What is God?

[Kenny]

aren't qualities of real things, only of imaginary things.

I think this is an opinion.

What is more real, the temporary things that we see that are here today and gone tomorrow? Or the spiritual things that remain and are eternal.

So I disagree with your viewpoint.

 

[Ponder This]

What real thing is denoted by the word "God"?

Qualities like

omniscient,
omnipotent,
omnipresent,
perfect,
eternal,
infinite,
spiritual,
supernatural,
immaterial​

aren't qualities of real things, only of imaginary things.

So given a God who's found in reality ─ by which I mean the world external to the self, nature, where things with objective existence are found ─ in what form does that God exist?

How could we tell whether we'd found a real one or not?

Or do gods only exist as a set of individual notions within a tradition?

Are immeasurable things real?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

What real thing is denoted by the word "God"?

Qualities like

omniscient,
omnipotent,
omnipresent,
perfect,
eternal,
infinite,
spiritual,
supernatural,
immaterial​

aren't qualities of real things, only of imaginary things.

So given a God who's found in reality ─ by which I mean the world external to the self, nature, where things with objective existence are found ─ in what form does that God exist?
=
How could we tell whether we'd found a real one or not?

Or do gods only exist as a set of individual notions within a tradition?

There is no world external to the self, they are one. So long as you seek God external to yourself, then you will continue to live in an illusionary reality.

You will realize reality when you are one with reality...no thoughts about reality...just being.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

What real thing is denoted by the word "God"?

Qualities like

omniscient,
omnipotent,
omnipresent,
perfect,
eternal,
infinite,
spiritual,
supernatural,
immaterial​

aren't qualities of real things, only of imaginary things.

So given a God who's found in reality ─ by which I mean the world external to the self, nature, where things with objective existence are found ─ in what form does that God exist?

How could we tell whether we'd found a real one or not?

Or do gods only exist as a set of individual notions within a tradition?

They're adjectives. They exist in concept but as for their usage in everyday conversation, they're unhelpful.

What is the noun the adjectives describe...the nature of it?

For example, I'm short, short hair, and clumsy. This says nothing of who I am: I'm a human being (even that is off because some combination of adjectives can be interpreted as a cat too).

What's god?

 

[Lain]

What real thing is denoted by the word "God"?

No one knows the essence of God. Quoting St. Gregory Nazianzen, St. Gregory of Nyssa, and St. John Damascus in order:

(1) "Far before them is That nature Which is above them, and out of which they spring, the Incomprehensible and Illimitable — not, I mean, as to the fact of His being, but as to Its nature... For it is one thing to be persuaded of the existence of a thing, and quite another to know what it is. God would be altogether circumscript, if He were even comprehensible in thought: for comprehension is one form of circumscription... The Divine Nature cannot be apprehended by human reason, and that we cannot even represent to ourselves all its greatness."

(2) "For we say, it may be, that the Deity is incorruptible, or powerful, or whatever else we are accustomed to say of Him. But in each of these terms we find a peculiar sense, fit to be understood or asserted of the Divine nature, yet not expressing that which that nature is in its essence. For the subject, whatever it may be, is incorruptible: but our conception of incorruptibility is this — that that which is, is not resolved into decay: so, when we say that He is incorruptible, we declare what His nature does not suffer, but we do not express what that is which does not suffer corruption. Thus, again, if we say that He is the Giver of life, though we show by that appellation what He gives, we do not by that word declare what that is which gives it."

(3) "It is plain, then, that there is a God. But what He is in His essence and nature is absolutely incomprehensible and unknowable. For it is evident that He is incorporeal... But even this gives no true idea of His essence, to say that He is unbegotten, and without beginning, changeless and imperishable, and possessed of such other qualities as we are wont to ascribe to God and His environment. For these do not indicate what He is, but what He is not. But when we would explain what the essence of anything is, we must not speak only negatively. In the case of God, however, it is impossible to explain what He is in His essence, and it befits us the rather to hold discourse about His absolute separation from all things... God then is infinite and incomprehensible and all that is comprehensible about Him is His infinity and incomprehensibility. But all that we can affirm concerning God does not show forth God's nature, but only the qualities of His nature. For when you speak of Him as good, and just, and wise, and so forth, you do not tell God's nature but only the qualities of His nature."

This is why St. Paul says we will know as we are known and see clearly God then, not that we will contain Him, but that through divine grace we will "behold" His essence, for to see and to see all or to know of and to know of all are obviously distinct (as we shall know completely according to our capacity as created beings but God knows us completely according to His capacity as uncreated, which is infinite), quoting St. Paul:

"For now we see through a mirror indirectly, but then face to face. Now I know in part, but then I will know completely, just as I have also been completely known."

The indirect nature of this being shown by the Fathers above, how that works in detail. God if He is infinite (and we know ourselves to be finite) by definition His essence can not be "circumscribed" or limited by our thoughts or complete comprehension.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

There is one true God, the Father of Jesus and we cannot fathom Him but Jesus can reveal Him to us and we can know Him in relationship.

This doesn't help. If you can't fathom him the adjectives (true, perfect, etc) and assumed proper pronoun (Jesus) has no use. It doesn't describe the nature of God unless God is 100% human.

Your other question yes gods and so forth are develop through tradition and culture.

 

[Segev Moran]

What real thing is denoted by the word "God"?

Qualities like

omniscient,
omnipotent,
omnipresent,
perfect,
eternal,
infinite,
spiritual,
supernatural,
immaterial​

aren't qualities of real things, only of imaginary things.

So given a God who's found in reality ─ by which I mean the world external to the self, nature, where things with objective existence are found ─ in what form does that God exist?

How could we tell whether we'd found a real one or not?

Or do gods only exist as a set of individual notions within a tradition?

The Jewish word for God means it is the sum of all forces and the initiating force. It is a force that drives all we are aware of in our reality.
This is the only literal thing you can get from its common name.
In the bible, there are many other names depicting god, each name depicts a form of effect of god.

In short, God is an undefined concept in Judaism.
There is however a subtext suggesting god is not part of our physical regality, rather the physical reality is part of god, thus it is not subject to our limitations.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

No one knows the essence of God. Quoting St. Gregory Nazianzen, St. Gregory of Nyssa, and St. John Damascus in order:

(1) "Far before them is That nature Which is above them, and out of which they spring, the Incomprehensible and Illimitable — not, I mean, as to the fact of His being, but as to Its nature... For it is one thing to be persuaded of the existence of a thing, and quite another to know what it is. God would be altogether circumscript, if He were even comprehensible in thought: for comprehension is one form of circumscription... The Divine Nature cannot be apprehended by human reason, and that we cannot even represent to ourselves all its greatness."

(2) "For we say, it may be, that the Deity is incorruptible, or powerful, or whatever else we are accustomed to say of Him. But in each of these terms we find a peculiar sense, fit to be understood or asserted of the Divine nature, yet not expressing that which that nature is in its essence. For the subject, whatever it may be, is incorruptible: but our conception of incorruptibility is this — that that which is, is not resolved into decay: so, when we say that He is incorruptible, we declare what His nature does not suffer, but we do not express what that is which does not suffer corruption. Thus, again, if we say that He is the Giver of life, though we show by that appellation what He gives, we do not by that word declare what that is which gives it."

(3) "It is plain, then, that there is a God. But what He is in His essence and nature is absolutely incomprehensible and unknowable. For it is evident that He is incorporeal... But even this gives no true idea of His essence, to say that He is unbegotten, and without beginning, changeless and imperishable, and possessed of such other qualities as we are wont to ascribe to God and His environment. For these do not indicate what He is, but what He is not. But when we would explain what the essence of anything is, we must not speak only negatively. In the case of God, however, it is impossible to explain what He is in His essence, and it befits us the rather to hold discourse about His absolute separation from all things... God then is infinite and incomprehensible and all that is comprehensible about Him is His infinity and incomprehensibility. But all that we can affirm concerning God does not show forth God's nature, but only the qualities of His nature. For when you speak of Him as good, and just, and wise, and so forth, you do not tell God's nature but only the qualities of His nature."

This is why St. Paul says we will know as we are known and see clearly God then, not that we will contain Him, but that through divine grace we will "behold" His essence, for to see and to see all or to know of and to know of all are obviously distinct (as we shall know completely according to our capacity as created beings but God knows us completely according to His capacity as uncreated, which is infinite), quoting St. Paul:

"For now we see through a mirror indirectly, but then face to face. Now I know in part, but then I will know completely, just as I have also been completely known."

The indirect nature of this being shown by the Fathers above, how that works in detail. God if He is infinite (and we know ourselves to be finite) by definition His essence can not be "circumscribed" or limited by our thoughts or complete comprehension.

Why does a believer speak of God as a person/being when they don't know it's nature or essence to refer to it as such?

How do you describe it if you don't know what it is you're describing?

 

[Lain]

Why does a believer speak of God as a person/being when they don't know it's nature or essence to refer to it as such?

How do you describe it of you don't know what it is you're describing?

Due to Revelation of God as a Person (or rather, Three Persons). See the what it is/that it is distinction, and in fact it is central to the Christian faith to have a nature/personhood distinction, if we did not have that distinction this religion wouldn't even exist, or at least wouldn't have survived past the first century due to being insane. And as St. John of Damascus said there, we can describe God negatively, which also affirms some things, like we know that He is uncreated, we do not know what He is (nature) that is uncreated.

 

[blü 2]

In my understanding God is in a different real called heaven, that does not mean God is not real. Or are only physical world real?

Yes, reality is the world external to the self, which we know about through our senses. If we can't find X in reality then the only way X exists is as a concept or thing imagined.

 

[blü 2]

There is one true God, the Father of Jesus and we cannot fathom Him but Jesus can reveal Him to us and we can know Him in relationship.

If God is real, why can't God be fathomed, understood, photographed, interviewed?

I take it the revealing you speak of is purely internal, takes place nowhere but in the brain of the individual?

So God is not revealed in reality then?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Due to Revelation of God as a Person (or rather, Three Persons). See the what it is/that it is distinction, and in fact it is central to the Christian faith to have a nature/personhood distinction, if we did not have that distinction this religion wouldn't even exist, or at least wouldn't have survived past the first century due to being insane. And as St. John of Damascus said there, we can describe God negatively, which also affirms some things, like we know that He is uncreated, we do not know what He is (nature) that is uncreated.

But what does person's mean in this context that's not describing a human being (and an animal even)?

It sounds like God only exist through culture if its existence depends on the people, no?

We can't even describe it negatively. No adjectives without a noun.

How do we Know "it" is uncreated/created....what does that mean to something the OP described as perfect and eternal?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

There is one true God, the Father of Jesus and we cannot fathom Him but Jesus can reveal Him to us and we can know Him in relationship.

But Jesus is a human being like us with flesh. He doesn't even know what God is just his reference to God (what is I AM?). If you make him anything other than human being it doesn't solve the problem since incarnations are not separate from that which it incarnates by definition. Since God can't be defined, you're basically in a relationship with Jesus' idea of "God" not who it is (what?). Also, christians don't believe in the Jewish concept of God like Christ. That's another problem there.

Edit
Example: if a child didn't know his parent died and his brother was the only one who knew the parent, that child would only know the parent through his siblings experience and attributes. The problem is you can't have a relationship with this no matter how real the adjectives are used. You'd literally have to a. acknowledge you're talking to a representative and b. That representative isn't the loved one.

A lot of people combine the two to associate with what they can't know on their own by making their sibling their loved one. But once you're faced with who is the parent, there's cognitive dissonance...you don't even know if it was your parent to begin with. To admit that sibling isn't his parent is hard (but not necessary to think about)

 

[Lain]

But what does person's mean in this context that's not describing a human being (and an animal even)?

It sounds like God only exist through culture if its existence depends on the people, no?

We can't even describe it negativity. No adjectives without a noun.

How do we Know "it" is uncreated/created....what does that mean to something the OP described as perfect and eternal?

To the extent of my knowledge (and the other animals for the are not persons in this sense), in our view a person is a subject who is aware of itself. It also has to do with knowledge but this is an area I am studying the Fathers on currently.

The existence of God does not depend on people by definition, we are contingent existences entirely and He is not.

I am not sure what you mean about not being able to describe it negatively, considering that this was in fact done multiple times above. Moreover we do have many nouns, "He Who Is" or "Father" or "Son" or "Holy Spirit" or "Divinity" or "God." Perhaps my grammar lessons were insufficient but is not a noun a person, place, thing, idea, and so on? Well I just enumerated Three Persons at least, so there are definitely nouns there for these adjectives.

Being eternal in OP would be uncreated, it did not come into being, eternal = it always was, didn't come into being or in other words was created. That just goes back to all those arguments about a First Cause/Uncaused Cause/Motionless Mover, and the many other titles it goes by.

 

[blü 2]

I think this is an opinion.

What is more real, the temporary things that we see that are here today and gone tomorrow? Or the spiritual things that remain and are eternal.

The real things are real and the spiritual things exist only as concepts in brains, and except by cultural transference don't outlive the individual.

So I disagree with your viewpoint.

I respect that. But I don't see how what you say can be objectively true.

 

[blü 2]

Are immeasurable things real?

There are no infinities in nature that I'm aware of. Or do you have something else in mind when you say 'immeasurable'?

 

[blü 2]

There is no world external to the self, they are one. So long as you seek God external to yourself, then you will continue to live in an illusionary reality.

I don't know about you, but my parents (I have every reason to believe) existed before I was born; and my grandchildren will exist after I'm gone. I get my air, food, shelter, occupation, society ─ I even have access to forums on the net! ─ none of which are sourced internally to me, all of which instead are external and real.

You will realize reality when you are one with reality...no thoughts about reality...just being.

I'm as one-with-reality as I'll ever be, right now.

 

[blü 2]

They're adjectives. They exist in concept but as for their usage in everyday conversation, they're unhelpful.

What is the noun the adjectives describe...the nature of it?

Omnipotence? Imaginary. Omniscience? Imaginary. Omnipresence? Imaginary. Perfect? Ill-defined and imaginary. Eternal? Imaginary. Supernatural? Imaginary. And so on all through the list.

So if God is real, [he] has real qualities and not those imaginary ones.

For example, I'm short, short hair, and clumsy. This says nothing of who I am: I'm a human being (even that is off because some combination of adjectives can be interpreted as a cat too).

What's god?

As far as I can tell, still as imaginary as when I started this thread.

 

[blü 2]

No one knows the essence of God.

Then on what basis can it be said that God is real, in the sense of being not imaginary, having objective existence?

 

[blü 2]

In short, God is an undefined concept in Judaism.

But apparently with eg magical powers. Magic isn't found in reality.

There is however a subtext suggesting god is not part of our physical reality, rather the physical reality is part of god, thus it is not subject to our limitations.

So as the rate at which the universe expands increases, the rate at which some part of God expands likewise increases? But that would mean the rest of God was imaginary, for want of an alternative, no?