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]

You mean, if your in a debate forum you have to provide evidence? Like, reality? Not just things made up out of the blue with no evidence for it?

I find these "debating forums" highly prejudiced, the only thing you care about is reality and rational. Theres more then reality youknow.

Scripture really does exist. I am not looking to challenge its credibility. I am looking to see if someone uses it to describe the Christian God, then does it truly state and show their description as adequate and is their description and their source logical, ie. Someone describes God as loving, then cites scriptures that would validate this. Is this consistent with what they claim? Does their source support their description?

[Wellington]

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"?

I would say so. However, this is skating dangerously close to identifying God as being beyond rationality.

[Wellington]

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.

I disagree that faith has nothing to do with this discussion as well. In the OP the guy is saying he doesn't agree to the idea of a God that can be defined with science and Confused is asking for evidence of his existence.

???

That doesn't seem to be a reasonable or fair question to ask someone who is basing their entire idea of god on faith and openly admits that he cannot provide any objective proof.

[Wellington]

In this case, I would ask why they would say God is loving. Where do they get their information to support this? If it is scripture, cite it. If it is another source, cite it. I am not interested in proving or disproving that the bible is valid. For the circumstances here, I would accept that as a valid source that could allow them to support God being loving. The credibility of the bible isn't what I would challenge there, I would simply like to see where they get their support for their description and determine if in fact, their source really does describe God as loving.

Do emotions count as credible evidence? I mean to imply their sources are themselves.

[Confused]

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.

I disagree that faith has nothing to do with this discussion as well. In the OP the guy is saying he doesn't agree to the idea of a God that can be defined with science and Confused is asking for evidence of his existence.

???

That doesn't seem to be a reasonable or fair question to ask someone who is basing their entire idea of god on faith and openly admits that he cannot provide any objective proof.

I am not seeking evidence of His existence at all. I am asking for a description of Him.

[Wellington]

I am not seeking evidence of His existence at all. I am asking for a description of Him.

Then I was the one confused.

[Confused]

In this case, I would ask why they would say God is loving. Where do they get their information to support this? If it is scripture, cite it. If it is another source, cite it. I am not interested in proving or disproving that the bible is valid. For the circumstances here, I would accept that as a valid source that could allow them to support God being loving. The credibility of the bible isn't what I would challenge there, I would simply like to see where they get their support for their description and determine if in fact, their source really does describe God as loving.

Do emotions count as credible evidence? I mean to imply their sources are themselves.

Emotions aren't a reliable source. I am not even sure how personal emotions can be used by someone to describe the Christian God. I am not asking for how He makes you feel. I am asking you to describe Him to me and what resources you use to lead you to that description.

[Confused]

I am not seeking evidence of His existence at all. I am asking for a description of Him.

Then I was the one confused.

Don't feel bad, I am in a perpetual state of confusion.

[Wellington]

Emotions aren't a reliable source. I am not even sure how personal emotions can be used by someone to describe the Christian God. I am not asking for how He makes you feel. I am asking you to describe Him to me and what resources you use to lead you to that description.

Emotion is a big part of theism. Things are right and wrong because they "feel" it is right and wrong. God exists because they "feel" it or have "experienced" it. Really these are all just emotions, but they take it as personal evidence of his existence and his character.

Unfortunately, in doing so, they project alot of these positive emotions onto something outside themselves which really demeans the experience and emotions that they feel.

[Confused]

Emotions aren't a reliable source. I am not even sure how personal emotions can be used by someone to describe the Christian God. I am not asking for how He makes you feel. I am asking you to describe Him to me and what resources you use to lead you to that description.

Emotion is a big part of theism. Things are right and wrong because they "feel" it is right and wrong. God exists because they "feel" it or have "experienced" it. Really these are all just emotions, but they take it as personal evidence of his existence and his character.

Unfortunately, in doing so, they project alot of these positive emotions onto something outside themselves which really demeans the experience and emotions that they feel.

That may be true, but that is not what I am seeking in this thread.