For Christians, define god

[Tom Sawyer]

What is god? female, male, or otrher?
Where did god come from, did he, she, or it always exist?
When god created the universe, out of what did he, she, or it make it from?
When god creates something are there rules or laws similar to science?
Does god have thoughts? From the bible god can certainly be angry and feel love.
Is god a being with inner workings, is there an energy source?

I don't see how we could possibly have definitive answers to any of those questions. If God exists, God is not an entity that operates in plain view. We see the effects of God, but you are asking for a diagram of an unknown machine based solely on its product. I suppose you could say, "ask the Bible!", but even if one takes a very literal view of those books, the God portrayed therein makes no claim to be able or willing to explain how they created the universe. They are described as thinking, so I suppose there is an answer to that one. On purely logical grounds, it seems to me that God must favor the seeming rules of science, as otherwise I cannot imagine how or why said rules would exist at all, or be consistent in their occurrence.

And that's perfectly fine. If God has an effect on things, then those are verifiable aspects of his existence which can be analyzed and discussed. It's like how nobody can actually see a black hole, but you can verify that black holes are there by observing their effects on the surrounding universe. If you can show that the winner of a high school football game can be correlated to which coach had the team pray together before hitting the field, you just proved the existence of God even though you know nothing about his nature beyond the fact that he answers prayers. If the spontaneous remission of cancer cases in Catholic hospitals is significantly greater than the spontaneous remission of cancer in Mormon hospitals after their associated priests visit, you not only just proved the existence of God, you also gave more insight into his nature because the Catholic prayers clearly have a better connection to him.

It's quite fine to say that "I believe in the God who does X, Y and Z" without needing to directly know anything about his nature because everything that you can see about X, Y and Z gives verification that you are talking about a something instead of a nothing.

 

[Politesse]

What is god? female, male, or otrher?
Where did god come from, did he, she, or it always exist?
When god created the universe, out of what did he, she, or it make it from?
When god creates something are there rules or laws similar to science?
Does god have thoughts? From the bible god can certainly be angry and feel love.
Is god a being with inner workings, is there an energy source?

I don't see how we could possibly have definitive answers to any of those questions. If God exists, God is not an entity that operates in plain view. We see the effects of God, but you are asking for a diagram of an unknown machine based solely on its product. I suppose you could say, "ask the Bible!", but even if one takes a very literal view of those books, the God portrayed therein makes no claim to be able or willing to explain how they created the universe. They are described as thinking, so I suppose there is an answer to that one. On purely logical grounds, it seems to me that God must favor the seeming rules of science, as otherwise I cannot imagine how or why said rules would exist at all, or be consistent in their occurrence.

So are you saying that you believe in...something that has undefinable characteristics? Many Christians would at least answer a few of those questions above. But this is rather unsophisticated, so the more wily among believers seem to try to keep that definition in a fog...until they're asked what it wants or needs or feels or has to teach us something...or well, something. I mean, if it cannot be defined and we know nothing about it, it's kind of useless isn't it? I have to admit I'm suspicious, because when I see theists doing this what I often see is God gets put into a closet during definition time, and then later when he's needed to be useful somehow to the theist, he get pulled out again, only to again be shoved into the dark when the atheist enters the room.

I "believe" in quite a lot of things I can't entirely define. The universe is a complicated place. My entire discipline revolves around a term that we have vigorous arguments about defining. No idea what you are going on about with the closets and so forth, but I promise not to... spring a surprise definition of God on you later? I don't see what this would actually be useful for anyway.

 

[Politesse]

What is god? female, male, or otrher?
Where did god come from, did he, she, or it always exist?
When god created the universe, out of what did he, she, or it make it from?
When god creates something are there rules or laws similar to science?
Does god have thoughts? From the bible god can certainly be angry and feel love.
Is god a being with inner workings, is there an energy source?

I don't see how we could possibly have definitive answers to any of those questions. If God exists, God is not an entity that operates in plain view. We see the effects of God, but you are asking for a diagram of an unknown machine based solely on its product. I suppose you could say, "ask the Bible!", but even if one takes a very literal view of those books, the God portrayed therein makes no claim to be able or willing to explain how they created the universe. They are described as thinking, so I suppose there is an answer to that one. On purely logical grounds, it seems to me that God must favor the seeming rules of science, as otherwise I cannot imagine how or why said rules would exist at all, or be consistent in their occurrence.

And that's perfectly fine. If God has an effect on things, then those are verifiable aspects of his existence which can be analyzed and discussed. It's like how nobody can actually see a black hole, but you can verify that black holes are there by observing their effects on the surrounding universe. If you can show that the winner of a high school football game can be correlated to which coach had the team pray together before hitting the field, you just proved the existence of God even though you know nothing about his nature beyond the fact that he answers prayers. If the spontaneous remission of cancer cases in Catholic hospitals is significantly greater than the spontaneous remission of cancer in Mormon hospitals after their associated priests visit, you not only just proved the existence of God, you also gave more insight into his nature because the Catholic prayers clearly have a better connection to him.

It's quite fine to say that "I believe in the God who does X, Y and Z" without needing to directly know anything about his nature because everything that you can see about X, Y and Z gives verification that you are talking about a something instead of a nothing.

I don't need or expect special favors from God; the world as currently constituted is okay.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

And that's perfectly fine. If God has an effect on things, then those are verifiable aspects of his existence which can be analyzed and discussed. It's like how nobody can actually see a black hole, but you can verify that black holes are there by observing their effects on the surrounding universe. If you can show that the winner of a high school football game can be correlated to which coach had the team pray together before hitting the field, you just proved the existence of God even though you know nothing about his nature beyond the fact that he answers prayers. If the spontaneous remission of cancer cases in Catholic hospitals is significantly greater than the spontaneous remission of cancer in Mormon hospitals after their associated priests visit, you not only just proved the existence of God, you also gave more insight into his nature because the Catholic prayers clearly have a better connection to him.

It's quite fine to say that "I believe in the God who does X, Y and Z" without needing to directly know anything about his nature because everything that you can see about X, Y and Z gives verification that you are talking about a something instead of a nothing.

I don't need or expect special favors from God; the world as currently constituted is okay.

That's fine. You don't need to. You say that we see the effects of God. That means that you believe in a God who does X, Y and Z and those can all be verified the same way that gravitational effects on surrounding objects in an interstellar cloud can be used to verify the presence of a black hole there, even though we can't observe it directly.

If you do not believe in a God who answers prayers, you still believe in a God whom you say effects the universe in other ways. What are those other ways?

 

[bigfield]

If you do not believe in a God who answers prayers, you still believe in a God whom you say effects the universe in other ways. What are those other ways?

"Mysterious."

 

[Politesse]

And that's perfectly fine. If God has an effect on things, then those are verifiable aspects of his existence which can be analyzed and discussed. It's like how nobody can actually see a black hole, but you can verify that black holes are there by observing their effects on the surrounding universe. If you can show that the winner of a high school football game can be correlated to which coach had the team pray together before hitting the field, you just proved the existence of God even though you know nothing about his nature beyond the fact that he answers prayers. If the spontaneous remission of cancer cases in Catholic hospitals is significantly greater than the spontaneous remission of cancer in Mormon hospitals after their associated priests visit, you not only just proved the existence of God, you also gave more insight into his nature because the Catholic prayers clearly have a better connection to him.

It's quite fine to say that "I believe in the God who does X, Y and Z" without needing to directly know anything about his nature because everything that you can see about X, Y and Z gives verification that you are talking about a something instead of a nothing.

I don't need or expect special favors from God; the world as currently constituted is okay.

That's fine. You don't need to. You say that we see the effects of God. That means that you believe in a God who does X, Y and Z and those can all be verified the same way that gravitational effects on surrounding objects in an interstellar cloud can be used to verify the presence of a black hole there, even though we can't observe it directly.

If you do not believe in a God who answers prayers, you still believe in a God whom you say effects the universe in other ways. What are those other ways?

It exists.

 

[James Brown]

It exists.

But what is your evidence for that?

 

[Politesse]

It exists.

But what is your evidence for that?

Existence? I suppose it is fun to poke holes at that assumption in PHIL 100, but we tend to give up on the project eventually. If the universe does not exist, or exists only as a very powerful delusion, it makes the whole question of existence irrelevant at the same time.

 

[James Brown]

It exists.

But what is your evidence for that?

Existence? I suppose it is fun to poke holes at that assumption in PHIL 100, but we tend to give up on the project eventually. If the universe does not exist, or exists only as a very powerful delusion, it makes the whole question of existence irrelevant at the same time.

My apologies. When you said, "It exists," I thought you were referring to God.

 

[skepticalbip]

That's fine. You don't need to. You say that we see the effects of God. That means that you believe in a God who does X, Y and Z and those can all be verified the same way that gravitational effects on surrounding objects in an interstellar cloud can be used to verify the presence of a black hole there, even though we can't observe it directly.

If you do not believe in a God who answers prayers, you still believe in a God whom you say effects the universe in other ways. What are those other ways?

It exists.

I don't see that anyone has even suggested the universe doesn't exist. Is your response, "it exists", supposed to have some deeper meaning?

 

[Politesse]

Existence? I suppose it is fun to poke holes at that assumption in PHIL 100, but we tend to give up on the project eventually. If the universe does not exist, or exists only as a very powerful delusion, it makes the whole question of existence irrelevant at the same time.

My apologies. When you said, "It exists," I thought you were referring to God.

If the universe is the creation of God, and the universe is said to be all that exists, I'm not sure what it would mean to say that God exists.

- - - Updated - - -

That's fine. You don't need to. You say that we see the effects of God. That means that you believe in a God who does X, Y and Z and those can all be verified the same way that gravitational effects on surrounding objects in an interstellar cloud can be used to verify the presence of a black hole there, even though we can't observe it directly.

If you do not believe in a God who answers prayers, you still believe in a God whom you say effects the universe in other ways. What are those other ways?

It exists.

I don't see that anyone has even suggested the universe doesn't exist. Is your response, "it exists", supposed to have some deeper meaning?

Well it is, to me, an interesting question in need of answering.

 

[skepticalbip]

That's fine. You don't need to. You say that we see the effects of God. That means that you believe in a God who does X, Y and Z and those can all be verified the same way that gravitational effects on surrounding objects in an interstellar cloud can be used to verify the presence of a black hole there, even though we can't observe it directly.

If you do not believe in a God who answers prayers, you still believe in a God whom you say effects the universe in other ways. What are those other ways?

It exists.

I don't see that anyone has even suggested the universe doesn't exist. Is your response, "it exists", supposed to have some deeper meaning?

Well it is, to me, an interesting question in need of answering.

Yes it is an interesting question, and not just to you. It is a question that has the whole field of cosmology studying. If you think you have an answer that is demonstrable then there could even be a Noble waiting for you.

 

[Politesse]

It exists.

I don't see that anyone has even suggested the universe doesn't exist. Is your response, "it exists", supposed to have some deeper meaning?

Well it is, to me, an interesting question in need of answering.

Yes it is an interesting question, and not just to you. It is a question that has the whole field of cosmology studying. If you think you have an answer that is demonstrable then there could even be a Noble waiting for you.

If I thought I had, I would be working on that!

But I doubt that a demonstrable answer to that question will actually surface. The only way that could be true is if the creation of the universe was somehow an internal process, following the normal "rules" we are accustomed to finding in the universe. Otherwise, the creation of the universe, whether or not divine persons were involved, is beyond the reach of the empirical to describe. Science requires the assumption of uniformity to be functional.

 

[skepticalbip]

I don't see that anyone has even suggested the universe doesn't exist. Is your response, "it exists", supposed to have some deeper meaning?

Well it is, to me, an interesting question in need of answering.

Yes it is an interesting question, and not just to you. It is a question that has the whole field of cosmology studying. If you think you have an answer that is demonstrable then there could even be a Noble waiting for you.

If I thought I had, I would be working on that!

But I doubt that a demonstrable answer to that question will actually surface. The only way that could be true is if the creation of the universe was somehow an internal process, following the normal "rules" we are accustomed to finding in the universe. Otherwise, the creation of the universe, whether or not divine persons were involved, is beyond the reach of the empirical to describe. Science requires the assumption of uniformity to be functional.

I don't know what you mean by that. A lot of work has been done to increase our understanding of the nature of black holes (I think even a couple Nobels awarded). Even though Einstein predicted they could exist he didn't think nature would allow them. We can't create them and, unlike the universe, we can not even observe them directly. The nature of black holes is certainly not something I would call "uniformity".

 

[Tom Sawyer]

That's fine. You don't need to. You say that we see the effects of God. That means that you believe in a God who does X, Y and Z and those can all be verified the same way that gravitational effects on surrounding objects in an interstellar cloud can be used to verify the presence of a black hole there, even though we can't observe it directly.

If you do not believe in a God who answers prayers, you still believe in a God whom you say effects the universe in other ways. What are those other ways?

It exists.

OK, if you don't even want to try, you can just not post.

 

[Politesse]

Try to do what? The OP asked for a Christian take on a question, I did my best to answer it. But really, there isn't a lot there. I've never been burdened with the conceit of imagining I have answers to all the big questions. There's no need to be rude about it. I don't believe in "miracles" of the Newtonian sort, which seems to be what your question is about, or the natural/supernatural divide it implies.

 

[Juma]

Try to do what? The OP asked for a Christian take on a question, I did my best to answer it. But really, there isn't a lot there. I've never been burdened with the conceit of imagining I have answers to all the big questions. There's no need to be rude about it. I don't believe in "miracles" of the Newtonian sort, which seems to be what your question is about, or the natural/supernatural divide it implies.

So how can you be christian without being intellectually dishonest?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Try to do what? The OP asked for a Christian take on a question, I did my best to answer it. But really, there isn't a lot there. I've never been burdened with the conceit of imagining I have answers to all the big questions. There's no need to be rude about it. I don't believe in "miracles" of the Newtonian sort, which seems to be what your question is about, or the natural/supernatural divide it implies.

But you’re the one who said that we can see the effects of God. Those are generally referred to as miracles. If you did not mean that, what effects were you talking about when you said we can see the effects of God and how would we distinguish those from what it would be like if there wasn’t a deity involved in them?

This is exactly what the OP was getting on about. Whenever someone tries to pin down a Christian on what it is that they’re talking about, the definition changes from person to person and its impossible to have a conversation because they’re all referring to different things.

 

[skepticalbip]

Try to do what? The OP asked for a Christian take on a question, I did my best to answer it. But really, there isn't a lot there. I've never been burdened with the conceit of imagining I have answers to all the big questions. There's no need to be rude about it. I don't believe in "miracles" of the Newtonian sort, which seems to be what your question is about, or the natural/supernatural divide it implies.

You are being awfully evasive, only describing what you don't believe. The OP was about what is believed.

But, from your posts, it sounds like you are more a Deist rather than a Christian. But then you are being so cagey that it is impossible to tell.

 

[Politesse]

Try to do what? The OP asked for a Christian take on a question, I did my best to answer it. But really, there isn't a lot there. I've never been burdened with the conceit of imagining I have answers to all the big questions. There's no need to be rude about it. I don't believe in "miracles" of the Newtonian sort, which seems to be what your question is about, or the natural/supernatural divide it implies.

You are being awfully evasive, only describing what you don't believe. The OP was about what is believed.

But, from your posts, it sounds like you are more a Deist rather than a Christian. But then you are being so cagey that it is impossible to tell.

Cagey? You make it sound like I have some sort of secret position I'm not disclosing. Am I part of a shadowy conspiracy to confuse atheists now? Lemme go grap my dark cape and secret handshake manual

Refusing to give strong, specific answers to questions that no one honestly has an answer to, does not make me less honest than someone who is selling you some bill of goods about the lot.