Normal

I might be wrong, but I think that was his point, in that god goes beyond the simplistic definitions we give for him too.

Wyz_sub10

Fair enough, but my point is that I'm still aware of those defintions.

He is saying that god is more, but we cannot say what.

I am saying my parents are more, and I can come to know what (which is why I can make this claim in the first place).

Normal

But in the case of god, even those simplistic definitions are insufficient, so we can’t come to know god through those definitions, or build on those definitions, if those definitions don’t even apply.

You know your parents through the context of rule-setters and child-rears, and from that initial context can come to an understanding of who your parents are. In the case of god the initial definitions are may or may not apply and therefore cannot be built upon in that context to come to know what god is.

It's the ole "god is undefinable" cop-out.

Wyz_sub10

This is the very point I am challenging. Many Christian churches preach the necessity of "coming to know god" or god as a "personal god."

In doing so, they suggest that god is, indeed, knowable. If that's the case, then it would be inconsistent to say that one could know god, yet be unable to define him in any meaningful way.

That's a fair statement in chronology, but not in necessity. What I mean is, most kids see their parents as "controllers/providers" and learn to see them afterwards as "people".

But it's not necessary that they see them firstly as controllers to know them as people.

Hence my second point about "necessity" - one follows the other in practice, but the fomer is not necessary for the latter. Maybe a foundation of simplicity is necessary for higher levels of understanding, but are you saying there are no simple foundations for defining god?

As with my parents, "controller/provider" seems pretty consistent with the basic definitions I have heard from most xian religions. Why not build from there?

I agree it is a cop-out to the extent that it absolves god from anything questionable or negative. It seems to be that the "one cannot really know god" tag seems to only apply to bad things that happen.

Most Christians (I realize yguy is not Chrisitan) state that what god wants is perfectly knowable, so is "why good things happen". But "why bad things happen" is a complete mystery that cannot be comprehended and should not be questioned to begin with.

yguy

So when's the last time you actually USED this "definition" for any substantive purpose?

I expect most understand Him better, as ignorance of God is a matter of re-education. They just don't have the words to express what they know - and don't know they know.

I don't know about that. Seems to me the more physical the basis of the connection is, the less substantial it is.

Jobar

yguy:
Face it dude, you want something I haven't got - but you're convinced I have it. I don't.

Ah, no. Not at all. In fact, we are convinced that you *don't* have it. Yet, you are trying to claim that you do.

You say you believe in an undefineable god, right? Now, even though you do not call yourself Christian, you seem to be saying that the god you believe in is the God of the Bible. Are those fair statements?

If they are, then you define 'god' as some version of the Abrahamic God- the God of the Bible. Remember that I told you if you deny all definitions of god, you must also deny the Biblical definition.

yguy, we cannot talk clearly about something which has no clear definition. If we have no definition *at all*, then we cannot talk about it *at all*. It has nothing to do with existence or non-existence, and everything to do with the structure of language and semantics. It's like- oh, trying to resolve (see) an atom using radar. The waves pass around it, and give us nothing back.

Perhaps you are some variety of igtheist, or non-cognativist, or even a pantheist. But if you try to claim you believe in an undefineable god, you do nothing but babble meaninglessly.

Nowhere357

Actually, I want to talk about god like a person trying to understand. Is that okay?

And the construction would in theory be based on reality. Is that the part that bothers you?

Another piece to your definition of god. Your definition for god, imo, reduces to "a thing that does not exist, or if it does, then it is of no concern because it does not affect reality.

Of what possible use is such a definition?

What purpose does this "god is unknowable" idea serve?

Is it possible for you to actually state your point?

Should I guess? I would say your point is that god is unknowable, and not that god is undefinable, but I really don't know. And I'm thinking there is really no reason to care.

yguy

I don't know what definition that is, beyond that He is the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and the Father of Christ. That isn't a definition, that just tells you who believed in Him, and who His Son was. You might as well say you've defined Bill Gates by naming is wife, children, and employees.

Then don't. What do you want from me?

yguy

Fine, but to attempt to define God is to move away from knowing Him, IMO.

Does the term "oxymoron" mean anything to you?

No, it just doesn't affect reality in a way that can be verified empirically.

Why, none whatsoever.

Who said God is unknowable?

I've done it a dozen times.

Jobar

yguy:
What do you want from me?

Well, comprehensibility would be nice. I'm beginning to think you may not have it to offer, though.

yguy:

I don't know what definition that is, beyond that He is the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and the Father of Christ. That isn't a definition, that just tells you who believed in Him, and who His Son was. You might as well say you've defined Bill Gates by naming is wife, children, and employees.

You're wrong- that *is* a definition, or at least the beginnings of one. It tells us things about the god, or billionaire, in question.

And I notice you have given no answer to my two simple question, to wit:
"You say you believe in an undefineable god, right? Now, even though you do not call yourself Christian, you seem to be saying that the god you believe in is the God of the Bible. Are those fair statements? "

See yguy, if you choose to come here and talk about this god you say you believe in, you must talk about him/her/it. If you refuse to do that, you are babbling to no point; if you actually talk, you define god whether you will or no.