think that if we are doing a proper exegesis - and perhaps PDN can interject at this point as he has some scholarship experience - then it all depends upon what the authors intended to be understood, not what you want them to say.

Cynical Apathy wrote: »

It would be a picture that one can accept or refute.

By what means?

Cynical Apathy wrote: »

Is God infinite? The Bible tells us yes, but did the author understand the concept of infinity. Some of the greatest minds of the last century were driven to insanity over it. I assume it is more rhetoric worship, a concept that wasn't diligently examined before being set in stone.

If by infinite we mean eternal then, yes, God was and is understood to be such by both Judaism and Christianity (also Islam). It really doesn't matter what the great minds of the last century thought. What matters is what the authors intended us to understand.

Fanny Cradock

Cynical Apathy wrote: »

The account by Josephus had been doctored by early Christians to make it sound like Josephus (a devout Jew) believed Jesus was the messiah. It gives both of Josephus accounts on the wikipeadia page.

I'm aware of two references from Josephus with regards to Jesus. One passage records that James of Jerusalem, the brother of the so-called Christ, was stoned to death. The second passage which you mention is largely not in dispute within mainstream scholarship - at least as far as my understanding goes.

There is no evidence to suggest that anybody in antiquity doubted the existence of Jesus (this is quite an modern phenomenon) so there is no reason for a scribe to forge an argument against a claim that we have no evidence anyone was making. Besides this, the text describes those responsible for the execution of Jesus as those of the "highest standing amongst us". If a Christian scribe wanted to put words in Josephus' mouth then it stands to reason that he wouldn't describe those who were responsible for his death in such a manner. Just like this scribe wouldn't likely have described Jesus' miracles as the equivocal "paradoxical works". But all this is an aside to both the scholarly monographs, which deal predominately with the NT and not these rather minor extra-biblical references, and the topic of this thread.

Cynical Apathy wrote: »

I think all other accounts are considered forgeries by scholars.

No they are not.

hivizman

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I'm aware of two references from Josephus with regards to Jesus. One passage records that James of Jerusalem, the brother of the so-called Christ, was stoned to death. The second passage which you mention is largely not in dispute within mainstream scholarship - at least as far as my understanding goes.

The key word is "largely". The Wikipedia article Josephus on Jesus provides a useful summary of the so-called "Testimonium Flavianum" debate. There are certainly some respected scholars who consider that there are later interpolations in the key passage from Josephus. However, the consensus seems to be that Josephus was acknowledging the existence of Jesus, even if some modern scholars suggest that the statement of Josephus "He was the Christ" was a later addition.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

There is no evidence to suggest that anybody in antiquity doubted the existence of Jesus (this is quite an modern phenomenon) so there is no reason for a scribe to forge an argument against a claim that we have no evidence anyone was making. Besides this, the text describes those responsible for the execution of Jesus as those of the "highest standing amongst us". If a Christian scribe wanted to put words in Josephus' mouth then it stands to reason that he wouldn't describe those who were responsible for his death in such a manner. Just like this scribe wouldn't likely have described Jesus' miracles as the equivocal "paradoxical works". But all this is an aside to both the scholarly monographs, which deal predominately with the NT and not these rather minor extra-biblical references, and the topic of this thread.

Returning to the topic of the characteristics of God, many theologians believed that we have two ways of identifying these. First, there is revelation - descriptions attributed to God in the Old and New Testaments. Then there is reason. Suppose that entity X is a candidate for something worthy of worship. If we can conceive of an entity Y that is in some relevant respect "greater" than X, then surely Y is more deserving of our worship than X. So, for example, if X is present only in some places, we can conceive of an entity Y that is present everywhere that X is present, and then in more places. This implies that God, if God is an entity worthy of our worship, must be omnipresent. Similar arguments can suggest other characteristics.

A problem with this argument is that it implicitly assumes that there must be something worthy of worship. If we assume that there is nothing worthy of worship, then we can't get started with this argument. And if we reject revelation as a possible source of knowledge, then we can't rely on revelation as a guide to God's characteristics.

Soul Winner

himnextdoor wrote: »

Do we? I would be interested in seeing that; can you provide more info on that secular record?

Sure:

CORNELIUS TACITUS (born A.D. 52-54)

A Roman historian, in A.D. 112, Governor of Asia, son-in-law of Julius Agricola, who was Governor of Britain A.D. 80-84. Writing of the reign of Nero, Tacitus alludes to the death of Christ and to the existence of Christians at Rome:

But not all the relief that could come from man, not all the bounties that the prince could bestow, nor all the atonements which could be presented to the gods, availed to relieve Nero from the infamy of being believed to have ordered the conflagration, the fire of Rome. Hence to suppress the rumor, he falsely charged with the guilt, and punished with the most exquisite tortures, the persons commonly called Christians, who were hated for their enormities. Christus, the founder of the name, was put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius: but the pernicious superstition, repressed for a time broke out again, not only through Judea, where the mischief originated, but through the city of Rome also (Annals, XV. 44).

Tacitus has a further reference to Christianity in a fragment of his Histories, dealing with the burning of the Jerusalem Temple in A.D. 70, preserved by Sulpicius Severus (Chron. ii. 30. 6).

Fanny Cradock

hivizman wrote: »

A problem with this argument is that it implicitly assumes that there must be something worthy of worship. If we assume that there is nothing worthy of worship, then we can't get started with this argument. And if we reject revelation as a possible source of knowledge, then we can't rely on revelation as a guide to God's characteristics.

Yes, on one level it does seem that we have to make an assumption either way.

dead one

Cynical Apathy wrote: »

That is deep and very well written but... (forgive the critique) it characterises "weak parts of the sea" looking for a creator so they can feel they matter to which they never get a reply. It's quite sad really reminds me of The Children of Lir.

You don't need ears to listen "cry". You need heart to feel "Cry". The manifestation of the Praised Exalted One is the cause of the presence of the world, the way the sun-rays are the cause of visibility for the sand-grains.

Cynical Apathy

Soul Winner wrote: »

Was the crucifixion of Jesus postulated by the Gospel writers when we have a secular record of the same event? Did Paul postulate that he saw the risen Christ on the road to Damascus or was he retelling a genuine experience that he had?

No, such things as these either happened or they didn't. Whether you believe in any of them or not is besides the point, but you cannot say that they are mere postulations, they are foundational events that have formed the foundation of Christianity from its inception.



Nobody is asking you to. You can study it for yourself and draw your own conclusions. If you like I can recommend some books to get you started. If I were you I go straight for the jugular, the resurrection of Jesus. That is the central event of all Christianity. If you can be convinced that that happened as a fact of history then the journey starts there. If you cannot be convinced of that then there is no point in messing around with anything else to do with Christianity, you'd be just wasting your time. If Christ be not risen then our faith is vain.

Over 2 billion people alive today were indoctrinated into Christianity, I am very confidant that Jesus did exist and was crucified.

Why was he crucified? We are told that he sacrificed his life for our sins.
To put it another way, he disrupted the Temple, was captured and executed as would anybody. I heard a Historian say on a documentary that he literally committed suicide when he caused mayhem in the Temple and he must have known he would've been executed.

None of those secular accounts of Jesus are by eye-witnesses (which they would need to be in a court of law), nor do they give any credence to him being God, the son of God or even barely divine... Or the resurrection for that matter. There is only one account of the Resurrection that claims 100s of people seen Jesus which itself, like the gospels were not written by eye-witnesses.

Any Neurologist, psychiatrist or doctor could come up with a rational explanation for what Paul witnessed.

Cynical Apathy

The only way I could understand an omnipresent God is Pantheism. Anyway, I don't think I've ever heard a reasonable argument against the famous philosophy of Epicurus.

"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?" Epicurus.

I think he even covered free will in that.

Fanny Cradock

Cynical Apathy wrote: »

The only way I could understand an omnipresent God is Pantheism. Anyway, I don't think I've ever heard a reasonable argument against the famous philosophy of Epicurus.

"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?" Epicurus.

I think he even covered free will in that.

Have you ever looked? I would suggest contemplating the incarnation and the resurrection and what these mean in terms of eschatology.

philologos

Cynical Apathy wrote: »

Surely you can see that they are not literal attributes of God but attempts at worship. I don't have a beef, just discussing an opinion on a topic we are both interested in.

Why would you bother worshipping something that doesn't exist?

Cynical Apathy

Jakkass wrote: »

Why would you bother worshipping something that doesn't exist?

Why do so many worship something that there is no evidence for?
Why is there so many conflicting ideas about that something?
If that something is omnipresent, what need has it of worship?

philologos

Cynical Apathy wrote: »

Why do so many worship something that there is no evidence for?

Is there no evidence for it? Hm?

himnextdoor

Jakkass wrote: »

Is there no evidence for it? Hm?

Except anecdotely, no.

Cynical Apathy

Jakkass wrote: »

Is there no evidence for it? Hm?

To look at the wonders of the Earth and Universe and say "God must have done it" is extremely primitive and very small minded... but we are all guilty of it at some point in our lives.

In the world of science there are many theory's based on evidence and equations as to the Universe, it's origins and how life fits into it. The baseless theory "God must have done it" does not feature in any scientific textbook, classroom or laboratory. I couldn't imagine Theoretical Physicists consulting the book of Genesis either.

That said, there is the awesome and overwhelming fact that we are here. In my mind, that fact and nothing else constitutes the bases for all religious belief.

Cynical Apathy

PDN wrote: »

Indeed it is. Christianity teaches something very different - that God is distinct from His creation.

What do you think that means (distinct)?
Is He outside of the Universe?

"In the beginning God created the Heavens and the Earth..."
Theologically, do the Heavens have to be the entire Universe or could it be a part of the Universe?

Fanny Cradock

Cynical Apathy wrote: »

To look at the wonders of the Earth and Universe and say "God must have done it" is extremely primitive and very small minded... but we are all guilty of it at some point in our lives.

It is possible to assert your atheism or whatever it is you believe without calling theists small minded and prone to primitive though. OK? Read the charter.

Cynical Apathy wrote: »

In the world of science there are many theory's based on evidence and equations as to the Universe, it's origins and how life fits into it. The baseless theory "God must have done it" does not feature in any scientific textbook, classroom or laboratory. I couldn't imagine Theoretical Physicists consulting the book of Genesis either.

And given that no one on this thread has posited the god of the gaps or stated that theoretical physicists should turn to Genesis for answer to physics your point is rather pointless. That said, it is clear that there are quite a number of physicists who do turn to Genesis for answers, but not the ones you assume.

Cynical Apathy

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

It is possible to assert your atheism or whatever it is you believe without calling theists small minded and prone to primitive though. OK? Read the charter.



And given that no one on this thread has posited the god of the gaps or stated that theoretical physicists should turn to Genesis for answer to physics your point is rather pointless. That said, it is clear that there are quite a number of physicists who do turn to Genesis for answers, but not the ones you assume.

There was a question concerning evidence for God to which I was replying to. I never said that theists were small minded. If one looks at the Wonders of the Universe and concludes "God done it" without exploring further, that imo would be primitive. A theist, for example would explore further through their religion (which I've done myself).

Honestly, I'm just trying to have an intelligent conversation about a topic I've a deep interest in. Of course people with opposing ideas will disagree but I've never intentionally tried to offend anyone and I would be grateful if people would choose not to get offended easily.

Again the question put to me was about evidence. The field of academics concerning evidence for God or the Universe is theoretical physics which is to the point.

hivizman

Cynical Apathy wrote: »

Again the question put to me was about evidence. The field of academics concerning evidence for God or the Universe is theoretical physics which is to the point.

Another field of academics concerning evidence for God (and indeed for the Universe) is theology. Theology shares with physics an acceptance of both logic/reason and observation as sources of knowledge. However, theology also accepts that revelation can be a source of knowledge.

"Why do so many worship something that there is no evidence for?" Worshippers consider that the holy scriptures or other foundational sources for their religion provide evidence, and also their personal experience is a source of evidence. Scientists might be sceptical about the evidential value of personal experience in general, and theologians might be suspicious of specific accounts of personal experience (especially when these do not tie in with their own beliefs), but theologians tend to be reluctant to rule out such accounts altogether.

The French philosopher Paul Ricoeur wrote about the concepts of "hermeneutics of faith" and "hermeneutics of suspicion" when it comes to interpreting texts, such as holy scriptures. "Hermeneutics of faith" attempts to make sense of a particular text from within a particular conceptual framework. Many theologians, and indeed adherents of religions more generally, read scripture from such a position. For example, in the Pope's recent book Jesus of Nazareth: Part II - From the Entrance into Jerusalem to the Resurrection, the author specifically states that he is writing from within the Christian tradition and hence is adopting a "hermeneutic of faith".

On the other hand, "hermeneutic of suspicion" implies that the reader is sceptical of the text and attempts to "deconstruct" the "real meanings" that are believed to be present. For Ricoeur, both approaches have their place - believers in a particular faith position need to step outside their framework and interrogate texts, while sceptics need to think about how a particular text "makes sense" to believers.

One of the reasons why theologians over the centuries have attempted to use logical reasoning to deduce the characteristics that God should have (if God exists) is because they have felt the need to ground their religious beliefs outside revealed scripture. Those who are sceptical about the evidentiary value of revelation, so it is thought, will be unable to resist the power of logic. But perhaps the logical arguments make sense only to those who already believe.

Fanny Cradock

Cynical Apathy wrote: »

There was a question concerning evidence for God to which I was replying to. I never said that theists were small minded. If one looks at the Wonders of the Universe and concludes "God done it" without exploring further, that imo would be primitive. A theist, for example would explore further through their religion (which I've done myself). [...] I would be grateful if people would choose not to get offended easily.

I'm not sure that anyone claimed to get offended. I'm asking you to modify your language so people don't. OK? I consider you fairly warned and the matter over. If you have a problem with what I've said there is a procedure in place.

Cynical Apathy wrote: »

Again the question put to me was about evidence. The field of academics concerning evidence for God or the Universe is theoretical physics which is to the point.

Your own thread isn't about the evidence for God or your theoretical physicist's thoughts on the God question.

What do you think that means (distinct)?
Is He outside of the Universe?

"In the beginning God created the Heavens and the Earth..."
Theologically, do the Heavens have to be the entire Universe or could it be a part of the Universe?

In orthodox Christian terms it means that God is uncreated and eternal, whereas the universe is created and finite. "The heavens" are understood to be God's realm - however one understands that - which is distinct from the material universe, and therefore time, space and matter. Eschatologically speaking, Christianity teaches that heaven and earth will join together in the new heavens and the new earth.

himnextdoor

hivizman wrote: »

"Why do so many worship something that there is no evidence for?" Worshippers consider that the holy scriptures or other foundational sources for their religion provide evidence, and also their personal experience is a source of evidence. Scientists might be sceptical about the evidential value of personal experience in general, and theologians might be suspicious of specific accounts of personal experience (especially when these do not tie in with their own beliefs), but theologians tend to be reluctant to rule out such accounts altogether.

I think that for the (possibly necessary) purpose of propogating the western social structures, members are 'groomed' from birth to view the world as having magical properties. From infancy we are taught that there are unknowable forces operating; fairies collect our teeth; Santa Claus comes down the chimney and doesn't get soot all over him...

By the time we come to learn about religion we are already conditioned into accepting fallacy on faith. Then we are taught from the Bible and our teachers tell us that the Bible is evidence. In fact, it is the teacher's job to make sure we understand 'correctly'.

As a result, and in the absense of a better explanation for, epiphanies that result in moral fortitude are accepted as revelations; 'Karmic balance' if you will, is attributed to a divine hand and then, of course, such experiences validate the evidential value of the Bible.

As religion requires faith, science requires skeptisism; two sides of the same coin. In the end, at the peak, their conclusions must be the same. When all the experiments are done, there will be either a shrug of the shoulders or a cry of 'Eureka'. And it will be the same for scientists.

hivizman wrote: »

One of the reasons why theologians over the centuries have attempted to use logical reasoning to deduce the characteristics that God should have (if God exists) is because they have felt the need to ground their religious beliefs outside revealed scripture. Those who are sceptical about the evidentiary value of revelation, so it is thought, will be unable to resist the power of logic. But perhaps the logical arguments make sense only to those who already believe.

Yes and what better way of ascertaining at least some of the characteristics of God than from knowledge of the operation of the universe.

We tend to think of existence as creation when in fact it is a process of destruction; meteors pepper the sufaces of planets; planets collide; stars destroy hydrogen; stars explode; living cells destroy sugar; all of which are violent, chaotic and destructive processes and have resulted (so far) in the universe as we see it today.

Three things I know about the creator of the universe; it is violent, chaotic and destructive.

Hm! That's interesting. The three are one. A trinity.