@Idehn: Correct me if Im wrong, but I presume that in your post directed at Pastor AIO, you refer to me.


You see, the problem here is that in order to define anything, you must encompassingly comprehend it. You dont know 1% of all human knowledge and yet you attempt to define its primary and initial source? Who is the authority that has studied God like a science, enough to explain him away by a definition the way authorities compile entries for an encyclopedia? Maybe you can say you have. But my posts only reflect my own opinions and not that of anyone else. I walk in God by faith & inward intuition and not by sensory perception.


God cannot be defined in words. He may only be progressively known by willing hearts.


Enlightenment, for the lack of another word, is a journey into God and not a destination.

Idehn:

@Pastor AIOYou hit the nail square on the head although I would go further. It is a contradiction to define something as being undefinable. It is like stating that everything you say is a lie. Ignoring that if a God is undefinable how can you talk about one period. If you do not know what it IS you are talking about how can you say things like

1) It created the Universe
2) It rose from the dead.
3) It answers my prayers.
4) It spoke to me last Tuesday.

Admitting that what you speak of has no definition is an admission of complete ignorance of the subject you are speaking of(I do not mean any offense by this) and the only appropriate response is not to speak of it any further. Anything you say about it will inevitably be mired in ignorance and thus not very meaningful. I started a post a while ago posing this question and got the same if not similar responses as you are now receiving.

1) An assembly of disparate Metaphysical concepts internally incoherent/contradictory such as a being existing outside of time but behaving as if it was within time.
2) An assembly of Vague Metaphysical/Empirical disparate concepts that are not decriptive enough to be meaningful such a being outside of time.
3) An assembly of Empirical claims that could not possibly be true such as creating the Earth 6000 years ago.
4) An assembly of vague Empirical concepts of a mundane process such as the Sun rising everyday.
5) An assembly of concepts which themselves have no definition. (God is Spirit)

I am afraid that these are the kind of responses you are going to receive if you choose to continue with this thread. I would argue that the description of the definitions probably encompasses 99% of humanity. The 1% (such as myself), would be fine admitting that I have no definition of the word beyond the sound used to produce it and the emotional/mental response it incites within segments of the human population. All I have left to say is that you should never enter into a conversation with someone doing # 5). That conversation WILL go no where fast. I am afraid that if someone is defining a word by another word which itself has no definition you pretty much know that they neither understand the question nor want to.

Idehn:

@Pastor AIO

You hit the nail square on the head although I would go further. It is a contradiction to define something as being undefinable. It is like stating that everything you say is a lie. Ignoring that if a God is undefinable how can you talk about one period. If you do not know what it IS you are talking about how can you say things like

That we can talk about what we don't know without any sense of absurdity is one of the amazing features of human beings. Like I've said often enough, words are distinguishing things, they are defining things. They make reference to certain things that are distinguished from other things. A calling something a dog also tells us that it is not a cat or a car etc. In other words you put limits around it (de-fine) beyond which what we are talking about is no longer what the word is referring to.

To define God is to also say what is not God. Then once defined we can use the word God and make references to God in a meaningful way. If God is undefinable then anything that you have to say about him is rubbish.

Admitting that what you speak of has no definition is an admission of complete ignorance of the subject you are speaking of(I do not mean any offense by this) [size=14pt]and the only appropriate response is not to speak of it any further. [/size]Anything you say about it will inevitably be mired in ignorance and thus not very meaningful. I started a post a while ago posing this question and got the same if not similar responses as you are now receiving.

Bingo!! This is what Wittgenstein said in his famous proposition 7, and 2 thousands years before him Jesus did just that.

There are seven main propositions in the text. These are:

1.The world is everything that is the case.

2.What is the case (a fact) is the existence of states of affairs.

3.A logical picture of facts is a thought.

4.A thought is a proposition with sense.

5.A proposition is a truth-function of elementary propositions.

6.The general form of a proposition is the general form of a truth function, which is: .

7.[size=14pt]Whereof one cannot speak, one must pass over in silence.[/size]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tractatus_Logico-Philosophicus

What a book! and what a title!! Tractatus Logico Philosophicus!!!! How's that for bombast. And all of that just to arrive at the 7th proposition.

Jesus could have told him that for nothing. Although it can be argued that it wasn't that Jesus kept silent about the question 'What is Truth?', but rather Pilate did not bother to wait for the answer.

38Pilate saith unto him, What is truth? And when he had said this, he went out again unto the Jews, and saith unto them, I find in him no fault at all

John 18

More on Wittgenstein:

Some important and representative propositions from the book are these:

1 The world is all that is the case.
4.01 A proposition is a picture of reality.
4.0312 …My fundamental idea is that the ‘logical constants’ are not representatives; that there can be no representatives of the logic of facts.
4.121 …Propositions show the logical form of reality. They display it.
4.1212 What can be shown, cannot be said.
4.5 …The general form of a proposition is: This is how things stand.
5.43 …all the propositions of logic say the same thing, to wit nothing.
5.4711 To give the essence of a proposition means to give the essence of all description, and thus the essence of the world.
5.6 The limits of my language mean the limits of my world.

http://www.iep.utm.edu/wittgens/

InesQor:



God cannot be defined in words. He may only be progressively known by willing hearts.

In what epistemological sense do you mean when you talk about God being 'known'.

@ Inesqor/ Vesc

I really dont know what moves you to presume the worst of me for the simple act of modifying my post. Since when did it become a crime to edit a post. I did so to elucidate my point better and this was done before i saw your response. Please do give me a break on such trifles.

Ah, Deep Sight. This is between you and InesQor. I've never seen you modify your posts before and I'm not about to take InesQor's word for it cuz I frankly don't care. I was merely telling of the two people I've noticed who modify their posts AFTER the people whom they were directed to have read them AND replied. I'm confused whether that is some sort of posterity induced vanity or just plain dishonesty. Nothing is wrong with modifying a post as long as it's for the right reasons. Some people don't think before they post and come back to remove the embarrassing parts after the passion with which they wrote the first time may have subsided. So, quit playing victim. You're not in my crosshairs

What is a God?

Solution to this answer should come from posters Religious Belief

From Curiousmind point of View, i will say that if a man has a knowledge of God, as the first great cause, he must also acknowledge other causes and determine what official station of dignity and honor to accord them and without which knowledge their presence and help cannot be enjoyed. Such honor and dignity must not be shown for the sake of the spirits but for the sake of their Lord, whose servants they are

In this manner the angels of GOD will encamp around those who fear and love the LORD and as Augustinus says : '' EVERYTHING POSSESSES A PREDESTINED ANGEL POWER ''

There are Ten principle divine names as members of GOD and Ten Numerations as raiment and instruments of the Creator, through which he infused into all his creatures, according to the order of the Ten, Angelic and Ten princely spirit-choirs, from which all things derived their powers and Quality

For more Details, Get a copy of THE SIXTH AND SEVENTH BOOKS OF MOSES


Peace!


CURIOUSMIND

vescucci:

Ah, Deep Sight. This is between you and InesQor. I've never seen you modify your posts before and I'm not about to take InesQor's word for it cuz I frankly don't care. I was merely telling of the two people I've noticed who modify their posts AFTER the people whom they were directed to have read them AND replied. I'm confused whether that is some sort of posterity induced vanity or just plain dishonesty. Nothing is wrong with modifying a post as long as it's for the right reasons. Some people don't think before they post and come back to remove the embarrassing parts after the passion with which they wrote the first time may have subsided. So, quit playing victim. You're not in my crosshairs

LOL @vescucci. I wish I could tell why, either.

Pastor AIO:

I'm soliciting opinions here, not providing opinions of my own. 

Well let me provide my perspective. I thought about this for a moment. You have not said - "what is God?" - but - "What is a God?" Nonetheless for the sake of completeness let me give my perspective on both.

From the perspective of mankind, I would very carefully like to say that God would be that mind which is beyond our reality and beyond our mind and is as such considered the ultimate mind responsible for all things.

"A god" on the other hand would be that mind, real or imagined, which we perceive as beyond our reality and our minds, but which is not considered to be the ultimate mind responsible for all things.

Pastor AIO:

@Aletheia

This is circular reasoning.
And in answer to the question what is worship?

So a deity is defined by the fact that it is worshipped and worship is defined by the fact that it is done to a deity.

that doesn't help me none.

A bigger problem, I guess for you, with underhill's definition would be that Atheist would be said to be worshipping their creator too. After all atheists are conscious beings too.

^Circular perhaps. But one cannot separate worship from gods or gods from worship. Was there ever a god that wasn't worshipped by at least one person? Isn't it because of the act of worship that the object of worship is considered a god? As the Wikipedia entry puts it "worship is---to give, at its simplest, worth to something". Not a satisfactory definition but it will suffice for now.
Concerning Underhill's definition, I have no problem with atheists, for by her definition ("It is the response that conscious beings make to their Creator, to the Eternal Reality from which they came forth; to God, however they may think of Him or recognize Him"), they fall outside the parameters of worship. Atheists maintain that there is no God, "however men may think of Him or recognize Him."

Saying that something is a god because it is being worshipped is putting the cart before the horse. It makes no sense. Something might be considered a god for other reasons but not because it is being worshipped which begs the question why is it being worshipped in the first place. All this god constructs are just human imaginations running amok. It's like asking why Zeus didn't kill Hades. They don't freaking exist. Until one can prove God's existence, all these questions and answers will lead to nowhere but otiose nonsense.

vescucci:

. . . will lead to nowhere but otiose nonsense.

Oti o! O ti to!

vescucci:

It's like asking why Zeus didn't kill Hades. They don't freaking exist. Until one can prove God's existence, all these questions and answers will lead to nowhere but otiose nonsense.

Here. You have often stated that you believe in the existence of GOD.

If GOD, a transcendental, eternal, omni-dimensional mind, may exist - is there any reason to suppose that there may not also exist intangible minds less transcendental - - perhaps given to and of a particular task, realm or element?

Such as Zeus and the pantheon of gods in Valhalla?

Or such as a god which governs the sea. . .YEMANJA. . .

Deep Sight. Do you speak or understand Yoruba? For I'm confused where you wrote: Au contraire! Certainment!

I believe in God but I don't expect other people to do so. As I always say, you can always prove a lie to be a lie but you can rarely prove truth to be truth. So my spiritual journey is one by elimination. I'm very open. I've recently come to the conclusion that monotheistic religions are the chief reasons for religious bloodshed and strife. Polytheistic religions were/are so tolerant that they border on the absolute. I find it sensible to believe that there's no God at all. But I don't believe this. I find it feasible that there's a host of powerful beings who are in charge of different things but that presupposes that the earth and humans are centre of the universe and they exist because of us in which case, they cease to be god-like. In the simplest refutation: what was Poseidon before star dust coalesced to form the earth? Similarly what were all the plenty gods that were attached to some natural phenomena or the other? They're suitably eliminated from existence this way.

All this god constructs are just human imaginations running amok. It's like asking why Zeus didn't kill Hades. They don't freaking exist. Until one can prove God's existence, . . . .

There are two approaches to it.  One is imagination and the other is reasoning.   Synagogues, Churches and Mosques have all gone amock branding their dogmas and selling religion to mankind.  Their prescription of GOD is "reveal".  When you reveal GOD you are limited to a sober relationship with HIM.  The message should be "unveil".  When you unveil HIM you become intoxicated - spiritualism!

Unveil, reveal. They're the same darn thing. It's just a matter whether one is ready to keep one's delusions to oneself. Spirituality should be individual. Those that claim revelation always seek to deliver the good news (or bad news as it were) to everyone else. In that is religious failing. A complex of believers versus unbelievers.

@ Vesc. On a phone now so cannot go into details. I believe what you have rebutted only stands if one imagines the earth to be the only world that exists. For if it is not then elements remain eternal forms of which we can only see the physical manifestations on the earth. Thus a physical sea on earth is not required for an intangible element of seas to exist, if you get my drift.

I think I miss your drift more than I get it. Perhaps you mean that there may be a patron/matron god of water and not necessarily a sea or an ocean or river? Forget about earth. My assertion is that it is so unlikely given the parameters that make the universe, that we're the only life forms in existence. The possibility that we are alone is so remote that you can take it for granted that we aren't. It is therefore exclusive to think of Zeus etc for there's no allusion that there's not limited by earth's limits. In any case, what's the point of their existence? Water will boil at a hundred degrees because it is water and not because Neptune likes it thus. Revert when you can, no problem

A God could be said to be a distraction.

Unveil, reveal. They're the same darn thing. It's just a matter whether one is ready to keep one's delusions to oneself. Spirituality should be individual. Those that claim revelation always seek to deliver the good news (or bad news as it were) to everyone else. In that is religious failing. A complex of believers versus unbelievers.

You should not blame the one hawking religion, the undescerning consumer is at fault for misunderstanding creation. The ability to discern lies in whether or not you seek to unveil or to reveal. So I disagree with your take on that distinction.

No one was born with religion. . . you acquire it. The self-will is endowed with a capacity for transformation and this is the mystic formula in the flood story in OT. We are miseducated in philosophical thinking and we are miseducated in theological understanding. We need a new march - a revolutionary one targeted at institutionalized worship!

They're both to blame. More the proselytizer than the proselytes. The bondage that results from ceaseless indoctrination since childhood is immense. I cannot really blame anyone for not seeing reason if he or she is in the religion of his or her birth. It takes courage, intellect, immense curiosity and a true interest in humanity to break free. A mean mix you'll agree

Kay 17:

A God could be said to be a distraction.

Or an obfuscation.

Well this is one of the many definitions of God given in the Quran.

[112:0] In the name of God, Most Gracious, Most Merciful
[112:1] Proclaim, "He is the One and only GOD.
[112:2] "The Absolute GOD.
[112:3] "Never did He beget. Nor was He begotten.
[112:4] "None equals Him."

The way I see it, we cant and wont see God's attributes in any other entity except in God Himself

Good point Navi.

The eye is a spirit, the ear is a spirit, the tongue is a spirit, the hand is a spirit, the sexual organ is a spirit, the leg is a spirit. . . . . each has no meaning as an individual existence. Wired together as a complete circuit they give form and function to human life. So that when the spirit of my mouth desires a taste of nicotine I can counter that with the spirit in my legs - unless I get up to get a cigarrette there is no way that nicotine will get in my mouth.

This is unveiling!!!

When I seek a psychiatrist or a 12-step programm to intervene and help me stop smoking, then that's revealing. To those who understand this simple example can apply it to their relationship with GOD - whoever GOD is to you.

To Vescucci,

the mind have limits but not the heart. GOD created man, male and female made HE them, and HE called his name Adam. Endless receptacle of love and imagination!! Endless capacity!!

Ah. You believe in Adam? Possibly that ugly thing called original sin too. I think we can agree to disagree then.

Negro_Ntns:

Good point Navi.

The eye is a spirit, the ear is a spirit, the tongue is a spirit, the hand is a spirit, the sexual organ is a spirit, the leg is a spirit. . . . . each has no meaning as an individual existence.  Wired together as a complete circuit they give form and function to human life.  So that when the spirit of my mouth desires a taste of nicotine I can counter that with the spirit in my legs - unless I get up to get a cigarrette there is no way that nicotine will get in my mouth.

This is unveiling!!!  

When I seek a psychiatrist or a 12-step programm to intervene and help me stop smoking, then that's revealing.  To those who understand this simple example can apply it to their relationship with GOD - whoever GOD is to you.  

To Vescucci,

the mind have limits but not the heart. GOD created man, male and female made HE them, and HE called his name Adam.  Endless receptacle of love and imagination!!   Endless capacity!!

This guy!! Lmao
The neck is a spirit,the leg is a spirit, the nose is a spirit, the bosoms are powerful spirits,especially on a female, the toes are mini spirits etc etc etc
Get them all together and they form VOLTRON!!!

A god is any entity some humans depend on to look after them as if they are still babies.
A god is the supernatural being some humans think is going to help them survive their own deaths.
A god is a psychological placebo some humans use to help them cope with life.
A god helps humans believe they will see their dead loved ones again.
A god is what is used to keep fearful people in line.
A god provides phantom hope for the poor and downtrodden.

A God is a human construct used to explain away many things and to keep people in line. . . . .All Gods were created out of the fear of the many and the cleverness of a few. . . . .

Negro_Ntns:

Good point Navi.

The eye is a spirit, the ear is a spirit, the tongue is a spirit, the hand is a spirit, the sexual organ is a spirit, the leg is a spirit. . . . . each has no meaning as an individual existence. Wired together as a complete circuit they give form and function to human life. So that when the spirit of my mouth desires a taste of nicotine I can counter that with the spirit in my legs - unless I get up to get a cigarrette there is no way that nicotine will get in my mouth.

This is unveiling!!!

When I seek a psychiatrist or a 12-step programm to intervene and help me stop smoking, then that's revealing. To those who understand this simple example can apply it to their relationship with GOD - whoever GOD is to you.

To Vescucci,

the mind have limits but not the heart. GOD created man, male and female made HE them, and HE called his name Adam. Endless receptacle of love and imagination!! Endless capacity!!

Ancient Theology!

The definition of God is too subjective depending on your position. A polytheist sees his gods as in the diversity of his environment, simple and unsophiscated and limited. Whereas, a monotheist sums all the numerous gods of the polytheist into one complex, ubiquitous creature, whose entity is as singular as existence.

Thus the complexity of God, is draw from his man's present inability to underatand all.

@Pastor AIO: I missed your guestion. The sense in which I said God may not be defined but may be progressively "known" is that by continuous experiences of interaction with God, one understands his attributes WITH RESPECT TO THEMSELVES, at least. With such an understanding, while not defining all that God will do or wont do, one knows that which he has declared as defined, and has allowed to be, and thus one can choose to align with it or run against it. I hope my answer is sufficient, though I doubt it might be, "knowing" you. ;-)

This is the closest concept I found. I believe asking "What is God" is very much like asking "What is Life?" it would either lead to circular reasoning, or else the responses would be heavily subjective with respect to the person replying.

I agree to this.

@InesQor
From my past inquiry I understand that people have qualms about defining God. However, the problem is that without a sufficient ontology asking me to "search" for God is not at all meaningful. By defining God as that which is undefinable(which I still hold is a paradoxical statement), I have no idea in the least what it IS you are talking about. It is not true that that you need an all encompassing definition of something to say it is "defined". You only need a definition that is logically coherent and relevant to the context in which you are using the word. For example, the definition for an electron varies across different sciences/disciplines due to the different contexts. An electrical engineer simply does not need to define the electron in the same way a quantum/theoretical physicist would because having all of that definition is not relevant at the levels they are working at. The same applies in the reverse I might add. In fact I do not think there is a such thing as complete definition of anything. However, if you define the electron as having no definition at all, it is simply not meaningful to say things like

1) It can circle around a positively charged particle.
2) It can absorb and emit photons.
3) It can move at speeds of 2 * 10^6 m/s
4) You can search for it.

All these statements are coming from complete ignorance of what an electron is and so I cannot possible know the truth value of any of these statements. That is what I believe you are doing. You have not defined what a God IS, yet continue to make truth statements about it. It is not meaningful to say that a God can be progressively "known". What IS it about a God that can be be progressively "known"? As soon as one starts to answer this question they will have immediately started putting forward a definition which itself is problematic. They would just end up explicitly stating that God has no definition, while implicitly defining God as if it could be defined. To say that something cannot be defined is to say you do not know of it. If I cannot define what a positron is, it means I do know what it is. If I cannot define what a positron, I am getting ahead of myself by saying it can be progressively known. I have no idea if that statement is true or even what it means with respect to the positron. How/why is it any different for a God?

I took this out of my previous post as it is an analogue of some of the things happening now in this thread.

Let me elaborate what I mean through this example. Your mother tasks you with going to the market to pick up a Mocor. When you ask her what a mocor is, when you ask her to define Mocor is she says:
"It is what it is."
"It is everlasting."
"It is the light of my world!"
"It is the Greatest of all things!"
"It will make all your unhappiness disappear"
"There is no problem it cannot solve"
"It is love"
"It is free to take"
"It has no definition"
"It cannot be fully understood"

Although you get the impression that she considers a Mocor very important does any of this convey what exactly it IS she is talking about. Pick only one. Pick two or three of the things or even them all. Even if you went to the market to look for a Mocor, would you know what it IS you are looking for? If the answer is no then, is it reasonable to go to the market to look for a Mocor even if you do not know what it IS you are looking for? In the same way, how is it reasonable to talk about/look for a God if we do not know what it IS we are talking about/looking for in the first place. Although there is more wrong with the definition given by the mother in this example, I hope that what I have said here helped clear things up.

@Martian

Get them all together and they form VOLTRON!!!