Questions no one can answer

[columbus]

God is a something.

I realize that we're up against the limits of the language, but I don't think that's true exactly.
By "something" I'm talking about the material universe, that which we limited humans can perceive and therefore study and learn about.
But I'm pretty sure that there's more to reality than that.

Similarly, for most of human history we assumed that creation was a big solid flattish plane, surrounded by water, with a blue dome over top. We couldn't imagine that creation was the vast expanse of the universe, and that our earth was a tiny speck of molten rock hurtling through the void. I also believe that our current, materialistic, understanding of reality is nearly as primitive as ancient understanding of the earth.
Perhaps it would make more sense if I said "Reality exists, therefore God"?

So god can't be the answer to that question.
The question asks for an explanation for why something exists rather then nothing. God is part of the "something" that exists (if he exists), for which an explanation is asked.

Does Gravity exist? Mathematics? Love? Horizons? Literature? Consciousness?

People commonly refer to abstract concepts as though they have objective existence, when they clearly do not.
I see God as similar to those things. An abstract concept, that doesn't have objective existence in the way that iron, stars, or self-replicating molecules do. But does exist the way earth's orbit did 10,000 years ago.
Tom

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

By "something" I'm talking about the material universe, that which we limited humans can perceive and therefore study and learn about.
But I'm pretty sure that there's more to reality than that.

By "material," do you mean something other than "that which exists in reality (as opposed to existing as a concept)?"

 

[columbus]

By "material," do you mean something other than "that which exists in reality (as opposed to existing as a concept)?"

By "material" I mean that subset of reality that can be perceived, examined, and extrapolated from, by our limited 5 senses.
Basically, matter and energy and the resulting emergent properties.

But I expect that our current scientific understanding of reality is only slightly less primitive than that of the flat earth believers 3000 years ago. I am confident that there's far more to learn than science is currently able to investigate.

But I don't claim to know what that is, much less make truth claims about it the way religionists do. That's why I'm a non-theist.
Tom

 

[David J]

Ah. I think I understand now.
You really intended to respond to the OP, saying that those are questions you ask.
Because you addressed me, I was not sure if you were asking me if these were questions that couldn't be answered, or needed to be asked.
Now I understand. No problem.

I can help you with the answers to the questions.
Enoch, Abraham. Isaac, Noah and others are said to have walked with God, but not like how we would walk with someone, of course. It was figurative.
God's walking in the garden was figurative also evidently.

Since all men originated from one source (Acts 17:26 .And he made out of one man every nation of men to dwell on the entire surface of the earth, . . .), there was one language. How men came to speak different language would seem a huge mystery, outside the explanation given at Genesis 11.
It's not a genetic thing, nor does it have anything to do with an evolving brain.
I still speak English from birth, and I am sure if I lived a billion years, I would not suddenly start speaking some strange tongue, nor would my offspring.

Human behavior is learned, but we know genes play a role in the disposition and behavior of offspring. So, we can understand how traits were inherited from Adam and Eve, and how human behavior would be copied, and enhanced, in a never-ending cycle...
Of course, until God makes all things new.

You're right, apologize.

How are you able to discern between the figurative and literal?

 

[nPeace]

You're right, apologize.

How are you able to discern between the figurative and literal?

Some things are obvious. Some need study.
Both require allowing the Bible to speak for itself.
As an example...
Noah walked with God. The voice of God walking in the garden.
No man can see God and live. The earth cannot contain God. God cannot dwell on the earth.

If one is using the Bible to learn the truth about God, then they let the scriptures guide them, not the other way around - they don't guide the scriptures... to meet their views.

God cannot literally walk with any human, when it is not possible for God to dwell on earth, and be literally in the presence of man.
Such a conflict would help humble persons with that view, to adjust it.