Who/What is god? Given the prevalence of the notion of god in the Abrahamic sense of the word, who or what really is this character?

Those who claim to be in communion with god, can they give a definition of this character that is logical, consistent and lacking in contradiction. How does one come to obtain information about god, and is it possible to know god's wishes?

====================================================================================

The atheist does not say "There is no God, but he says, I know not what you mean by God. I am without the idea of God; the word 'God' is to me a sound conveying no clear and distinct affirmation." - Charles Bradlaugh

The god is the formless but if you want to feel of presence of god you can! some of the philosophy they say the god comes in this world which is 100% right, at present the god is now here in our physical world, !

niman

Any answers?

huxley:

Any answers?

No Answers

huxley:

Who/What is god? Given the prevalence of the notion of god in the Abrahamic sense of the word, who or what really is this character?

Those who claim to be in communion with god, can they give a definition of this character that is logical, consistent and lacking in contradiction. How does one come to obtain information about god, and is it possible to know god's wishes?

====================================================================================

The atheist does not say "There is no God, but he says, I know not what you mean by God. I am without the idea of God; the word 'God' is to me a sound conveying no clear and distinct affirmation." - Charles Bradlaugh

The existence of God can be proved in five ways.


1.) The first and more manifest way is the argument from motion. It is certain, and evident to our senses, that in the world some things are in motion. Now whatever is in motion is put in motion by another, for nothing can be in motion except it is in potentiality to that towards which it is in motion; whereas a thing moves inasmuch as it is in act. For motion is nothing else than the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality. But nothing can be reduced from potentiality to actuality, except by something in a state of actuality. Thus that which is actually hot, as fire, makes wood, which is potentially hot, to be actually hot, and thereby moves and changes it. Now it is not possible that the same thing should be at once in actuality and potentiality in the same respect, but only in different respects. For what is actually hot cannot simultaneously be potentially hot; but it is simultaneously potentially cold. It is therefore impossible that in the same respect and in the same way a thing should be both mover and moved, i.e. that it should move itself. Therefore, whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another. If that by which it is put in motion be itself put in motion, then this also must needs be put in motion by another, and that by another again. But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and, consequently, no other mover; seeing that subsequent movers move only inasmuch as they are put in motion by the first mover; as the staff moves only because it is put in motion by the hand. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God.


2.) The second way is from the nature of the efficient cause. In the world of sense we find there is an order of efficient causes. There is no case known (neither is it, indeed, possible) in which a thing is found to be the efficient cause of itself; for so it would be prior to itself, which is impossible. Now in efficient causes it is not possible to go on to infinity, because in all efficient causes following in order, the first is the cause of the intermediate cause, and the intermediate is the cause of the ultimate cause, whether the intermediate cause be several, or only one. Now to take away the cause is to take away the effect. Therefore, if there be no first cause among efficient causes, there will be no ultimate, nor any intermediate cause. But if in efficient causes it is possible to go on to infinity, there will be no first efficient cause, neither will there be an ultimate effect, nor any intermediate efficient causes; all of which is plainly false. Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God.


3.) The third way is taken from possibility and necessity, and runs thus. We find in nature things that are possible to be and not to be, since they are found to be generated, and to corrupt, and consequently, they are possible to be and not to be. But it is impossible for these always to exist, for that which is possible not to be at some time is not. Therefore, if everything is possible not to be, then at one time there could have been nothing in existence. Now if this were true, even now there would be nothing in existence, because that which does not exist only begins to exist by something already existing. Therefore, if at one time nothing was in existence, it would have been impossible for anything to have begun to exist; and thus even now nothing would be in existence — which is absurd. Therefore, not all beings are merely possible, but there must exist something the existence of which is necessary. But every necessary thing either has its necessity caused by another, or not. Now it is impossible to go on to infinity in necessary things which have their necessity caused by another, as has been already proved in regard to efficient causes. Therefore we cannot but postulate the existence of some being having of itself its own necessity, and not receiving it from another, but rather causing in others their necessity. This all men speak of as God.


4.) The fourth way is taken from the gradation to be found in things. Among beings there are some more and some less good, true, noble and the like. But "more" and "less" are predicated of different things, according as they resemble in their different ways something which is the maximum, as a thing is said to be hotter according as it more nearly resembles that which is hottest; so that there is something which is truest, something best, something noblest and, consequently, something which is uttermost being; for those things that are greatest in truth are greatest in being, as it is written in Metaph. ii. Now the maximum in any genus is the cause of all in that genus; as fire, which is the maximum heat, is the cause of all hot things. Therefore there must also be something which is to all beings the cause of their being, goodness, and every other perfection; and this we call God.


5.) The fifth way is taken from the governance of the world. We see that things which lack intelligence, such as natural bodies, act for an end, and this is evident from their acting always, or nearly always, in the same way, so as to obtain the best result. Hence it is plain that not fortuitously, but designedly, do they achieve their end. Now whatever lacks intelligence cannot move towards an end, unless it be directed by some being endowed with knowledge and intelligence; as the arrow is shot to its mark by the archer. Therefore some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this being we call God.

imhotep:


The existence of God can be proved in five ways.


1.) The first and more manifest way is the argument from motion. It is certain, and evident to our senses, that in the world some things are in motion. Now whatever is in motion is put in motion by another, for nothing can be in motion except it is in potentiality to that towards which it is in motion; whereas a thing moves inasmuch as it is in act. For motion is nothing else than the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality. But nothing can be reduced from potentiality to actuality, except by something in a state of actuality. Thus that which is actually hot, as fire, makes wood, which is potentially hot, to be actually hot, and thereby moves and changes it. Now it is not possible that the same thing should be at once in actuality and potentiality in the same respect, but only in different respects. For what is actually hot cannot simultaneously be potentially hot; but it is simultaneously potentially cold. It is therefore impossible that in the same respect and in the same way a thing should be both mover and moved, i.e. that it should move itself. Therefore, whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another. If that by which it is put in motion be itself put in motion, then this also must needs be put in motion by another, and that by another again. But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and, consequently, no other mover; seeing that subsequent movers move only inasmuch as they are put in motion by the first mover; as the staff moves only because it is put in motion by the hand. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God.


2.) The second way is from the nature of the efficient cause. In the world of sense we find there is an order of efficient causes. There is no case known (neither is it, indeed, possible) in which a thing is found to be the efficient cause of itself; for so it would be prior to itself, which is impossible. Now in efficient causes it is not possible to go on to infinity, because in all efficient causes following in order, the first is the cause of the intermediate cause, and the intermediate is the cause of the ultimate cause, whether the intermediate cause be several, or only one. Now to take away the cause is to take away the effect. Therefore, if there be no first cause among efficient causes, there will be no ultimate, nor any intermediate cause. But if in efficient causes it is possible to go on to infinity, there will be no first efficient cause, neither will there be an ultimate effect, nor any intermediate efficient causes; all of which is plainly false. Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God.


3.) The third way is taken from possibility and necessity, and runs thus. We find in nature things that are possible to be and not to be, since they are found to be generated, and to corrupt, and consequently, they are possible to be and not to be. But it is impossible for these always to exist, for that which is possible not to be at some time is not. Therefore, if everything is possible not to be, then at one time there could have been nothing in existence. Now if this were true, even now there would be nothing in existence, because that which does not exist only begins to exist by something already existing. Therefore, if at one time nothing was in existence, it would have been impossible for anything to have begun to exist; and thus even now nothing would be in existence — which is absurd. Therefore, not all beings are merely possible, but there must exist something the existence of which is necessary. But every necessary thing either has its necessity caused by another, or not. Now it is impossible to go on to infinity in necessary things which have their necessity caused by another, as has been already proved in regard to efficient causes. Therefore we cannot but postulate the existence of some being having of itself its own necessity, and not receiving it from another, but rather causing in others their necessity. This all men speak of as God.


4.) The fourth way is taken from the gradation to be found in things. Among beings there are some more and some less good, true, noble and the like. But "more" and "less" are predicated of different things, according as they resemble in their different ways something which is the maximum, as a thing is said to be hotter according as it more nearly resembles that which is hottest; so that there is something which is truest, something best, something noblest and, consequently, something which is uttermost being; for those things that are greatest in truth are greatest in being, as it is written in Metaph. ii. Now the maximum in any genus is the cause of all in that genus; as fire, which is the maximum heat, is the cause of all hot things. Therefore there must also be something which is to all beings the cause of their being, goodness, and every other perfection; and this we call God.


5.) The fifth way is taken from the governance of the world. We see that things which lack intelligence, such as natural bodies, act for an end, and this is evident from their acting always, or nearly always, in the same way, so as to obtain the best result. Hence it is plain that not fortuitously, but designedly, do they achieve their end. Now whatever lacks intelligence cannot move towards an end, unless it be directed by some being endowed with knowledge and intelligence; as the arrow is shot to its mark by the archer. Therefore some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this being we call God.

This is a case for his existence. My questions is about his identity. Can't you do better?

huxley:

This is a case for his existence.

Yes, God exists.

huxley:

My questions is about his identity. Can't you do better?

God exists and has an identity. For anyone to have an identity, that person must first exist.

huxley:

Can't you do better?

Prayer is the way to find out His identity. Question is => do you pray?

You might want to google "Ascent of Mount Carmel" ---- beautiful book on prayer.

Also google "Cloud of Unknowing" ---- wonderful book.

if you want to know the identity of God Read the history of moses in median in Mountain of Sinai when God called Him

This is actually a great question. The sense of identity was created and is part of the human psychological make up. It is an effect of the brain. It is possible for it to abate. For instance there are times when you might 'lose yourself' in a moment, like if you are engrossed in a task of some sort.
That is one's sense of identity and self awareness, however such identity that another might form about you is a totally different matter.

Someone might point to my physical body and say that is me. But is it? Someone might list a whole heap of characteristics and say that is me. But would it be? Does anyone really get anyone else, or anything else for that matter. Are we all not limited by our perspectives? As soon as we experience something or someone we immediately mold the experience into a concept. Preconceptions too affect the way in which we experience things and conceptualise the experience.

So this question does not just apply to God but to everything that we might experience. Who is God? Who or what is anything?

Any description is a distinguishing thing. it distinguishes him from other agents that would be described differently.

To describe him as the creator of the universe is to distinguish him from other agents it would seem. Yet since everything has it's source and root from creation, actually what that does is it makes him the main Agent in every activities that occurs in the universe. In other words indistinguishable from every other agent. He is the original agent behind the agent. The source and the essence of all beings.

Seeing how hard it is to define and distinguish God from any other aspect of the universe I think . . . . hmmmm what do I think?

God says in the Q.ur'an thus: And I did not create Jinn and man, except that they serve Me,,

The nature of God, no man can encompass it. No one who had ever walked on the surface of this earth. No even His Angels, who are spiritual beings.

Huxley, Imhotep,

As I move around I am beginning to see that you guys bring arguments that provoke and incite the mind to reach into the depth of its sphere and reason for justifiable response, or as I am fond to say "search for the truth inherent in the soul". I give you guys credit. I hope your arguments are genuine intellectual responses emanating from within your own conscience and not word lift from intellectual and literary works produced by other people.

To understand God you must understand basic fundamental principles of creation - time, distance, space and reality.

Each one of those principles is in turn a complement of the other and they are all tied to one word - RELATIVITY.
Relativity is the existence upon which physicality is given limitations. When aspects are no longer bound to the limitations of relativity then they become METAPHYSICS - the absence of time, distance, space and reality. It is not a vacuum as some people might suggest.

God is all around us in manifest (consciousness) and He is also around us in spirit (unconsciousness). There is a self propagating drive in each of us and that drive is geared towards identifying, proclaiming and manifesting the TRUTH wherever and whenever we encounter and interact with the environment (people, trees, animals, elements, etc) There comes a time when the TRUTH shall be so saturated and has accumulated enough density that the individual can completely separate himself/herself from bodily appetittes and attain super naturality. That is becomes like GOD. Not GOD but like GOD.

In my opinion, GOD is the absolute force without which that self propagating drive would not have existed in the first place and the cosmic energy of life force would not at all have been a known phenomenon.

I can go on and expand on this thought but then it becomes an unending discussion on the search for truth and life purpose. We live in a physical world of relativities, somethings must end some time. So with that I end this one.

I will talk about this again sometime. I do have a feedback to give you Huxley. Concentrate your efforts. You are doing a fantastic job but your energies with these discussions are scatterred. I commented on your topic on Exegetical Analysis. Within that topic alone you could have accomplished all these searches that you have broken into different topics. Keep one topic and build on it, who knows you mighthave enough contributions to write a book. Be sure though that you make it clear that people contribute their genuine thoughts and if it happens that they are making reference, to quote the source. You don't want to write a book, make millions and end up loosing it all and in addition, owe money if your earnings did not fully satisfy the lawsuit. lol.

Take Care.

Negro_Ntns:

Huxley, Imhotep,

As I move around I am beginning to see that you guys bring arguments that provoke and incite the mind to reach into the depth of its sphere and reason for justifiable response, or as I am fond to say "search for the truth inherent in the soul". I give you guys credit. I hope your arguments are genuine intellectual responses emanating from within your own conscience and not word lift from intellectual and literary works produced by other people.

Thanks for the comments, my brother. I, for one, stand on the shoulders of many many giants. I try as much as possible to imbibe their thoughts, digest them, and extend them in my own experience.


Let me also add that God is darkness to our five senses. This is probably why the mystics (who have had wonderful, direct experiences of God), all speak of a self-abnegation that their path to God entailed.

Imhotep,

Good day to you. For someone who is well read, I find it hard to comprehend that you will say God is darkness in our five senses. I do not want to believe you actually meant it in the way I perceive it.

A part of me suggests that you idolize God and revere Him in His Eminence so vast that no sense (touch, smell, earing, taste, sight) can fully comprehend. Hence the use of that metaphor in your statement. If this were the case, I would agree with you.

Another part of me wonders if you actually meant that our senses are void of God's presence. If as I suspect, this is where you are leading, then in its literal form and intent I cannot disagree with you more.

I do not want to pre-empt your conclusion on this statement so please clarify the meaning.

Thanks,
Negro.

@Imhotep: I have been waiting for your answer or response to Negro_Ntns, who thought the world of you. He seems to be leaning in the direction of the camp that you have great intelligence, and your love for God is superb. Please don't fail/disappoint him in this regard. Step up to the plate and explain yourself.

I thought Negro_Ntns, was very generous to you, since he did not truly challenge you to explain your deficient or almost negative thought about God, while he was over enhancing the aspect of you that gave a hint of love and reverence. Please explain yourself.

@Huxley: When you said Identity of God is what you are looking for, please expalin yourself. This is so because I would like to clearly know the parameter you are working with: you need a name, a characteristic? What do you need exactly? Are you looking for what is unique about God, that no other entity has? Please make yourself clear as can be.

There is no reason providing you with an answer and then you move the post a little bit, later. In all of these, what is it that you are intending to achieve, or its just a matter of simple no beneficial dialogue? I hope this is not your avenue to let off steam? I hope Mrs, the African sister is taking good care of you? I also hope you are enjoying fatherhood? Atheist or Agnotist needs what is expected that "normal" human adult male needs.

Ola,

In all intellectual discussions it is my intent to be generous and trusting and give everyone a benefit of the doubt for what may later turn out in their work to be an unauthorized copy/lift from someone else's original and authentic contribution. There is no way to know upfront who is legitimate and who is not. I do not bleed my opponents, I put the sword within their reach and lay back and enjoy the dialogue, at the appropriate hour they know what to do.

I have trust in Imhotep's ability to respond satisfactorily to my question. I have seen his work in other rooms and I do not believe he has use for the sword.

I hope to chat again with you my friend. Hopefully we will run into one another on these inquisitions for truth.

Take Care

Negro_Ntns:

Imhotep,

Good day to you. For someone who is well read, I find it hard to comprehend that you will say God is darkness in our five senses. I do not want to believe you actually meant it in the way I perceive it.

God is darkness TO our five senses.

Negro_Ntns:

A part of me suggests that you idolize God and revere Him in His Eminence so vast that no sense (touch, smell, earing, taste, sight) can fully comprehend. Hence the use of that metaphor in your statement. If this were the case, I would agree with you.

Yes, [barring extraordinary revelations] , touch, smell, earing, taste and sight CANNOT fully comprehend God. That is why faith is always needed.

Negro_Ntns:

Another part of me wonders if you actually meant that our senses are void of God's presence. If as I suspect, this is where you are leading, then in its literal form and intent I cannot disagree with you more.

Not what I meant.

God is the maker of heaven and earth. the one who was who is and will be forever.the first and the last.his is the same yesterday,today and forever.the saviour of world. the giver of life.

@Imhotep:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote from: Negro_Ntns on June 02, 2008, 08:05 PM
Imhotep,

Good day to you. For someone who is well read, I find it hard to comprehend that you will say God is darkness in our five senses. I do not want to believe you actually meant it in the way I perceive it.

God is darkness TO our five senses.


Quote from: Negro_Ntns on June 02, 2008, 08:05 PM
A part of me suggests that you idolize God and revere Him in His Eminence so vast that no sense (touch, smell, earing, taste, sight) can fully comprehend. Hence the use of that metaphor in your statement. If this were the case, I would agree with you.

Yes, [barring extraordinary revelations] , touch, smell, earing, taste and sight CANNOT fully comprehend God. That is why faith is always needed.

Imhotep, it seems to me then, that no one on earth has ever seen Him. I know that a verse exist in the Bible that declares this special condition of God. Many verses verses do the same in the AlQur'an about Allah, the name of God in Arabic. In this respect we agree. Even the Atheist and Agnostics agree with us. It is this very reason of them not being able to capture or verify His being within the 5 senses that they concluded that He does not exist. So far w are alright.

But here is the difference, while the Muslims believe that He is never seen at anything by anyone n earth, the Bible turns around and make claims that He has been seen in forms; in a unique form when Moses saw His neck. In other settings as just ordinary human when He was in the company of His Angel to visit Abrahim to announce the birth of Isaac. The angels proceeded to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah. He started the fight as Himself and ended it as Angel all in one single wrestle with Jacob. Then of course the famous one, Jesus being Him, as well as being His son while he is being His prophet, all the while being a child to Mary/son of man.

If these two camps of ideas are 180 degrees to each other, I ask you then which one is correct? Why is there not a disclaimer about the incorrect one? We do not have the same condition in the AlQur'an or for that matter Hadith that explains the verses of this Book. But when ever we have something that changes, it is always in progression to purity of faith. The earlier condition is always abrogated by a newer condition. The newer condition is always better, or similar in a way, but never a denial of the earlier existed condition.

But in this case with the Bible, the fact that the verse says no one has ever seen God, simply means that it completely opposes and denies every and all possibilities of sighting before, during and after this verse was stated as a matter of fact in the Bible.

Please explain. I permits you to use all means of instruments/tools of exegesis. But it must apply to both camps of sighting and unsighting in the same form and strength. Please apply "Sola Scriptura." I will like to see how these two camps of ideas come togethr to mean the same thing.

olabowale:

@Imhotep:
Imhotep, it seems to me then, that no one on earth has ever seen Him. I know that a verse exist in the Bible that declares this special condition of God. Many verses verses do the same in the AlQur'an about Allah, the name of God in Arabic. In this respect we agree. Even the Atheist and Agnostics agree with us. It is this very reason of them not being able to capture or verify His being within the 5 senses that they concluded that He does not exist. So far w are alright.

Very good.

olabowale:

But here is the difference, while the Muslims believe that He is never seen at anything by anyone n earth,

Does this not amount to telling God what to do and when to appear and disappear?
Christianity does not do this. God acts as He pleases, and Christians do not question Him or try to limit Him.

olabowale:

the Bible turns around and make claims that He has been seen in forms; in a unique form when Moses saw His neck. In other settings as just ordinary human when He was in the company of His Angel to visit Abrahim to announce the birth of Isaac. The angels proceeded to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah. He started the fight as Himself and ended it as Angel all in one single wrestle with Jacob. Then of course the famous one, Jesus being Him, as well as being His son while he is being His prophet, all the while being a child to Mary/son of man.

Yes. In the bible God is recorded as having taken the FORM of a cloud, pillar of smoke, gentle breeze etc.
But God IS NOT cloud, pillar of smoke, gentle breeze etc. . HE IS NOT A THING. Clear enough??

olabowale:

If these two camps of ideas are 180 degrees to each other, I ask you then which one is correct?

My opinion is that BOTH are correct. God cannot be seen as He is. So, He TAKES THE FORM OF THINGS in order to be seen sometimes. God takes the form of Jesus (a man like us) in order to teach us and to redeem us and show us the way.

BTW, a medieval philospher/theologian, while thinking about the person of Jesus being God-incarnate, exhaustively discussed the two questions:
-> Is God man?
-> Is man God?
But his discussion is beyond the scope of Nairaland.

olabowale:

Why is there not a disclaimer about the incorrect one? We do not have the same condition in the AlQur'an or for that matter Hadith that explains the verses of this Book. But when ever we have something that changes, it is always in progression to purity of faith. The earlier condition is always abrogated by a newer condition. The newer condition is always better, or similar in a way, but never a denial of the earlier existed condition.

A disclaimer is NOT NECESSARY.

olabowale:

But in this case with the Bible, the fact that the verse says no one has ever seen God, simply means that it completely opposes and denies every and all possibilities of sighting before, during and after this verse was stated as a matter of fact in the Bible.

No opposition here. Just a situation that needs to be better and more clearly understood.

olabowale:

Please explain. I permits you to use all means of instruments/tools of exegesis. But it must apply to both camps of sighting and unsighting in the same form and strength. Please apply "Sola Scriptura." I will like to see how these two camps of ideas come togethr to mean the same thing.

No contradiction between the two camps. So, no need to explain.