TromboneChat

I’m starting this thread to try to come up with a construct for God.  What I mean by this a listing of the attribute of God that makes God, well God.  I’m using the term ‘construct’ because I think it will suffice for the religious and the atheist.  Please don’t take the term as a disrespectful denotation of what you believe God is.  It merely describes what I hope we will construct here – a description of God we can all agree on to use in our religious discourse.

I want the initial description (for want of better words) to be that of the ‘physical’ nature of God rather than the behavior/acts/personality/disposition (nurture?) of God.
 
To give you an idea, here is a list of such physical attributes of a human.

Corporeal existence
Animal
Mammal
Of relatively extremely high intelligence
Of relatively medium stature
Relatively physically weak
Offspring are born totally helpless
Environmental senses are only mediocre
Omnivore
Secondary physical characteristics can vary regionally
Etc…

As you can see from this partial list, we can deduce a lot of things about humans and their general behavior.

If we do a good enough job of describing the ‘physical’ nature of God, everything else should follow from that.  We should them be able to move on to deduce and describe the more important behavior/acts/personality/disposition attributes which God uses to deal with and that are consistent with the ‘physical’ attributes.

Let me begin the list.  Please feel free to add to it or refute anything mentioned:  Jut let us know why you are refuting something on the list.

Non-corporeal: God does not have a physical form.
Immortal:  God has always been and always will be.
Omnipotent:   God is all powerful.  His power sustains everything.
All Knowing: God knows everything that has been, that is and that will be.
Immutable:  God never changes.

Do we have anything that tells us God’s relative intelligence?

Quote from: BillO on Jun 25, 2017, 01:33PMDo we have anything that tells us God’s relative intelligence?
You listed it already.

QuoteAll Knowing: God knows everything that has been, that is and that will be.

You could split hairs and say they are not the same thing, but I think infinite knowledge = infinite intelligence.

"Fictional" seems to encompass all those other attributes you mentioned, and more besides.  KISS.

Quote from: robcat2075 on Jun 25, 2017, 01:54PMYou listed it already.


You could split hairs and say they are not the same thing, but I think infinite knowledge = infinite intelligence.
I'm not convinced of the equivalence just yet.  The internet, or a large library, have a lot of knowledge yet nether posses any intelligence.  I guess I looking at intelligence as the ability to apply knowledge.

God is a construct of man. Various people have defined it over time and called it religion. If that is your goal here, I propose it have a Mt. Vernon bell (there's your physical) because that is something we can all agree on.

Quote from: BillO on Jun 25, 2017, 02:15PMI'm not convinced of the equivalence just yet.  The internet, or a large library, have a lot of knowledge yet nether posses any intelligence.  I guess I looking at intelligence as the ability to apply knowledge.

That may be better described as "information" than "knowledge," which the OED defines as: "facts, information, and skills acquired through experience or education; the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject."

"Information" might therefore be a more appropriate attribute for a god than knowledge or intelligence -- how would one conceive of a "process of acquisition" for an infinite being?

Assuming that we describing the Christian God I think we should include:

- God is triune: ie
 (1) the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinct Persons,
 (2) each Person is fully God,
 (3) there is only one God.
- God cannot lie
- God is love
- God is just and holy

I'm not sure about immutable because Jesus became flesh.

There are a few others but I will want to clarify them a bit first

Quote from: growlerbox on Jun 25, 2017, 02:32PMThat may be better described as "information" than "knowledge," which the OED defines as: "facts, information, and skills acquired through experience or education; the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject."

"Information" might therefore be a more appropriate attribute for a god than knowledge or intelligence -- how would one conceive of a "process of acquisition" for an infinite being?

I expect that the OED wasn't thinking of God when it was constructing its definition.  I think that Knowledge is knowledge whether it was gathered through a process or innate

Quote from: BillO on Jun 25, 2017, 02:15PMI'm not convinced of the equivalence just yet.  The internet, or a large library, have a lot of knowledge yet nether posses any intelligence.  I guess I looking at intelligence as the ability to apply knowledge.
Included in "all knowledge" is the knowledge of how to use the knowledge, and if you already have all knowledge your rate of learning is absolute. You could take the negative tack and argue God is therefore unable to learn and has no intelligence, or you can recognize that God is literally, infinitely, off the scale.

Quote from: drizabone on Jun 25, 2017, 02:48PMI expect that the OED wasn't thinking of God when it was constructing its definition.
I should hope not.

QuoteI think that Knowledge is knowledge whether it was gathered through a process or innate
"Innate" knowledge is something more like instinct.  Knowledge proper is acquired through a process; worked, struggled and even suffered for.  It is not, dare I say, to be simply plucked whole from a tree.  That might make you as a god, and we know god won't be having any of that.

Quote from: drizabone on Jun 25, 2017, 02:45PMAssuming that we describing the Christian God I think we should include:

- God is triune: ie
 (1) the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinct Persons,
 (2) each Person is fully God,
 (3) there is only one God.
- God cannot lie
- God is love
- God is just and holy

I'm not sure about immutable because Jesus became flesh.

There are a few others but I will want to clarify them a bit first

Why do we have to limit ourselves to a Christian god?  Jews and Muslims worship a single god with no offspring.  God taps people to do his work on Earth because he is immaterial (not comprised of matter).

We have other religions where there are multiple gods and the rule is by committee; each god having sway over a single aspect.

I would think that God could be as basic as the fact that the laws that govern the universe actually allow it to exists. If you changed the value of the force of gravity, or the strong force, or the weak force, even just a tiny bit, the universe and matter would cease to exist.

Scientists who study these forces are amazed that there is such a finite and specific set of allowable values that would even allow atoms to stay together.

My parameters would be:
The one who pushed the start button on the experiment
The one who found and set the parameters that caused this end state in the experiment.

The stuff that deals with religions is great and all, but it's so specific that it misses the really big point: the universe existing is basically God, or at least it's like a signature that says "God was here"

Quote from: drizabone on Jun 25, 2017, 02:45PMAssuming that we describing the Christian God I think we should include:

- God is triune: ie
 (1) the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinct Persons,
 (2) each Person is fully God,
 (3) there is only one God.
- God cannot lie
- God is love
- God is just and holy

I'm not sure about immutable because Jesus became flesh.

There are a few others but I will want to clarify them a bit first
Thanks Driz,

The Christian God is fine, but we must admit that said God is the same God as that of the Jews and of Islam (at least).  I'm just looking for consistency here.  That is key.  God is Triune I feel definitely belongs in this round. We need to be aware though that at least on branch of Christianity does not believe in the Trinity. So it may not be something we can add in.  Your other points nevertheless are more like 'behaviors' of God and belong to that category.  They have evidence in scripture so in that sense I have no issue with them as long as they don't make God just fit the Christian definition.  I'd like to hear from all denominations here.

As to God being immutable, I did not mean that in the sense of 'form'.  His omnipotence must allow change of form.  I meant in it the sense of Malachi 3:6, Samuel 2:2 or Hebrews 13:6.  But if you think that belongs in the behavioral category then let's discuss.

Quote from: BGuttman on Jun 25, 2017, 04:00PMWhy do we have to limit ourselves to a Christian god?  Jews and Muslims worship a single god with no offspring.  God taps people to do his work on Earth because he is immaterial (not comprised of matter).

We have other religions where there are multiple gods and the rule is by committee; each god having sway over a single aspect.
Good point.

Quote from: harrison.t.reed on Jun 25, 2017, 04:22PMI would think that God could be as basic as the fact that the laws that govern the universe actually allow it to exists. If you changed the value of the force of gravity, or the strong force, or the weak force, even just a tiny bit, the universe and matter would cease to exist.

Scientists who study these forces are amazed that there is such a finite and specific set of allowable values that would even allow atoms to stay together.

My parameters would be:
The one who pushed the start button on the experiment
The one who found and set the parameters that caused this end state in the experiment.

The stuff that deals with religions is great and all, but it's so specific that it misses the really big point: the universe existing is basically God, or at least it's like a signature that says "God was here"
Good points also, but I want to come up with an understanding of God that can be used for religious discussions that religious people will accept.

Quote from: Baron von Bone on Jun 25, 2017, 03:00PM
Included in "all knowledge" is the knowledge of how to use the knowledge, and if you already have all knowledge your rate of learning is absolute. You could take the negative tack and argue God is therefore unable to learn and has no intelligence, or you can recognize that God is literally, infinitely, off the scale.
We're getting pretty close to Russell's paradox here, but okay.  Others have argued similarly.  I'm convinced.

Saying that God could be all-knowing and yet not be infinitely intelligent is to say that he may know something and still not understand it which would be impossible since he knows all that preceded it and all of why it is as it is now and all that will become of it.

And, of course, as creator of all the universe it is unlikely he would not understand that something which he made himself.

Quote from: growlerbox on Jun 25, 2017, 02:09PM"Fictional" seems to encompass all those other attributes you mentioned, and more besides.  KISS.

Quote from: slideorama on Jun 25, 2017, 02:20PMGod is a construct of man. Various people have defined it over time and called it religion. If that is your goal here, I propose it have a Mt. Vernon bell (there's your physical) because that is something we can all agree on.

Valid points and views held by many, but not really what I'm looking for.  There is no doubt about which side of the "Does God exist?" question I stand, but I feel that hampers my ability to join in discussions about the subject of religion as I tend to use my innate definition of God.  This hampers the discussion.  I'm looking for a definition we can all use for the discourse.  Even if the definition does match the one you hold, I believe it will be beneficial to use when entering into religious discussion.  I don't intend that everybody accept it for any other purpose, but I do believe it will be useful.

Quote from: robcat2075 on Jun 25, 2017, 07:06PMSaying that God could be all-knowing and yet not be infinitely intelligent is to say that he may know something and still not understand it which would be impossible since he knows all that preceded it and all of why it is as it is now and all that will become of it.

And, of course, as creator of all the universe it is unlikely he would not understand that something which he made himself.

Point taken.

Quote from: BGuttman on Jun 25, 2017, 04:00PMWhy do we have to limit ourselves to a Christian god?  Jews and Muslims worship a single god with no offspring.  God taps people to do his work on Earth because he is immaterial (not comprised of matter).

We have other religions where there are multiple gods and the rule is by committee; each god having sway over a single aspect.

I wasn't trying to enforce the Christian God on the thread, but I thought it important to identify assumptions so that we knew what I was talking about.

Quote from: BillO on Jun 25, 2017, 07:10PMValid points and views held by many, but not really what I'm looking for.  There is no doubt about which side of the "Does God exist?" question I stand, but I feel that hampers my ability to join in discussions about the subject of religion as I tend to use my innate definition of God.  This hampers the discussion.  I'm looking for a definition we can all use for the discourse.  Even if the definition does match the one you hold, I believe it will be beneficial to use when entering into religious discussion.  I don't intend that everybody accept it for any other purpose, but I do believe it will be useful.

Bill

I think its great that you want to to clarify what is meant by "God". Christians often get frustrated with atheists critiquing or disproving the existence of a god-construct that is not the one that they believe in and having them think that what they have said is applicable to the "REAL" God, ie the one that I believe in.  (It may be an urban myth but Richard Dawkin's is sick of getting emails from Christians telling him that they don't believe in the god he doesn't believe in either)

But I think if you want 1 consistent definition for a god-construct, all you are going to get is a stereotype that is not true of any god. From the a 'believers' point of view most gods are individual, even if the believer is a polytheist, and the description of one god is not necessarily applicable to another.

So if you talk about a stereotypical god, I'm unlikely to think that its applicable to the God I believe in.

Quote from: BillO on Jun 25, 2017, 06:46PMThanks Driz,

The Christian God is fine, but we must admit that said God is the same God as that of the Jews and of Islam (at least). 

God and Allah are not the same!!!  And Jew's and Christians will argue about the trinity all day.  ISTM that atheists think that gods are all alike in the same way that westerners think that asians are all alike. I'm exaggerating for affect so I hope you get my point. 

QuoteI'm just looking for consistency here.  That is key. 

From my perspective all you can get doing this is a stereo-type of the concept that will not describe any god.

QuoteGod is Triune I feel definitely belongs in this round. We need to be aware though that at least on branch of Christianity does not believe in the Trinity.

Well they are not christian then.

Sorry if I'm coming across as being pedantic and nit-picking but these points are significant for me.  I think its really useful to understand what we're talking about when we talk about God and I commend that idea.  But I don't think describing a stereo-typical god is any more useful than describing a stereo-typical American.  (Although as an Aussie to a Canadian I'm sure we could have some fun doing that.  Do you want to start a thread for that?)

QuoteSo it may not be something we can add in.  Your other points nevertheless are more like 'behaviors' of God and belong to that category.  They have evidence in scripture so in that sense I have no issue with them as long as they don't make God just fit the Christian definition.  I'd like to hear from all denominations here.

I know I'm sounding like a broken record (does anyone know what one of them sounds like anymore  ) but if the god doesn't fit the christian definition then its not the christian god.

So I'll shut up for now.

Some Christians believe in other supernatural beings of less power than a god, like angels and demons, as do other religions as well.  So there is some basis for a continuum of power or capability.

If we had a list of characteristics, we could take a given being and compare to the list, and make a judgment about whether he or she or it met the requirements sufficiently to be granted god status. 

However it seems to me we do the reverse of this.  We declare an entity "God," and because they are god they must have the attributes that humans typically assign to gods. 

  First of all I must mention that it was good to be born and given the chance to see what life as we know it is about or can be about.

  Now I read where the universe is 13.82 billion years old and what we call mother Earth is 4.543 billion tears old.  They say our moon is also 4.5 billion years old.

  In a good life the human can make it over a hundred years age wise.  Who are we to determine who God may be?  Yes, I believe a supreme being made everything we see and cannot see. 
  Earth, as we call it, just happens to be the right distance from the Sun to sustain life.  How'd we get so lucky?  Mars ain't happening and Venus is still too hot.
 
  Is the Sun like a match?  What I mean is a match eventually burns out.  Where do we go or where will we be if that happens?  Possibly Earth becomes uninhabitable and Venus becomes the next stop assuming the Sun keeps burning but just not as brightly or warmly as it does now, just one idea - far fetched, I know but whatever or whichever the plan God has is o.k. with me. 

Unfortunately, venus will only continue to get hotter until it is either within, or nearly within, the diameter of the growing, dying sun.

I still believe that the chances are pretty high that we are living in a mathematical simulation of someone else's design.

The truth of the matter is that man's intelligence is not capable of understanding God, much less, be able to make a list of all The things of who He is.

That's as idiotic as mankind's attempt at the Tower of Babel. LOL!

 

Quote from: drizabone on Jun 25, 2017, 09:05PMGod and Allah are not the same!!!It would seem this view is not held by all Christians: http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2011/april/muslimschristianssamegod.html


QuoteAnd Jew's and Christians will argue about the trinity all day.  ISTM that atheists think that gods are all alike in the same way that westerners think that asians are all alike. I'm exaggerating for affect so I hope you get my point. 

From my perspective all you can get doing this is a stereo-type of the concept that will not describe any god.There is no reason to throw out the things that make God a Christian God and they can certainly be brought into a Christian religious argument.  Again, I'm trying to get a definition that all believers of the single God would say "yeah, God's like that."  They may also say "However, from the perspective of {put your religion here} ..."  Common ground is still useful.

QuoteWell they are not christian then.You'd need to take that up with the Jehovah Witness.

Quote(Although as an Aussie to a Canadian I'm sure we could have some fun doing that.  Do you want to start a thread for that?)Hmmm, we could look at this for some future project.

QuoteI know I'm sounding like a broken record (does anyone know what one of them sounds like anymore  ) but if the god doesn't fit the christian definition then its not the christian god.

So I'll shut up for now.
Driz, no need to shut up.  However, your response here brings two thing to mind.  Neither is very flattering, unfortunately.  The first being the child that does not want to play unless everyone plays their way.  The second is the most annoying aspect of religion I can think off, the hubris to denounce all other religions.  Christianity only accounts for ~31% - there are others out there.

Quote from: ddickerson on Jun 26, 2017, 07:20AMThe truth of the matter is that man's intelligence is not capable of understanding God, much less, be able to make a list of all The things of who He is.

That's as idiotic as mankind's attempt at the Tower of Babel. LOL!
If we can't understand who God is how can we understand God's plan for us?

Quote from: BillO on Jun 26, 2017, 07:32AMIt would seem this view is not held by all Christians: http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2011/april/muslimschristianssamegod.html


I would say it's even mainstream (while also noting there are some Christian positions that do not believe the OT God is the same as the NT.) 

The OT scripture that was designated for this past Sunday was Abraham kicking out his slave woman Hagar, who'd had his child, into the desert.  They run out of water and she turns away, not wanting to watch her child die.  God intervenes and produces a well.  The child survives and becomes the patriarch of the Muslim nation, just as Abraham's other child (with Sarah) Isaac goes on to become the patriarch of the Jewish nation. 

I don't know the Quran version.  I suspect it varies in some details. 

Hmm.  Wiki says:

QuoteAbraham was childless. He was a prophet of Allah and, having left his native land, he was concerned over who would continue the prophetic office after him and whether he would indeed be a father one day. Pharaoh gave him his daughter Hagar as a slave. Hagar subsequently bore a child, and named him Ishmael, meaning "God will hear".

Hagar in the desert[edit]

Islamic scholars and sources state the following using the Arabic name Haajar for Hagar; "After Haajar gave birth to Ismaa’eel, Saarah began to feel jealous, so she asked Ibrahim to send them away from her. Allah revealed to Ibrahim that he should take Haajar and the infant Ismaa’eel and take them to Makkah. So he took them and left Haajar and her child Ismaa’eel in a bleak, isolated place in which there was no water, then he left them and went back to Canaan (Parts of Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Israel and Palestinan territories). Haajar said to him, 'For whom are you leaving us in this forsaken valley?' But Ibrahim went and left her, and she said, 'Has Allah commanded you to do this?” He said, 'Yes.' She said, 'Then Allah will not cause us to be lost.'

Abraham submitted to the command of his Lord and patiently bore the separation from his wife and child. Then he turned towards where they were at the Sacred House and prayed for them in the following words (interpretation of the meaning):

'O our Lord! I have made some of my offspring to dwell in an uncultivatable valley by Your Sacred House (the Ka‘bah at Makkah) in order, O our Lord, that they may perform As-Salaah (Iqaamat-as-Salaah). So fill some hearts among men with love towards them, and (O Allah) provide them with fruits so that they may give thanks'[Qur'an, Ibraaheem 14:37][1]

Because of the scarcity of water in the desert, it was not long before both mother and son suffered immense thirst. Thus, Hagar ran between the Al-Safa and Al-Marwah hills in search of water for her son. After the seventh run between the two hills, an angel[2] appeared before her. He helped her and told her that God had heard Ishmael's crying and would provide them with water. At that point, God caused a spring to burst forth from the ground, where Ishmael's heel lay, and thereafter Mecca became known for its excellence and abundance of water. The well was subsequently named Zamzam, and become a holy source of water.

Quote from: BillO on Jun 26, 2017, 07:34AMIf we can't understand who God is how can we understand God's plan for us?
Who says we can? Most people I know that take the approach of "God has a plan for me" often resorts to the wait and see approach to find out what it is.

Otherwise, How can we understanding something or someone who's very existence is said to be beyond (ie greater than) our limited understanding?

Quote from: timothy42b on Jun 26, 2017, 07:41AMI would say it's even mainstream (while also noting there are some Christian positions that do not believe the OT God is the same as the NT.)Yeah... no.

Mainstream christianity says that while christians came from the jews, the jews missed the first coming and a major message that came with it. As such, while they have the same origins, the jews missed God's correction to their practices and while their worship is well-intentioned it is blind and wrong.

Per islam, they began as children of abraham, but they went on a different way that very much differs in beliefs currently. Again, the first coming provided a major correction of where people had gone astray to bring them back on course. Not only did islam NOT go that way, they went a different path themselves.

So while all three believe in a single god, and share origins, what said god is and the faith around that is quite different.

Quick example, islam believes Jesus was a prophet, though given the practical realities of not teaching his teachings would likely put him lower than muhammad, whose teaching they do teach. Christianity believes Jesus IS God, and think about muhammad about as much as islam thinks of Jesus. The jews.... well, they thought neither, and killed Jesus when they got a chance. Looks like a jewish woman may have also killed muhammad (or at least poisoned him) when she found that opening as well.

Quote from: B0B on Jun 26, 2017, 07:56AMMainstream christianity says that while christians came from the jews, the jews missed the first coming and a major message that came with it. As such, while they have the same origins, the jews missed God's correction to their practices and while their worship is well-intentioned it is blind and wrong.

Per islam, they began as children of abraham, but they went on a different way that very much differs in beliefs currently. Again, the first coming provided a major correction of where people had gone astray to bring them back on course. Not only did islam NOT go that way, they went a different path themselves.

Bob, are you implying that God made a mistake?

Quote from: drizabone on Jun 25, 2017, 09:05PMGod and Allah are not the same!!!  And Jew's and Christians will argue about the trinity all day.  ISTM that atheists think that gods are all alike in the same way that westerners think that asians are all alike. I'm exaggerating for affect so I hope you get my point. 

From my perspective all you can get doing this is a stereo-type of the concept that will not describe any god.

Well they are not christian then.

Sorry if I'm coming across as being pedantic and nit-picking but these points are significant for me.  I think its really useful to understand what we're talking about when we talk about God and I commend that idea.  But I don't think describing a stereo-typical god is any more useful than describing a stereo-typical American.  (Although as an Aussie to a Canadian I'm sure we could have some fun doing that.  Do you want to start a thread for that?)

I know I'm sounding like a broken record (does anyone know what one of them sounds like anymore  ) but if the god doesn't fit the christian definition then its not the christian god.

So I'll shut up for now.
I believe there's only one God. And he's the same for all. Just different interpretations. Jews don't argue about the triune God because they don't think Jesus is the Messiah. So it's a non issue with them. But their god us the same as everyone's god.
God's omnipotence is beyond comprehension. We can seek to understand but we will never get even close.

I remember my sixth grade teacher turning green when I said that "God" and "Allah" were really the same person.

She looked like she seriously expected lightning to strike me and the Earth to open up and swallow my charred bones in a pit of fire and brimstone.

Quote from: uncle duke on Jun 26, 2017, 06:27AMEarth, as we call it, just happens to be the right distance from the Sun to sustain life.  How'd we get so lucky?  Mars ain't happening and Venus is still too hot.
This is an interesting angle--speaks volumes about the way the human brain works.
 
Did we get lucky that our home before it was our home happened to be accommodating to life, or is it maybe that we only live here because the conditions that accommodate life happened to arise on this planet? In the first iteration we're special and this is our home by right of providence or by the decree of a creator. In the latter case we're just the critters that happened to eek out an existence after billions of years of evolution on this particular space rock.
 
On the surface the former may seem preferable because it makes us so special. But if we dig a little deeper I'd say the latter is far more desirable, not just because it's what fits the facts without any obvious anthropocentric presumptions (the vagaries of human brain ownership), but because it means life isn't unique (as far as we know), it's just rare due to the necessary conditions, and given the vastness of the cosmos and the many many trillions of planets out there that probability establishes, it's almost certainly "everywhere", relatively speaking (i.e. remembering that 99.999...% of the cosmos is virtual vacuum--as I understand it that's the case even given dark matter, whatever that actually is beyond a mathematically indicated necessity), and I think that's just pretty freakin' cool!

Quote from: ronkny on Jun 26, 2017, 09:13AMI believe there's only one God. And he's the same for all. Just different interpretations. Jews don't argue about the triune God because they don't think Jesus is the Messiah. So it's a non issue with them. But their god us the same as everyone's god.
God's omnipotence is beyond comprehension. We can seek to understand but we will never get even close.
I'm pretty sure Driz agrees. Pretty sure he's just saying their understanding of God, or their version of God (i.e. false). Etiher/or ... it's a pretty common way to put those ideas--just saying it's a different god, the other follows.

Going along with the "99.999% chance that life is everywhere", I read that if you accept that it will someday be possible to run a simulation with a resolution nearly equal to the resolution of our universe, with the goal of simulating your ancestors (ie, the PC game "The Sims", but indistinguishable from real life), then one of three situations must be true:

1. The number of civilizations that can make it to the point where they can run simulations is nearly zero. We live in the real world and it's impossible to make it far enough in evolution to run a universe simulation.

2. The number of civilizations who have reached the point where they can run universe simulations is not zero, but the number of these civilizations that choose to run universe simulations is nearly zero. This seems unlikely.

3. There is one or more civilizations that can run universe simulations. Thus, the chances that we live in one of their simulations (as opposed to the real universe that they live in) is nearly 100%. The more simulations they run, the more likely this becomes.

We will test it someday, by running our own simulation once we reach the level of technology that the beings running our simulation are at. If we attempt to use the same amount of processing power WITHIN our simulation to equal the processing power of the civilization running our universe (and in turn, the inhabitants of tge simulation we create do the same thing), our simulation will break.

So God could be thought of as someone who lives somewhere where the resolution and laws of physics far exceed the universe we live in, such that our universe could be manipulated easily by them but cannot be by us. The book flatland comes to mind, where a three-dimensional being is completely inconceivable by the 2D inhabitants of flatland. The sphere might as well be God.

Quote from: BillO on Jun 26, 2017, 08:08AMBob, are you implying that God made a mistake?
?

Quote from: robcat2075 on Jun 26, 2017, 09:46AMI remember my sixth grade teacher turning green when I said that "God" and "Allah" were really the same person.

She looked like she seriously expected lightning to strike me and the Earth to open up and swallow my charred bones in a pit of fire and brimstone.
Yup, but then again, I also remember my 12th grade english teacher talking about the different religions one day. Even went down a list of them: christian, jewish, catholic, buddism, hinduism, etc... (she was southern baptist. catholics are considered a different religion to many of them )

Though does seem a bit off, if the christian faith says that the only way to God is through Jesus, and the jews mostly looked at Jesus as a no good rabble rouser but otherwise believe in God... how do you say they are the same? Driz describes it as important and also pedantic... but given it's a key point of christianity, it really doesn't seem all that pedantic either.

Quote from: B0B on Jun 26, 2017, 10:54AM)

Though does seem a bit off, if the christian faith says that the only way to God is through Jesus, and the jews mostly looked at Jesus as a no good rabble rouser but otherwise believe in God... how do you say they are the same? Driz describes it as important and also pedantic... but given it's a key point of christianity, it really doesn't seem all that pedantic either.

Well, if one believes God had a son, and the other doesn't, they can still be talking about the same God.  Then you add in Islam, with the same roots, it doesn't seem unreasonable that is the same God as well.  It makes sense to me to talk about 4 Abrahamic religions:  Judaism, Islam, Christianity, LDS. 

Quote from: B0B on Jun 26, 2017, 10:41AM?
You said God needed to correct the people he created.

If I had to correct something I created, I must have made a mistake.

Quote from: BillO on Jun 26, 2017, 11:14AMYou said God needed to correct the people he created.

If I had to correct something I created, I must have made a mistake.That would be your own reading then. People have the ability to stray. They did. Was actually a common theme in the old testament. Stray, and then come back to God. Makes the basic overview wherein enters Jesus that they thought they came back, but to honoring themselves and not God, and God came to set the path straight.

Per your approach, we could lay all of our own suffering and problems at God's feet as His fault. But then, I might as well blame my parents for the way my life hasn't turned out as I wanted. Jesus' coming was prophesied long before He came. Why? Gets back to understanding God's plan... few people I know pretend to actually understand, just pray and see.

Quote from: B0B on Jun 26, 2017, 11:23AMThat would be your own reading then. People have the ability to stray.
Okay, but don't you have to ask the opposite question?

Do people have the ability NOT to stray?

In other words, can we save ourselves without Jesus?

If not, then I would think we're designed that way. 

Quote from: B0B on Jun 26, 2017, 11:23AMWas actually a common theme in the old testament. Stray, and then come back to God.
I agree it was.  Many times is was Stray, get 99% of you slaughtered by God, then come back out of abject fear.

QuoteBut then, I might as well blame my parents for the way my life hasn't turned out as I wanted.In many cases that is an appropriate position to take in order to heal.

QuoteJesus' coming was prophesied long before He came. Why? Gets back to understanding God's plan... few people I know pretend to actually understand, just pray and see.
Just pray and see?  If you look at the 'historical' account, God's plan just seems like it may be a series of extremely deadly punishments.  What would you be praying for, a change of heart?

Quote from: B0B on Jun 26, 2017, 11:23AMThat would be your own reading then. People have the ability to stray. They did. Was actually a common theme in the old testament. Stray, and then come back to God. Makes the basic overview wherein enters Jesus that they thought they came back, but to honoring themselves and not God, and God came to set the path straight.
And of course there's the little detail that if they don't come back, or if they die before they do, they're tortured for eternity in hell. Just a side note there, really. Don't fret over the fine print, eh?
 
Yeah ... so that brings us right back to the infantile yet also ultimate evil tantrum.
 
God creates a set of potentials, 100% intentionally, then gets his panties in an eternal epic wad when certain of his potentials actually happen ... but he doesn't get upset because he realizes he screwed up and created potentials he didn't really want--oh no!--he takes it out on those creations which did as he created them to do in those particular potentials.
 
That's as epic a problem child as there can be I think--pretty sure it doesn't get any more epically evil than horrendous eternal torture for being intentionally created in a way that displeases the one who did the intentional creating so that it would happen.

The biblical version of that is the Potter and the clay illustration we encountered in Jeremiah 18 (and Paul recounts in Romans)

Quote from: BillO on Jun 26, 2017, 07:32AMIt would seem this view is not held by all Christians: http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2011/april/muslimschristianssamegod.html


a comparison between the two would help sort out that conumdrum but I can't see what use a stereotype would be.

QuoteThere is no reason to throw out the things that make God a Christian God and they can certainly be brought into a Christian religious argument.

I agree,  And there is also no reason to through out the things that distinguish the other gods

Quote  Again, I'm trying to get a definition that all believers of the single God would say "yeah, God's like that."  They may also say "However, from the perspective of {put your religion here} ..."  Common ground is still useful.

"the single God"??  is that what I call a stereo-typical god?

QuoteYou'd need to take that up with the Jehovah Witness.

I do when they visit.  I try to do it patiently and without hubris

QuoteHmmm, we could look at this for some future project.

Just joking

[/quote]
Driz, no need to shut up. 

[/quote]
thanks, I'll stay in but I think I'll try and do a comparative list of the gods

QuoteHowever, your response here brings two thing to mind.  Neither is very flattering, unfortunately.  The first being the child that does not want to play unless everyone plays their way.  The second is the most annoying aspect of religion I can think off, the hubris to denounce all other religions.  Christianity only accounts for ~31% - there are others out there.

I think the analogy to a game is not helpful.  We're gathering data to identify what we're talking about. The point I made was that describing a stereotypical god would not be useful as it wouldn't be an accurate description of any god.

And I didn't denounce other religions. I just said our definition of god was different.  I think their's is wrong or complementary, but they think mine is wrong.  So its fair.  And we both think you're wrong And that's fair too.

Actually I don't want to be hubristic so can you tell me how to think that other religions and atheists are wrong without being hubristic.  Just like you think we're wrong in our belief in God.

Here is my list of attributes of the christian God for discussion which I submit for inclusion in the description of god.

This is based on wikipedia's list, modified and notated to be useful to me.  I'm happy to put these up for discussion and tweaking but I'll probably defend their inclusion as I think that they are important attributes of a god.

(Aside:
   I'd like to do the for some of the other "gods" too so we can do a comparison. 
   Bill: is this ok for this thread or would you prefer it in another one?
   Which ones are people interested in?
      Allah
      JW's Jehovah - I'm interested to compare their understanding to mine
      Hindu pantheon
      Buddhism
         - I know they have a different concept but I'd like to understand it.
         - Do atheists not believe in Buddhism too?
   Are there any others we want to consider?
   My list of attributes are possibly not what a liberal/mainstream christian thinks.  Should we describe the Mainstream view?
)

So my list of God's attributes are:

(he has) Aseity
 - he is self-sufficient
 - he isn't dependent on creation, he was not incomplete before creation and it doesn't add to his completeness or happiness ...
 - he is uncaused

Eternal
 - no beginning and no end, he is not restricted by time

Good
 - God is the ultimate standard of good

Gracious
 - he is compassionate and desires to forgive and even makes that possible

Holy
 - he is separate from sin and incorruptible.

Immanent
 - he is in every part of the world
 - qv transcendent

Unchangeable
 - immutable or constant
 - but this allows for things like "Jesus became flesh"

Impassable
 - God is free from all attitudes "which reflect instability or lack of control.

Impeccable
 - God is unable to sin

Incomprehensible
 - he is not able to be fully known
 - what we do know of him is via revelation
 - our knowledge is subject to human limitations.

Incorporeal
 - he is spirit
 - but Jesus became flesh which is both corporeal and a change.

Infinite
 - in time and space
 - Infinity also permeates all other attributes of God: his goodness, love, power, etc. are all considered to be infinite.

Jealous
 - he gets angry if people reject him
 -  J. I. Packer: "zeal to protect a love relationship or to avenge it when broken,"

Love
 - includes:
   - the love the Father has for the Son,
   - God's general love for his creation,
   - God's "salvific stance towards his fallen world,"
   - his "particular, effectual, selecting love toward his elect," and
   - love that is conditioned on obedience.

Omnipotent
 - C. S. Lewis : "His Omnipotence means power to do all that is intrinsically possible, not to do the intrinsically impossible. You may attribute miracles to him, but not nonsense. This is no limit to his power.

Omnipresent
 - similar to immanence but exceeds it
 - he is everywhere in the universe/creation
 - but also outside it

Omniscient - he knows everything
 - he is also comletely wise

One
 - the is only one real God
 - this real God is one
 - qv trinity

Provident
- he cares for all creation

Righteous
 - may refer to his holiness, to his justice, or to his saving activity.

Simple
 - ie homogenous, he is not partly this and partly that, but that whatever he is, he is so entirely.
 - "not composed of parts".

Sovereign
 - omnipotent, provident, and the boss
 - also encompasses his freedom
 - it is in keeping with his goodness, righteousness, holiness, and impeccability.
 - in complete control as he directs all things — no person, organization, government or any other force can stop God from executing his purpose.
 - Isaiah 46:10 "My purpose will stand, and I will do all that I please"

Transcendent
 - he is outside space and time, and therefore eternal and unable to be changed by forces within the universe.
 - closely related to God's immutability, and is contrasted with his immanence.
 - Isaiah 57:15: "For this is what the high and exalted One says — he who lives forever, whose name is holy: "I live in a high and holy place, but also with the one who is contrite and lowly in spirit,..."

Triune
 - God is three persons.
 - Each person is fully God.
 - There is one God.
or
 - The Father is God.
 - The Son is God.
 - The Holy Spirit is God.
 - The Father is not the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit is not the Father.
 - The Holy Spirit is not the Son, and the Son is not the Holy Spirit.
 - The Son is not the Father, and the Father is not the Son.

Veracity
 - he can't lie

Wrath
 - he hates anything that is opposed to his moral character

I see a paradox.

If God can't lie, then that would mean there is something God can't do.

Quote from: robcat2075 on Jun 26, 2017, 10:41PMI see a paradox.

If God can't lie, then that would mean there is something God can't do.



I assume that you see the conflict is between veracity and omnipotence.  The definition I've given for omnipotence is
  'C. S. Lewis : "His Omnipotence means power to do all that is intrinsically possible, not to do the intrinsically impossible. You may attribute miracles to him, but not nonsense. This is no limit to his power.'

which is not biblical but I thought avoided the issue you raised.  And others such as creating a round square or break his word.  I'll try and find some biblical support for that explanation.  That may not be significant to you but it is to me.