Describing the Christian God

[Confused]

From another thread the following quote was made:

So long as we insist that God is a scientific matter, then I cannot. In that sense, I agree with you, there will be no direct scientific evidence for God - thus, I do not believe in God as you describe him. I would propose, however, that this is not the whole of the story.

I have heard my daughter make similar claims and find them just as meaningless.

I would ask someone to please describe the Christian God to me and what evidence they have to support their description of Him.

Late edit: as usual, my OP isn't clear enough. I am looking for attributes that you would use to describe God. Not what He wants us to do, not what proves his existence.

[Confused]

MODERATOR NOTE:

Okay guys, now I am getting really ticked off. I would request that we stick with the OP as I defined it. Faith isn't relevant. If you wish to make sarcastic comments, duke it out with each other in the Questions for Another Member/Group section. I couldn't care less what someone assumes will happen to this thread. If anyone wants to tackle the OP, I would really like to hear some REAL responses.

[Confused]

You have now asked them to describe their God and supply evidence for it, something in contradiction with their Faith dogma. If they had evidence, "faith" would not exist. You ask for something they can not provide, 1, because it does not exist, 2. because if, there faith would vanish.

Basically, you ask something that we all always asked the theist, and never gotten an response for. It is a good question, and if an honest theist would try to answer it, he would become atheist or deist of some kind as he would know that his religion is ridicolous. You will not get a proper answer Confused, thats all I am saying.

You opinion is noted. Can we give some people a chance before you presume to answer for them?

[Confused]

Well, that satisfies me. I guess we can all log off this forum forever and go find other things to do. I've got some dishes in the sink I need to wash anyway. Yo, mods, you can go ahead and take down the Web site. There's no point in continuing with this nonsense. Guy hath spoken.

Please, don't lower yourself to responding to sarcasm. I would really like to hear some honest responses here.

[Confused]

Oh, and to address the OP, here is the Biblical God: All powerful, all knowing and present everywhere god that loves animal sacrifices en masse, the occasional stoning of sabbath-breakers, the occasional burning alive of witches, the killer of children (flood, medianites), a jealous and blood-thirsty monster, a schizophrenic (OT vs NT god), eternal destroyer, hater of women, lover of slaves (well, slavery) basically a scumbag, pure filth, the devil he claims to fight against. They seem to be working together...

God is the definition of pure evil.

Hi Lionspoint,

I am glad to see you decided to post. I would ask that you support your definition.

[Confused]

And in my sarccasm, I point to the real response you will get. As you know, there is not gods, the thing Theist then use for this is something they call "Faith", the ability to believe in things that do not exist.

That is not a fair definition of faith. according to Merriam-Webster faith is:

2 a (1): belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2): belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1): firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2): complete trust

Using this definition it is easy to see why a theist cannot provide adequate proof for their claims. Eventually, it all leads back to faith.

You have now asked them to describe their God and supply evidence for it, something in contradiction with their Faith dogma. If they had evidence, "faith" would not exist. You ask for something they can not provide, 1, because it does not exist, 2. because if, there faith would vanish.

I agree that there would no longer be faith if there was actual proof. Still a broader question remains: whether or not someone actually needs faith in order to be "saved." It seems to me that there are plenty of theists here that believe they do in fact have concrete evidence (a transcendental experience, historical documentation...etc.). Let's assume for a minute that they DO have concrete evidence...even if that concrete evidence is only something that they can know...bear with me. If they do have concrete evidence for their belief, they no longer have faith. Faith is lack of proof. A proof only to themselves is still a proof. I am sure no theist would argue that their personal proof of the existence of God is going to prevent them from going to heaven.

If no faith is needed to get into heaven, then why do theists make such a big fuss about faith? Why would anyone need it?

Basically, you ask something that we all always asked the theist, and never gotten an response for. It is a good question, and if an honest theist would try to answer it, he would become atheist or deist of some kind as he would know that his religion is ridicolous. You will not get a proper answer Confused, thats all I am saying.

I think it is a reasonable question to ask, but I am not sure it is a fair question. If everything eventually reverts back to faith then it would seem the only way to truly find "God" is through reason. If God is beyond even that...then we can't rationally postulate whether or not he even exists.

Faith isn't really relevant here. But I do like your presentation and would be very interested in seeing it applied to my OP.

[Beto]

Faith isn't relevant.

That kinda narrows down the Christian god to "nothing", doesn't it? If it's not a scientific matter, than it's just a matter of faith. How do we leave it out?

[Confused]

And in my sarccasm, I point to the real response you will get. As you know, there is not gods, the thing Theist then use for this is something they call "Faith", the ability to believe in things that do not exist.

That is not a fair definition of faith. according to Merriam-Webster faith is:

2 a (1): belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2): belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1): firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2): complete trust

Using this definition it is easy to see why a theist cannot provide adequate proof for their claims. Eventually, it all leads back to faith.

That's one thing. Another, is to have "faith" in a god that allegedly caused, for instance, a great global flood for which not only there is no proof, but which can be proved never to have happened. In these instances, is it still "faith"?

Though faith is irrelevant, I would actually like to hear your description Beto and how you would support it.

[Confused]

Faith isn't relevant.

That kinda narrows down the Christian god to "nothing", doesn't it? If it's not a scientific matter, than it's just a matter of faith. How do we leave it out?

Faith can't be used to describe the Christian God. I am not looking for philosophical descriptions, but real descriptions of who He is, what He stands for, etc.....

[Confused]

From another thread the following quote was made:

So long as we insist that God is a scientific matter, then I cannot. In that sense, I agree with you, there will be no direct scientific evidence for God - thus, I do not believe in God as you describe him. I would propose, however, that this is not the whole of the story.

I have heard my daughter make similar claims and find them just as meaningless.

I would ask someone to please describe the Christian God to me and what evidence they have to support their description of Him.

Now about...heartless bastard

I am interested in why you ascribe Gods hand to this sad event? Nature acts as nature acts. Do we say God did it? Why?

[Beto]

My problem with accepting a premise of "God" being "non-scientific" is that it implies there is nothing objective about "God". To me, if it's objective, it's scientific. So if someone wants to profess belief in something totally subjective, than to me, that is "faith". Except some people want to have the cake and eat it. They want "God" to be objective and describable, but non-scientific. But if you attempt to describe something subjective, you're objectifying it, making it scientific. Does this resonate with anyone? My point, I suppose, is that one cannot describe a god, and still hold "faith" in that god.