What is God's nature? [Archive]

Krayenhoff

10-29-2002, 03:44 PM

Originally posted by zimbach
Furthermore, how does one empirically verify the nature of God?
How does one reconcile contradictary evidence?

1. There are some ways you can, such as the Intelligent Design theory, but there's no way to do it with any amount of certainty.

2. What contradictory evidence would that be?

zimbach

10-29-2002, 03:53 PM

Originally posted by Krayenhoff
1. There are some ways you can, such as the Intelligent Design theory, but there's no way to do it with any amount of certainty.
If you can't do it with any amount of certainty, then you're not really verifying anything, are you?

JustJack

10-29-2002, 04:09 PM

God's like that kid at school who offers you some candy, you take it, then he smacks it outta your hand, and punches you in the nose.....

*shrug*

I'm not a happy little christian boy. :(

Krayenhoff

10-29-2002, 04:28 PM

Originally posted by zimbach
If you can't do it with any amount of certainty, then you're not really verifying anything, are you?

No, but then again the entire question is irrelevant anyway. You're either convinced or you're not.

meatwad945

10-29-2002, 04:28 PM

God hmmm dosent ring a bell

guinaevere

10-29-2002, 04:51 PM

I'm interested in this:
How does one reconcile contradictary evidence?

Care to give examples?

zimbach

10-29-2002, 05:26 PM

Originally posted by guinaevere
I'm interested in this:
How does one reconcile contradictary evidence?

Care to give examples? When you experiment to verify the nature of God, you may get results that are inconsistent with your hypothesis. How would you deal with that? (For example, you might adjust the parameters of your experiment, or change your hypothesis.)

Krayenhoff

10-29-2002, 05:31 PM

Originally posted by zimbach
When you experiment to verify the nature of God, you may get results that are inconsistent with your hypothesis. How would you deal with that? (For example, you might adjust the parameters of your experiment, or change your hypothesis.)

You can't verify the nature of God beyond a philosophical approach, though. What experiment could you do to figure out if He exists or not?

zimbach

10-29-2002, 05:36 PM

Originally posted by Krayenhoff
You can't verify the nature of God beyond a philosophical approach, though. What experiment could you do to figure out if He exists or not? Don't be so self-negative. :)

I'm not asking for proof that He IS, but rather HOW to verify WHAT He is.
It's not a question of existence, but essence, and the process of discovery.

ccffan01

10-29-2002, 06:51 PM

Non-exsistant

Psilon

10-29-2002, 09:56 PM

You can test definitions of God I think.

The all knowing, omnipotent being is not possible. The best definition of God, would be close to the Buddhists. God would be the set of all sets. Essientally God is everything and nothing. A better word would be totality.

Meson

10-29-2002, 10:04 PM

I have heard a story from a Catholic pastor of this aithiest mathematician who proved God's existence with a math equation, but I forgot the name of the journal report the guy made.

FYI: Devine existence is provable. Devine intervention, however, is not.

The Guard

10-29-2002, 11:28 PM

This reminds me of something from THE SIMPSONS.

Homer approaches Ned Flanders with a piece of paper as Ned and his two boys start to get into their car.

HOMER
Hey, Flanders. Heading to Church?

FLANDER
Yes indeedy, Homer.

HOMER
Well, I thought I'd save you some time.

FLANDER
Oh. Found a new shortcut have you?

HOMER
No, I was working on a flat tax proposal and I accidentally proved there's no God.

FLANDERS
What? Let me see that.

Homer hands Ned his calculations. Flanders reads the paper, his face falling, as Homer walks off.

FLANDER
Well I'll be. Wait, maybe there's a-nope. It's airtight.

Ned gets a sly look on his face and raises a lighter toward the paper.

FLANDER
Well. Can't let this little doozy get out.

Ned lights the paper on fire. Behind him, Homer is putting a copy of the calculations on every car's windshield, whistling "Glory, glory Hallelujah.".

BayouLady

10-29-2002, 11:50 PM

Im with meatwad and ccfan on this one.

hey guard, which eppisode number is that one?

Lucky Bob

10-30-2002, 01:00 AM

God's nature is the ultimate nature. He's holy, and the only Being on earth to be so. As such, He has a just nature that requires a penalty for sin. However, He also has a merciful nature that provides for an escape from sin's punishment. It used to be with sacrifices, and now it's through the sacrifice of his Son and God incarnate, Jesus Christ. I know I'm going to get laughed at and ridiculed by about 75% of this board, but that's what I believe and I'm sticking to it.

The Guard

10-30-2002, 01:06 AM

BayouLady,

No clue. But it was the episode where Homer gets a crayon removed from his brain.

Anyone00

10-30-2002, 02:40 AM

If from the very begging of time there was a massive seven winginged Angel with a huge flaming sword held high above it's head, a gleaming breastplate upon its chest, a mighty glow coming from it's face brighter that the Sun itself, and a beautiful flowing banner that proclaimed the existence and nature of God that could be perfectly understood be anyone viewing it held in its hand appeared (the Angle that is) in the sky and could be seen at any moment in time by any one just by looking up to the sky people would get use to it more-or-less. People would find different ways to explain the Angle and what the Banner says, and would eventually try to explain it away. The Atheist would ridicule people who believed in God and noted the Angle (or as the Atheist would refer to: 'that other thing in the sky'), and the Atheist would also question "If there is a 'God' why doesn't he turn out that light so we can all get a good nights sleep for once?".

[ugh... I need to work on my sentence structure.]

zimbach

10-30-2002, 02:48 AM

Originally posted by Anyone00
[ugh... I need to work on my sentence structure.]
And your spelling, too.

Krayenhoff

10-30-2002, 08:59 AM

Originally posted by Psilon2011
proove it...
If there were such an equation, there would be no atheists.
God as an omnipotent 'All knowing' being is actually disproved in mathematics.

I didn't realize that mathematics in an of itself comprised reality entirely.

I also didn't realize that people could waste their time with such a useless venture, either.

Psilon

10-30-2002, 01:25 PM

Originally posted by Krayenhoff
I didn't realize that mathematics in an of itself comprised reality entirely.

I also didn't realize that people could waste their time with such a useless venture, either.

Math doesn't go out and proove God exists or doesn't exist. But it prooves that some things are unknowable using mathematics. One can never know mommentum and position of a particle at any time.

guinaevere

11-20-2002, 01:59 PM

zimbach, I completely forgot to ever check back on this thread. Sorry 'bout that.

you said: When you experiment to verify the nature of God, you may get results that are inconsistent with your hypothesis. How would you deal with that? (For example, you might adjust the parameters of your experiment, or change your hypothesis.)

You remind me of C.S. Lewis who went out, as an athiest, to prove the non-existance of God, only to become one of the most literate, intelligent Christians we've seen to date.

As I can not pretend to be an intellectual of his level, my best suggestion is to pick up some of his books. The most relevant being Mere Christianity and then perhaps Pilgrim's Regress.

And for anyone who can get their hands on it, pick up, check out, borrow or steal the audio copy of The Screwtape Letters read by John Cleese. It is incredible.

James

11-20-2002, 02:14 PM

Reminds me of Douglas Adams argument over the existence of God. All in 'Hitch Hikers Guide To The Galaxy' tongue and cheek about the possibilties of the existence of God and how proof destroys the fundementals of faith.

'I refuse to prove I exist,' says God. 'For proof denies faith and without faith I am nothing.'
'Ah,' says Man. 'But the Babel Fish is a dead giveaway - it proves you exist so therefore you don't - QED.'
'Oh I hadn't thought of that,' says God and promptly disappears in a puff of logic.

When does a God remain a god? So far, all gods have been unable to be verified. If proof was found, would they be still defined as a god once you can actually define what they are?

Psilon

11-20-2002, 02:59 PM

Originally posted by SJJ
Reminds me of Douglas Adams argument over the existence of God. All in 'Hitch Hikers Guide To The Galaxy' tongue and cheek about the possibilties of the existence of God and how proof destroys the fundementals of faith.

'I refuse to prove I exist,' says God. 'For proof denies faith and without faith I am nothing.'
'Ah,' says Man. 'But the Babel Fish is a dead giveaway - it proves you exist so therefore you don't - QED.'
'Oh I hadn't thought of that,' says God and promptly disappears in a puff of logic.

When does a God remain a god? So far, all gods have been unable to be verified. If proof was found, would they be still defined as a god once you can actually define what they are?

Well it depends on what you believe God is.
Is it an entity, being etc.

If we do not define what God is, then we don't know what we are searching for and so we can never find proof. I choose to pick the best definition, one that doesn't have contradictions.

James

11-20-2002, 03:07 PM

I think the issue here is definition, I couldn't agree more. Would people be satisified if they knew God? In someways it's the faith that sustains us, the belief there is more than you can understand, that something higher and better than you dominates. Remove that faith with proof and I think, as Adams whimsically points out, you'd have no god. In fact, I think people would start to look higher to a higher being than the one they had found. People don't realise want answers. As answers begets more questions. People desire faith and I think there would be many unhappy people out there if God didn't indeed reveal him/herself.

FredNash

11-20-2002, 03:34 PM

o boy, where to start! first:

One can never know mommentum and position of a particle at any time.
sure you can! it's done on star trek all the time, they're called "Heisenberg Compensators."

You remind me of C.S. Lewis who went out, as an athiest, to prove the non-existance of God, only to become one of the most literate, intelligent Christians we've seen to date.
C.S. Lewis, the greatest christian theologian of the 20th centruy, died an embittered athiest whith no faith in God. Immensely sad, but true. He addresses the existance of God in The Problem of Pain which describes the paradox of a benevolent, all-powerful being allowing pain and suffering to exist.

Here's a good one: Can God, who is all-powerfull, create a boulder so big even he could not lift it? (that one's right up there with the sound of one hand clapping)

Before you define God, however, you must explain the dichotomy between the mind (or soul) and the body. How do you explain how a non-physical object such as a soul, which does not exist in our "realm" so to speak, can manipulate and interact with our physical bodies? Even if you don't believe in the "soul" per se, you must still explain the interaction between the mental and the physical worlds...

Psilon

11-20-2002, 04:53 PM

Originally posted by FredNash
o boy, where to start! first:

sure you can! it's done on star trek all the time, they're called "Heisenberg Compensators."

C.S. Lewis, the greatest christian theologian of the 20th centruy, died an embittered athiest whith no faith in God. Immensely sad, but true. He addresses the existance of God in The Problem of Pain which describes the paradox of a benevolent, all-powerful being allowing pain and suffering to exist.

Here's a good one: Can God, who is all-powerfull, create a boulder so big even he could not lift it? (that one's right up there with the sound of one hand clapping)

Before you define God, however, you must explain the dichotomy between the mind (or soul) and the body. How do you explain how a non-physical object such as a soul, which does not exist in our "realm" so to speak, can manipulate and interact with our physical bodies? Even if you don't believe in the "soul" per se, you must still explain the interaction between the mental and the physical worlds...

How could I forget the Heisenber Compensators :D

Isn't that a logical fallacy. Like saying say there was an unstoppable force, and unmovable mass. What would happen when they collided. Does this mean physics doesn't exist. I always laughed at Hakuins saying, it brings up memmories of the Simpsons.

Well I don't think I need to explain the dichotomy of the soul. My definition, which is a definition many have, seems like it has no flaws.

Psilon

11-20-2002, 04:59 PM

Originally posted by SJJ
I think the issue here is definition, I couldn't agree more. Would people be satisified if they knew God? In someways it's the faith that sustains us, the belief there is more than you can understand, that something higher and better than you dominates. Remove that faith with proof and I think, as Adams whimsically points out, you'd have no god. In fact, I think people would start to look higher to a higher being than the one they had found. People don't realise want answers. As answers begets more questions. People desire faith and I think there would be many unhappy people out there if God didn't indeed reveal him/herself.

Since there are no contradictions in my definition I believe I know God. The problem I find is that people do not want definitions, but ironically to understand anything there needs to be definitions. One may not accept it but they do have a definition. Whether it be an old grandfather figure or a blinding light. I just made a concious effort to make my definition clear and without flaws. I think people do want answers if left in their natural state.

Feslmogh

11-20-2002, 05:00 PM

Mabey these links will help a little...

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/3270.asp
http://209.15.80.77/200Questions/article.php?topic=1

Psilon

11-20-2002, 05:11 PM

Originally posted by Feslmogh
Mabey these links will help a little...

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/3270.asp
http://209.15.80.77/200Questions/article.php?topic=1

These are typical answers.
Try apologetics, real theologians...

Obviously God is infinite, but the typical idea people have of God is finite. A contradiction. Infinite must incompensate all. True there are different levels of infinite, but God would have to be the largest set of infinite.-Everything and nothing, the set of all sets. This is not the typical idea of God. God is existence.

Even atheists believe in existence.

Daniel P

11-20-2002, 06:13 PM

Originally posted by Krayenhoff
No, but then again the entire question is irrelevant anyway. You're either convinced or you're not. Right.

ZorBrak

11-20-2002, 09:25 PM

Originally posted by Psilon2011
proove it...
If there were such an equation, there would be no atheists.

Maybe....but there will always be those who are affraid of commitment and opt for rebellion. I have faith and believe in God that's all I care to comment on the subject.

Psilon

11-21-2002, 02:42 PM