Hello everyone, I hope all who read this are doing as well as possible and if not, may thing improve. I have been reading many of the new and old post in the religion section of Nairaland on debates between atheist,theist, and deist. What struck me as unusual is that not once throughout the threads I have read, has anyone asked for a definition of what God IS much less given one. Obviously the sentence "What is God" will mean very different things to very many people. How can anyone have a reasoned discussion about God without first establishing what God is? For example, it would not make sense to ask a Chinese peasant to evaluate the truth or falsity of the the statement a vuvuzela exist if he has no idea what vuvuzela is. So what I want to do in this thread is ask for a positive definition of what God is.

For those who are curious, I consider myself an ignostic on the matter of god. I believe it is pointless to make inquiries about God with out first having a positive definition as it would be like the vuvuzela example I gave above. Anything said about the vuvuzela by the peasant or god by me would be out of pure ignorance of what I am talking about and thus meaningless. Along to those lines, definitions given must be logically coherent as it is simply impossible for me to knowingly make logical evaluations about illogical concepts. One example of answers I have heard to this question, is that god is supernatural or transcendent(not necessarily the same) but is also a being capable of human emotion, altering the material world and has taken the form of material objects several times culminating in Jesus. God cannot be both transcendent and supernatural (exist outside the material and natural world) and at the same time be material and part of the natural world. You cannot use terms that are derived to from the natural and material, to define that which is intrinsically NOT natural and NOT material. Otherwise how would one distinguish the two. Furthermore, what does it mean to exist when your transcendent and supernatural? How can one tell the difference between non existence and existence within a supernatural and/or transcendent framework whatever that may be?

So I would like to get a discussion going of what God IS going. Post what you think god is or critique(kindly please) what others think about it. If you don't think god can be defined, talk about it. Especially if you adhere to a religion such as Christianity. Also if you choose to reference scripture, please explain how you interpret the scripture as it can be helpful in preventing misunderstandings. I look forward to the replies (if any). Thanks

Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muss man schweigen.
Translated: Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent. (7)
Also: About what one can not speak, one must remain silent. (7)

Wittgenstein

Idehn:

Hello everyone, I hope all who read this are doing as well as possible and if not, may thing improve. I have been reading many of the new and old post in the religion section of Nairaland on debates between atheist,theist, and deist. What struck me as unusual is that not once throughout the threads I have read, has anyone asked for a definition of what God IS much less given one. Obviously the sentence "What is God" will mean very different things to very many people. How can anyone have a reasoned discussion about God without first establishing what God is? For example, it would not make sense to ask a Chinese peasant to evaluate the truth or falsity of the the statement a vuvuzela exist if he has no idea what vuvuzela is. So what I want to do in this thread is ask for a positive definition of what God is.

For those who are curious, I consider myself an ignostic on the matter of god. I believe it is pointless to make inquiries about God with out first having a positive definition as it would be like the vuvuzela example I gave above. Anything said about the vuvuzela by the peasant or god by me would be out of pure ignorance of what I am talking about and thus meaningless. Along to those lines, definitions given must be logically coherent as it is simply impossible for me to knowingly make logical evaluations about illogical concepts. One example of answers I have heard to this question, is that god is supernatural or transcendent(not necessarily the same) but is also a being capable of human emotion, altering the material world and has taken the form of material objects several times culminating in Jesus. God cannot be both transcendent and supernatural (exist outside the material and natural world) and at the same time be material and part of the natural world. You cannot use terms that are derived to from the natural and material, to define that which is intrinsically NOT natural and NOT material. Otherwise how would one distinguish the two. Furthermore, what does it mean to exist when your transcendent and supernatural? How can one tell the difference between non existence and existence within a supernatural and/or transcendent framework whatever that may be?

So I would like to get a discussion going of what God IS going. Post what you think god is or critique(kindly please) what others think about it. If you don't think god can be defined, talk about it. Especially if you adhere to a religion such as Christianity. Also if you choose to reference scripture, please explain how you interpret the scripture as it can be helpful in preventing misunderstandings. I look forward to the replies (if any). Thanks

GOD IS -

1. The unity of all infinite reality

2. The uncaused cause of all existence

3. The centrifugal and centripetal core-essence of intangible eternity

4. The flash of lightening glimpsed by the gypsies cuddled in a passion-steamed cave.

i am that i am

Lol!

I guess, " your definition is that what it is".

NOWORRIES:

i am that i am

All of the gods that people believe in are extra powerful supernatural beings created in the minds of early humans to explain our existence on this planet.
There are thousands of different gods that people around the world worship and they all have very different attributes and definitions.

Even people who worship the same god define that god in many different ways.

Gods can sometimes be like comic book superheroes in the eyes of their fans/admirers followers/worshipers. Who is more powerful, Captain America or Captain Britain? Superman or Batman? Wonder Woman or Catwoman?

@Deep Sight

1. The unity of all infinite reality

2. The uncaused cause of all existence

3. The centrifugal and centripetal core-essence of intangible eternity

4. The flash of lightening glimpsed by the gypsies cuddled in a passion-steamed cave.

These are very beautiful articulate statements but I am not sure they all really helping convey your definition.

For example
1. What do you mean by the unity infinite reality? Are defining God as the Universe or all events in the Universe?

2. I think this could be a valid part of a definition of God or the definition in and of itself. Do you mean this in a empirical sense?
As in are you making the proposition that the Universe was created and that God is defined as thing that initiated it.

3. Although I see centrifugal and centripetal as mutually exclusive concepts it may still be coherent. But it depends on what you mean
by core essence of intangible eternity. Using just the definition of the words themselves I would think you are talking about the intrinsic
nature of time itself since time is a concept that cannot be sensed and pertains to eternity. Is that what you mean by this. Alone it
would seem that you define God in part as the concept of Time. But if that is case I do not see how centrifugal and centripetal fits as
these two concepts reference physical phenomena such as planetary orbit and inertia on a rotating body.

4 Are defining God as the human experiences of amazement of nature and love related to the event or the event in and of itself? Do define God
as an event or as a grouping of human emotions or even both?

@NOWORRIES

That statement is not really a definition as much as recognition of existence ones own existance. Are you defining God
as the expression itself, or the ability to recognize your own existence. I know I may sound facetious but I really am not
trying to be. I am just trying confirm that my interpretation of your definition is the same as yours. That why am asking
a so many questions.

Deep Sight:

GOD IS -

1. The unity of all infinite reality

2. The uncaused cause of all existence

3. The centrifugal and centripetal core-essence of intangible eternity

4. The flash of lightening glimpsed by the gypsies cuddled in a passion-steamed cave.

This is complete BS but i'll give you points for delivery.

1. don't you mean the unity of willful ignorance and hope?
2. that definition also applies to the big bang, please be specific
3. doesn't make sense at all. something can't be both centrifugal and centripetal they are opposites but i suppose you'll start giving some poetic description how he is both going from the centre and moving toward the centre.

4. lightening is a discharge of electricity

lol, Analissa. Bravo.

God's nature can not be fully understood. I believe we can only get glimpses of what he is capable of and perhaps what He wants from us i.e. what He wants us to do or not do. It seems impossible to separate wishful thinking from what we actually know of God, assuming He exists, which I believe.

God is beyond definition.

Man canever know God. Man can only know of God.

The closest thing that come to the definition of God is as follows:

"God is  . . . ."    

Try to complete the above sentence with your intuitive perception. Your brain cannever conceive anything that is even remotely similar to God. Only your spirit can, at best, know of God.

@Analissa
Yeah, most of the definitions Deep Sight gave were difficult to draw meaning & coherency from or could be applied to other things. But I am giving him the benefit of doubt that he could still make them work if he could define the more nebular (core essence for example) in a way that could resolve some of the contradictory terms (centrifugal & centripetal for example). Good point about the big bang too, as I was only thinking he could be talking about the Universe as a whole and not the Universe at that particular time.

@Vescucci
I agree that God could be defined as something only partially comprehensible in the same way that we cannot comprehend shapes visually beyond the 3 dimensions. But in order to have this and your other beliefs you must have a definition of God that at least suggest that it has "wants" and can "act" upon/within the Universe in some way. Might you be willing to give us that definition? There are many things that fit your description so far. Humans for example, have wants, can act on the material universe, exist, and are only partially comprehensible as no human can fully understand another humans actions/thoughts/memory/body structure etc,  But of course I do not think you mean to say God=a Human or dolphin or whatever thinking organism that dwells on Earth and possibly beyond. We need a more complete definition, else how do we differentiate God from other things?

@justcool
But you just defined God by saying God IS beyond definition. It unfortunately creates the same peculiar paradox as saying "Nothing can be known for certain". I think there needs to be more to this definition to resolve the paradox such as God it that not within our Universe. By that way God would not be able to be defined any further. However, saying God is beyond definition is itself a definition of what God is.

What do you mean by spirit. That is another word that I have yet to see a definition for. I have heard it described as life force and human essences but those terms themselves lack and meaningful definition. Life force for example, for example could mean the fundamental forces of nature related to life such as Gravity, Electromagnetism, Strong Nuclear Force, and Weak Nuclear Force, but I do not think that this is what is meant by spirit. Can you provide a definition of Spirit? With a definition it would certainly help us see how it relates to God.

Analissa:

This is complete BS

Smile.

but i'll give you points for delivery.

Merci, madame.

1. don't you mean the unity of willful ignorance and hope?

With respect, madam, I do not see how wilfull ignorance and hope enter this discussion; or anything that I laid out.

I had stated that God is the unity of all infinite reality.

If you agree that -

1. Reality is reality (or more simply put: that things exist) - a self affirming statement -

2. That there may be no limit on existence - thus that reality is infinite

Then you could NOT conceivably arrive at the conclusion that that definition of God is, as you so elegantly misconceived it - "BS."

2. that definition also applies to the big bang, please be specific

I am both amused and alarmed at this mistatement, especially coming from you.

I stated that God is the uncaused cause of all existence. You have tragically remarked that that may also be said of the big bang. That is a tragic statement because -

1. There existed something before the Big Bang. Scientists call it a singularity. The Big Bang is not said to be an expansion from nothing: it is said to be an expansion from the point of a singularity. There you have it: so a singularity predated the Big Bang - so the Big Bang could NOT be the cause of that singularity, capisce?

What you should ask yourself is what that singularity is: and how and why it existed. It is clear that the big bang does not explain that: nor is it a cause for that: as teh singularity predated the expansion which is referred to as the Big Bang. It would be nice if you would take a moment to reflect before hurling vulgar language, ok?

2. You have no evidence whatsoever to assert to me that the Big Bang was "uncaused." Indeed the Cosmological argument for the existence of God refined by Thomas Aquinas states reasonably and succintly the principle that whatever begins to exist must have a cause. Given that the Big Bang expansion began - then it is a given that it had a cause.

So there, madam, it is altogether misfooted to describe the Big Bang as the uncaused cause of all existence.

3. doesn't make sense at all. something can't be both centrifugal and centripetal they are opposites but i suppose you'll start giving some poetic description how he is both going from the centre and moving toward the centre.

When the thing being described is said to encapsulate ALL EXISTENCE, then it surely encapsulates all that exists; yes - including Light and Darkness, positive and negative, up and down, plus and minus. . . et all. . .

Analissa:

4. lightening is a discharge of electricity

Don't make me laugh. Next you will attempt to tell me what the gypsies i refferred to are: or what the passion-steamed cave I referred to is.

Clearly suggested meaning and poetry cannot be your strongest suit.

Someone hinted above at the quality of wonder at the reality about us. . .go figure.

I didn't attempt to give any definition of God as I'm not utterly familiar with Him. I just think there are some characteristics He MUST have and others He doesn't necessarily HAVE to but we like to thrust upon Him because we like to sleep feeling all warm and fuzzy inside. I'll attempt a definition later though.

what is God?

GOD IS.

any other thing you add to that definition becomes your limitation.

those who have seen a glimpse of the face of God can only describe what they saw with poetry as there is no human words fit enough to describe the full majesty of God.

in the pure heavenly realms where the supreme God dwells, words do not exist there.

@Idehn

I will answer your question later; please perdon me. I gave all my nairaland time today to another thread. But I have you in mind and I will definitely return to deal with your question.

thanks

He is beyond defination.

Deep Sight:

Smile.

Merci, madame.

With respect, madam, I do not see how wilfull ignorance and hope enter this discussion; or anything that I laid out.

I had stated that God is the unity of all infinite reality.

If you agree that -

1. Reality is reality (or more simply put: that things exist) - a self affirming statement -

2. That there may be no limit on existence - thus that reality is infinite

Then you could NOT conceivably arrive at the conclusion that that definition of God is, as you so elegantly misconceived it - "BS."

Ah deepsight we meet again
Forgive my first statement as it is entirely my definition. Fear no that i misconstrued your definition and the affectionate term that i gave was not meant to offend, pardon me if it did.

Deep Sight:

I am both amused and alarmed at this mistatement, especially coming from you.

I stated that God is the uncaused cause of all existence. You have tragically remarked that that may also be said of the big bang. That is a tragic statement because -

1. There existed something before the Big Bang. Scientists call it a singularity. The Big Bang is not said to be an expansion from nothing: it is said to be an expansion from the point of a singularity. There you have it: so a singularity predated the Big Bang - so the Big Bang could NOT be the cause of that singularity, capisce?

What you should ask yourself is what that singularity is: and how and why it existed. It is clear that the big bang does not explain that: nor is it a cause for that: as teh singularity predated the expansion which is referred to as the Big Bang. It would be nice if you would take a moment to reflect before hurling vulgar language, ok?

2. You have no evidence whatsoever to assert to me that the Big Bang was "uncaused." Indeed the Cosmological argument for the existence of God refined by Thomas Aquinas states reasonably and succintly the principle that whatever begins to exist must have a cause. Given that the Big Bang expansion began - then it is a given that it had a cause.

So there, madam, it is altogether misfooted to describe the Big Bang as the uncaused cause of all existence.

Firstly, i am flattered that you hold me in such high esteem as to be alarmed at a supposed scientific error.
On with it, I am well aware of what the singularity is. scientists dont know that the singularity definitely predated the big bang (if indeed the big bang theory is correct) it is simply speculation. Now even if the singularity predated the big bang it isn't a cause. Instead of getting into quantum physics and cosmology i'll direct you to an article that explains the gravitational theory: http://www.fortunecity.com/emachines/e11/86/big-bang.html

Cosmological argument

I have had many discussions about this argument and will now repeat what i always say.

1. Self-contradictory, if everything as you say needs to be caused, what caused God?
2. Usually the response given by whoever is that God is the exception. What i ask is why does the exception have to be God? why can't it be the big bang or the chinese idea of the universe springing out of a pod.
3. The series of cause and effect has to end at some point even when people say it extends to infinity so why cant it regress in a similar way?

Deep Sight:

When the thing being described is said to encapsulate ALL EXISTENCE, then it surely encapsulates all that exists; yes - including Light and Darkness, positive and negative, up and down, plus and minus. . . et all. . .

That is the poetic explanation i was expecting.

Deep Sight:

Don't make me laugh. Next you will attempt to tell me what the gypsies i refferred to are: or what the passion-steamed cave I referred to is.

Clearly suggested meaning and poetry cannot be your strongest suit.

Someone hinted above at the quality of wonder at the reality about us. . .go figure.

nope i deal with fact and science.

toodles

toodles

Analissa:

Ah deepsight we meet again
Forgive my first statement as it is entirely my definition. Fear no that i misconstrued your definition and the affectionate term that i gave was not meant to offend, pardon me if it did.

No problemo, Monalisa!

On with it, I am well aware of what the singularity is. scientists dont know that the singularity definitely predated the big bang (if indeed the big bang theory is correct) it is simply speculation. Now even if the singularity predated the big bang it isn't a cause. Instead of getting into quantum physics and cosmology i'll direct you to an article that explains the gravitational theory: http://www.fortunecity.com/emachines/e11/86/big-bang.html

You might want to review this. I am at pains to see that it has even the remotest connection with the discussion of an uncaused cause - for I did not state that the singularity was a cause - I rather pointed to the fact that the big bang was NOT a cause given that something pre-existed it. It therefore could not conceivably the the cause of that which pre-existed it or the cause of ALL existence - since it certainly did not cause the singularity, did it?

What caused the singularity to be?

I say God. You can tell me it was magic.

Cosmological argument

I have had many discussions about this argument and will now repeat what i always say.

1. Self-contradictory, if everything as you say needs to be caused, what caused God?

The cosmological argument does not assert that everything needs to be caused. It asserts that "whatever begins to exist has a cause."

Now this is only perfectly rational and logical, for if something begins to exist at a point, then there must have been a trigger for that event: otherwise the event would not happen. God is not said to begin to exist, and as such does not require a cause. There are other things that are eternal in nature, do not begin to exist, but rather have always existed: such things do not require a cause as they are self-existent. Examples of such things are time (eternity), and numbers. These do not begin to exist at any point and as such they do not require a trigger to exist as they are self-existent.

However anything that begins to exist at a point is clearly not eternal or self-existent. Such things rationally require a trigger to kick-start their existence, since they begin.

The universe has not always existed. The fact of its expansion shows us that it is growing from a point, which is what is referred to as the Big Bang. Accordingly once we can see that the universe had a beginning we can deduce that that beginning was triggered by something - a cause - otherwise the expansion would not have happened.

2. Usually the response given by whoever is that God is the exception. What i ask is why does the exception have to be God? why can't it be the big bang or the chinese idea of the universe springing out of a pod.

As explained above, God is a self-existent entity such as time. Self-existent things exist in and of themselves. They have no beginning. The cosmological argument deals with things that have a beginning. Such things rationally require a trigger, or cause.

3. The series of cause and effect has to end at some point even when people say it extends to infinity so why cant it regress in a similar way?

It does end. It ends with an uncaused cause - a self-existent entity/ reality which is eternal in nature and as such does not have a beginning, and having no beginning, requires no trigger. That entity is GOD.

nope i deal with fact and science.

Is there anything unscientific about the concept of infinity? Science even has a symbol for it - ∞.

@ Idehn -

What is the core essence of a thing? It simply means its most intrinsic nature.

What is the core essence of time?


<------------------------------INFINITY--------------------------->

In this we can see

--------------------------->

and

<---------------------------


So anything that is eternal or infinite must perforce be both -----> and <--------- simultaenously.

I really dont see the contradiction or difficulty.

Thus God, which is eternal and infinite, must perforce have as its core essence (intrinsic nature) both centrifugal and centripetal magnetism.

Nice exchanges between Deep Sight and Analissa. I do not subscribe to the thought that time and numbers are eternal in their existence in the sense I think you mean. I think they're eternal ideas (what use is an idea with no one to have it?) and they are subjective in nature. Let me explain. Time, the supposed fourth dimension in my opinion fluctuates from existence to non existence depending on the observer. If nothing moves, time in effect ceases to exist. It may sound like queer logic but that is what time is, a definition of relativity. This begs the question if there was ever a time (I chuckle) when NOTHING moved? Well, I'd imagine the singularity postulated by people who subscribe to the big bang to be an infinitely minute (almost to the point of non-existence) and infinitely dense particle. Before I digress too much, my point is time exists only if other things exists (even though it's hard to prove that there was ever such a time) and not in and of itself. So we may be saying the same thing but out of different reasons. To illustrate in another way, an electron is perhaps the smallest imaginable and verifiable thing (input whatever you think it is as I'm no physicist and I may be wrong) and there's no reason to believe this doesn't hold true throughout the universe. But is it difficult to imagine something perhaps half the size of an electron? It is even conceivable (provided you believe in God) but it doesn't mean such a thing exists. The same argument applies for numbers which to me are just subjective ideas. Two cannot exist without one and three. Perhaps the only truly unique number is zero and infinity (if you can call that a number)

I'll come back to the subject of God later, Idehn, lol.

Idehn:

So I would like to get a discussion going of what God IS going. Post what you think god is or critique(kindly please) what others think about it. If you don't think god can be defined, talk about it. Especially if you adhere to a religion such as Christianity. Also if you choose to reference scripture, please explain how you interpret the scripture as it can be helpful in preventing misunderstandings. I look forward to the replies (if any). Thanks

S/he who ASKS errs. . .
S/he who ANSWERS errs . . .

@Idehn
Sorry about the delay; here are my answer to your question:

Idehn:

@justcool
But you just defined God by saying God IS beyond definition. It unfortunately creates the same peculiar paradox as saying "Nothing can be known for certain". I think there needs to be more to this definition to resolve the paradox such as God it that not within our Universe. By that way God would not be able to be defined any further. However, saying God is beyond definition is itself a definition of what God is.

Man can never know God. The key word here is "know"; to know something is to apprehend clearly and certainly everything about that thing. Once there still remains for you, even the slightest mystery, about that thing, then you don't know that thing.

The difference between man and God is too great; far greater than the difference between man and animal. Each specie can only know its specie and any specie below it; but it cannever know the specie above it.
Thus man being Spirit can know everything that is spiritual(everything in the spiritual plane) and everything below the spiritual plane; but never anything above the spiritual. Knowledge of such(anything above the spiritual plane) can only be revealed to man but he cannever really know all the 'ins' and 'outs' of it.

This is only natural, you can even observe it in your environment. The animal, for example, can never really know man. It can get acquainted of man's behaviour and character; it can know of man but it can never know man. ie an animal cannever know all the 'ins' and 'outs' of man; only man or beings above man can know man. No matter how advanced an animal is, no matter how much time it spends with man, and no matter how much about man one teaches the animal, certain things about man the will perpetually remain a mystery to the animal.

Above the spiritual planes(the lowest part of which is the true home of man) lies the Primordial spiritual planes, and above the Primordial Spiritual planes, lies the Divine planes or planes of Divine substantiality. Yet God is above the Divine planes or planes of Divine substantiality; God is Divine unsubstantiality.  You see the difference man an God is far too much.

Man can know of God; ie man can know the will of God. Because this will of God is placed in creation. What we call the laws of nature or the laws of creation are actually expressions of the will of God. Behind every law in creation stands LOVE and JUSTICE. Through knowing these attributes of God, which can be deduced by observing creation and laws of creation, man can know of God.

Much like, by observing the house you live in, you can know the will or the intention of the architect who designed the house. By noticing that in one of the rooms is equipped by a bath tub, automatically you can deduce that that is the room where the architect wants you to bath. Without ever seeing the architect, you can tell by the shapes of the room, where he intended that you should bath, sleep, cook and eat. You can tell a lot about a man from his work. Thus by a mans work you can know of the man; likewise in observering the laws of nature or the laws of creation(which is a work of God) you can know of God.

To define somthing is to idetify the nature of that thing or to capture the nature of that thing in words; thus to make understandable to the brian. One encounters many problems when one tries to put God under definition. (1)Man cannever identify the nature of God, it is too alien to the nature of man, (2)you cannever capture somthing that does not have a form and, (3)the brian being physical stands the least ground in being able to comprehend it even if one succeds in capturing the nature of God. In creation, the physical is the furthest away from God.

Idehn:

What do you mean by spirit. That is another word that I have yet to see a definition for. I have heard it described as life force and human essences but those terms themselves lack and meaningful definition. Life force for example, for example could mean the fundamental forces of nature related to life such as Gravity, Electromagnetism, Strong Nuclear Force, and Weak Nuclear Force, but I do not think that this is what is meant by spirit. Can you provide a definition of Spirit? With a definition it would certainly help us see how it relates to God.

Spirit is a specie of creation. There are many species in creation-- The Primordial spiritual, Spiritual, Animistic, ethereal matter, and gross matter.
To make the issue simpler, lets just group these species into three -- Spiritual, animistic and matter.

Spiritual worlds or planes lie at the highest part of creation. Being the lightest, the strongest and the most ennobled substances in creation; it resembles most, in creation, the perfection of God. Consequently it is the colsest to the vicinity of God, and being created directly by God, its perfect and pure.

There are two types of spiritual substances or species. The first and most powerful and highest is Primordial spiritual. Followed by Spiritual. Each of these species have many planes in which lives many creatures. Just as you have physical creatures on earth, which is in the physical plane, in the spiritual planes you have spiritual creatures. These are tangible and real creatures-- man, animals, trees, and plants.

Man on earth originated from the lowest part of the Spiritual planes called Paradise. Man left Paradise in his quest for maturity. The physical bodies we have on earth are only coverings. Our innermost core, the real man is the spirit which originated from paradise.

The innermost core of an animals on earth is Animistic, which is another specie in creation like I already explained. They physical bodies of animals are coverings, covering the animistic core.

We wear physical bodies on earth because the earth is in the physical plane. You need a physical covering in-order to function actively in the physical world. Spirit by its nature is more refined than the physical and can pass through physical barriers without making an impression; so a spirit need a physical cloak for it to live in the physical world.

At the death of the physical body, the spirit departs from it and continues its existence.

To futher understand why we(human spirits) left Paradise and incarnated on earth, please refer to what I wrote on this thread: https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria?topic=463682.msg6321483#msg6321483

So the spirit is the real you. Your physical body is only a cloak that your spirit wears.

Spirit originating from a plane closer to the vicinity of God, stands a better chance at understanding the attributes of God or knowing of God. And besides, all that is spiritual(Both Primordial and Spiritual) carry the ability to recognise the will of God. This is one of the things that distinguishes the Spiritual from all other species in creation. Another unique thing about the Spiritual(Both Primordial and Spiritual) is that the spiritual has the gift of 'free will', other species in creation do not possess 'free will'. An animal on earth for example, does not have free will.

Thanks and remain blessed.

Hmm. We are getting a lot of defining God as that which cannot be defined.However, such a limited definition is problematic not only because it presents a paradox but also because it seems to eliminate all realms of discourse. What is a word without a definition(however limited)? For example the word nothing is defined by what it is not and cannot be defined by what it IS. When we speak of nothing it completely eliminates the realm of discourse. However, to say that God not be defined by what it is and what it is not, does that not just render the word God meaningless. For example okmeolala is a word that cannot be defined by what it is or what it is not(because just made it up). Is that word not meaningless?

I say this because when people are saying that God cannot be defined it still seems like the word(for their concept) has a great deal of meaning. Where does that meaning come from and how it derived from something that neither is nor is not?

@Deep Sight
Thank you for clarifying what you meant by core essence. My main contention was more along the lines that the adjectives would not make sense describing the concept of the intrinsic nature of time. It would kind of like saying that the intrinsic nature of time is green and red. Not only are they somewhat mutually exclusive,but also the concept of color could not really be applied to the concept. That is what I was saying. But regardless then are you saying that God is the intrinsic nature of time itself?

I am really tempted to make a You tube video about the cosmological argument. I feel like if I try write it up in the forum it it just going to be a big long word regurgitation that no one will read. But who is to say they would watch the video either? Either way I must ask a few questions

1.What do you mean by cause of the singularity? Correct me if I am wrong but it sounds like you are searching for a point when something was created from nothing(which usually contradicts one premises of the Cosmo Argument).

2.What if it was the the case (this just hypothetical) that the Universe cycles through expansion and compression periods with no identifiable beginning. Would that be a satisfactory explanation to you of the state of the Universe?  What I mean, humanities empirically study has yet to even suggest that matter and energy did not always exist. Along those same lines the elementary forces of the Universe (Strong Nuclear,Electromagnetism,Weak Nuclear,, and Gravity seemed to always have existed as well. Time and space, for which these objects require too would necessarily had to have always existed. Most of the ingredients(we know of) for the Universe a appear to have been always existed. If we discovered a mechanism that also seems to have always existed and necessitates a expansion and compression of the Universe, would you accept then that the Universe does not need a cause? If not why not?

Thank you for the replies so far and I am looking forward to those definitions and replies vescucci and justcool

Oops. I did not see it was you justcool who replied. I will read post and reply as soon as possible.

Deep Sight:

No problemo, Monalisa!

It pains me that you would take a name that means something as beautifully poetic as "graced with God's bounty" and change it to something so common and painfully plain as "noble"

Deep Sight:


You might want to review this. I am at pains to see that it has even the remotest connection with the discussion of an uncaused cause - for I did not state that the singularity was a cause - I rather pointed to the fact that the big bang was NOT a cause given that something pre-existed it. It therefore could not conceivably the the cause of that which pre-existed it or the cause of ALL existence - since it certainly did not cause the singularity, did it?

The article points out that the "big bang" need not be the sudden existence and explosion of matter and energy in a void but a coming to being of time and as such a universe. This has no cause, certainly no conceivable one anyway.

Deep Sight:


What caused the singularity to be?

I say God. You can tell me it was magic.

As i've said, nothing as far as i can tell.

Deep Sight:

The cosmological argument does not assert that everything needs to be caused. It asserts that "whatever begins to exist has a cause."

Now this is only perfectly rational and logical, for if something begins to exist at a point, then there must have been a trigger for that event: otherwise the event would not happen. God is not said to begin to exist, and as such does not require a cause. There are other things that are eternal in nature, do not begin to exist, but rather have always existed: such things do not require a cause as they are self-existent. Examples of such things are time (eternity), and numbers. These do not begin to exist at any point and as such they do not require a trigger to exist as they are self-existent.

However anything that begins to exist at a point is clearly not eternal or self-existent. Such things rationally require a trigger to kick-start their existence, since they begin.

The universe has not always existed. The fact of its expansion shows us that it is growing from a point, which is what is referred to as the Big Bang. Accordingly once we can see that the universe had a beginning we can deduce that that beginning was triggered by something - a cause - otherwise the expansion would not have happened.

This is based on the premise that the big bang was a sudden appearance of the universe after which it continues expanding, but as i have mentioned already the theory that time and the universe begun to exist together is still concievable.
The gravitational theory that the universe exists as a result of the conditions required for the universe to (for want of a better word) pop into existence is one with a cause the singularity :when the space-time boundary became infinite. If i then decide to follow this what can i say caused the singularity? You say God? well you have no logical proof for this choice. I can choose to say Vishnu did it.

Deep Sight:

As explained above, God is a self-existent entity such as time. Self-existent things exist in and of themselves. They have no beginning. The cosmological argument deals with things that have a beginning. Such things rationally require a trigger, or cause.

I've decided to reply to the whole self existent thing under this.
God is self-existent.
who said? I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest christians
Where did they get this information from? i would assume the bible
And who wrote the bible? those who began Christianity
So who says God didn't begin to exist? those who began Christianity and in light of my scepticism of the belief in God, those who began the pervasive idea of God.

From this line of thought i can conclude that the thought of God being self-existent was asserted by those who first thought up Christianity. Now why should i believe them when i'm sceptical about the existence of God.

So your argument now begins with an assertion that i do not believe to be fact. At least it is not one based on any empirical fact.
This is how i interpret your argument:
If God exists, he would be self-existent
self-existent things exist in and of themselves
If God existed, he would exist in and of himself
Existing in such a manner would not require a beginning
If God existed, he would not require a beginning
Something that doesn't have a beginning doesn't need a cause
If God existed, he would be without cause

If God existed, the cosmological argument would be a logical conclusion.
See how it works? So now i'm left with the fact that if i believed in the existence if God, i would agree with you but as i am sceptical, i am inclined to disagree.

Deep Sight:

It does end. It ends with an uncaused cause - a self-existent entity/ reality which is eternal in nature and as such does not have a beginning, and having no beginning, requires no trigger. That entity is GOD.

again, i'm not sure i believe in the existence of God so to me this argument is: if God existed, that entity would be God which as i'm sure you know is an hypothetical statement.

Deep Sight:

Is there anything unscientific about the concept of infinity? Science even has a symbol for it - ∞.

Of course not, my comment followed your question about poetry not one about the concept of infinity. read the original post.

imhotep:

S/he who ASKS errs. . .
S/he who ANSWERS errs . . .

So what are we to do? blindly believe

Analissa:

So what are we to do? blindly believe

S/he who BLINDLY believes also errs. . .

From the movie: The Island

Lincoln Six-Echo: What's "God"?

McCord: Well, you know, when you want something really bad and you close your eyes and you wish for it? God's the guy that ignores you.

@Justcool
A definition does not have to be complete and exhaustive or a declaration of absolute knowledge of something. In fact I would say no definition has though attributes. Definitions only need to be sufficient to convey the concept a word is to represent. For example a chemist may only be using a limited definition of "electron" as a more complete definition would not be of any utility in there work. However, a particle physicist may have a more complete definition as it would be pertinent to have such a definition. However, without any definition neither could discuss or make conjectures about an electron because the word would be without meaning.

I would also contend that you can not know OF something unless you know what that something IS. Otherwise it begs the question, what exactly IS it that you know of. In the same way, you could not know of your mother if you did not know what a mother IS at some level. The definition of mother is not exhaustive or complete by any means, just sufficient to convey the concept. I cannot profess to know exactly what animals are thinking but based on there behavior animals still at some level know what a human IS in the same way that an antelope(in the wild) knows what a lion IS. By knowing what a human or a lion looks and sounds like indicates that they have some functioning definition of what these two things ARE.

I hear you when you say that you cannot know God(i assume what it is), but you then proceed to describe God as if you do know what it IS in some way(thus having some kind of definition)

For example these here

The difference between man and God is too great; far greater than the difference between man and animal. Each specie can only know its specie and any specie below it; but it cannever know the specie above it.

In creation, the physical is the furthest away from God.

Without know what God IS how is it meaningful  to say that man is different from God or that the material is furthest away from God. Without a definition there is no metric to compare God to anything. If you are going to say A=/=B or A>B you need to know not just what A IS but also what B IS. For example to say that a Giraffe is taller than a human, you need the definitions of both that includes a physical property called height. This height is the metric of comparison. Without a definition of both a Giraffe and a human it would not meaningful to say one is taller than the other. It would not be meaning to even compare them. Without a definition of God what does mean to be different from God? What does it mean to be furthest away from God? What are the metrics of these comparisons.

Much like, by observing the house you live in, you can know the will or the intention of the architect who designed the house. By noticing that in one of the rooms is equipped by a bath tub, automatically you can deduce that that is the room where the architect wants you to bath. Without ever seeing the architect, you can tell by the shapes of the room, where he intended that you should bath, sleep, cook and eat. You can tell a lot about a man from his work. Thus by a mans work you can know of the man; likewise in observering the laws of nature or the laws of creation(which is a work of God) you can know of God.

But even the word Architect has a definition. Architect IS a entity that designs houses. Implicit in the definition of architect is the notion that an architect is sentient, they can can express the results of this sentience(will), and use this expression to design. Not only these things, but our definition goes further than that because the architects we are talking about are human architects. The definition of human architect can include the processes that go on in the human brain allowing for sentience. The definition can include the processes that go on in the body for motion as the mechanism by which will is expressed. No where in the definition of God are these things present because we are lacking a definition. It is putting the cart before the horse, to say God designs Universes, has will, is different, is furthest, etc,  because we have no idea what it IS we are talking about when we say these things. Even assuming is designed, attaching God to Universe designer does not tell us anything about the designer. In fact it is worse than that. God is something without definition(ignoring the paradox) and Universe designer is something with definition albeit cursory. It is incoherent to say God=Universe Designer because something cannot at the same time have a definition and not have definition.

The problems I stated earlier make it hard to understand how the spirit relates to God. From your definition spirit, it is a substance that is like matter(can form trees, animals and creatures) but cannot interact with matter. However, again without a definition of what God IS what meaningful comparisons/relationship can be drawn between God and Spirit. What would be the metric of these comparisons?

This needs some clarification.

We wear physical bodies on earth because the earth is in the physical plane. You need a physical covering in-order to function actively in the physical world. Spirit by its nature is more refined than the physical and can pass through physical barriers without making an impression; so a spirit need a physical cloak for it to live in the physical world.

If spirit cannot interact with the material universe how would cloak help resolve the issue. The spirit could not interact with the material cloak any better than anything else material world. Furthermore what about the body which is just an special kind of organization of protons,neutrons, and electrons would allow it to make contact with spirit any better than any other grouping of these same particles. Right now it sounds like you are saying that matter cannot make contact with the spirit but at the same time can make contact with the spirit(A=/=B & A=B). I guess from your description of animistic substances, this would also apply.

Along those lines what is it about the spirit that allows it to move between planes of a multiverse? A spiritual being would not be anymore aware of the material universe than a material being would of a spiritual universe because they cannot interact with each other.  Even if some one told you there was another dimension how does that verify it? As a spiritual being there would no mechanism to ever verify it.

Thanks for the discussion and I look forward to your response.

Defining God may be said to mean our take on God (which is really all there is) or actually attempting to define God like we knew Him (like we know what a kitten is). The latter is utterly impossible.

I don't like using big words for they mean too many things when one means only one thing. An amalgamation of big words will only increase the margin for error and the likelihood of being misunderstood. Therefore, I'd like to define God based on the attributes I deem it impossible for Him to not have.

God has power over all things.

God is just, which means, He doesn't break His promises (which also means He absolutely doesn't have to)

God doesn't need us. Which means He can do without us. He may well like us (or love us more than anything we can imagine like some people like to believe)

God exists outside of time.

God's resources are endless and inexhaustible

God is definitely one indivisible unit and not multiple and surely not to the extent of having individual wills even if they are always in tandem

God does not need sustenance

God has no conceivable beginning and will have no conceivable end

God does not think like us and He has no morals. It means He doesn't have to. Reminds me of Sisikill's signature: don't tell me to be careful. I have a gun. He answers to no one but Himself as far as governing us is concerned.

These are the things I think I know of God. Here are a list of things I don't believe about Him or I think is not necessary for Him to be like.

God doesn't have to be good and definitely not overwhelmingly so. I don't think He is evil either. I think He is neither and if you insist that He is nothing but pure unadulterated love, I'll ask what He loved when there existed nothing. Love is a subjective term which means it ceases to exist when there's nothing to love. An attribute of God that is subject to something else is not a true attribute. In any case, God does love but I don't think He loves everybody. There's no one that will choose not to be with Him. It's impossible. Don't blame it on freewill. Free will means we can choose and we ALWAYS choose that which we believe is best for us. Rebelling against God can only happen if we truly believe we can get away with it or that it is the best for us to not be in God's presence. No one will choose to walk into a burning house and reject a holiday trip to Tahiti because he wants to express his free will.

God doesn't have to be spirit the same way we are spirits

God doesn't have to know the future. Because that would make Him unable to change His mind since He knows what He'll do already. So God may know infinite numbers of futures but there can not be ONE future and if there is, God cannot know of it because that will make Him also a piece in a chess game. karen Owens has a neat little sentence about this that goes:

Can omniscient God, who knows the future, find the omnipotence to change His future mind?

We are not the centre of God's attention

That's a summary of my definition of God. I find it hard to believe God exists but I find it several times harder to believe He doesn't exist