To the people who are of religious nature - What is GOD? See from delusional and religious people like yourselves the meaning of GOD is the following:

"God is a immaterial, transcendent, conscious being being who is Creator of the heavens and the earth."

Applying names like "Creator, the Father, or Source" is nothing more but "titles"; they still do not tell us anything about the said things nature, primary attributes or what exactly is it. Actually what religious people have done in there attempt to define"God" is that they "negatively defined" God. In your attempt to provide meaning to the term “God”, you may object to my argument by saying that we know“ God” to be infinite, limitless, and immaterial, as already stated, but these descriptions however, amongst others, do nothing to help your position. This is because these descriptions are not identifying in nature; they are “negative definitions”. A negative definition is a definition which tells us what something is not, rather than what something is.

It is a description which critically lacks specificity—not telling us what is meant by a term that we may apply any secondary traits, but in forming us only of what it is not, which doesn’t help our situation at all.

For example, consider the following identification: “I am not SUPERMAN.” Now, while it is true that I am not SUPERMAN, this particular identification tells you virtually nothing about me.

All it tells you is that I am not one particular person. It still leaves the possibility of me being any other individual on earth, or even any other responsive entity in the universe.

As such, it critically lacks specificity. Observing the information given to us about the term“God” – we can see that such identifications as (infinite, limitless, and immaterial) are all negative in their meanings. “Infinite” is to be without a straint of time, “Limitless” is to be without boundaries (perhaps in action, such as “omnipotence”),and “Immaterial” is to be lacking of a material substance.

The problem here is that none of these terms actually identify what “God”’s primary attribute or composition actually IS, and thus gives us our inability to grasper understand what we are talking about—i.e. what it is that we are discussing, remains; what is God?

"All of the supposedly positive qualities of God arise in a distinctively human context of finite existence, and when wrenched from this context to apply to a supernatural being, they cease to have meaning." In a nutshell, how can you apply attributes or characteristics which were conceived by "physical finite beings" and apply them towards a transcendential immaterial being?

It's logically impossible to do so and not be false. I can even take it a step further to illustrate this point.

Suppose fish within the ocean actually spoke.They would be able to talk about a multitude of things within they're own nature and limitations and apply them towards each other, which is who developed them, but it would be logically false for a talking fish to be able to apply any characteristic which fish themselves posses, to a human. Why?

Well because fish and humans live in two completely different worlds and perceptions.

Fish can only live under water, humans can only live above water, unless within a vehicle (submarine etc).

So the point made is thus, a fish cannot apply any characteristic it possesses or could possess to a human, which is transcendent of the fish and it's world.

Hopefully, you see what I mean now, it's very simple to comprehend. Ok, at this point I don't know if you follow, but perhaps you may have questions about what do I mean when I say "Gods primary attributes haven't been positively identified".

Ok.... Primary Attributes or the fundamental character of a thing, may be defined as the basic nature a particular thing is composed of.

What a thing is, specifically, that it may do particular things or affect those around it in a particular way.

The following two types of attributes provided below can "only be applied to a thing if they can be related to an existant’s primary attribute and the primary attribute is positively identified".

"Secondary Attributes"— the character traits or"abilities" a particular thing may enact or possess, examples: being generous, kind, powerful, wise.

"Relational Attributes" - (or ‘Contextualizability’)This is the ability of an entity to relate to other things; to interact, affect, or be connected in some such way. Causality, for instance, is an example of relationships between objects. Comparison is another(ex: that tree is ‘taller’ than me). Further examples would include the descriptions of a thing as “superior”, “inferior”, or “creator”.

In regards to the statement on primary attributes, a person may ask why it is that secondary attributes and relational attributes are dependent upon the identification of Primary Attributes?

As mentioned, this is because no possible relation could be established between a "concept and its properties" if the existent metaphysical identity, or primary attribute, remains unidentified.

This can be expressed more clearly by the following propositions:

Proposition #1: The chair is brown. Observing this statement, one may recognize that it is in fact entirely possible, as we know that chairs themselves are made out of certain materials which can possess color (wood, plastic, steel, etc.). The metaphysical nature of the chair as an existent, or the primary attribute of a “chair”, is something which is capable of possessing color as a secondary characteristic.

Proposition #2: The soul is brown. This proposition is meaningless, since the primary attribute of the term “soul” is unidentified. At best, spiritualists have postulated that a soul is“immaterial” but, this description simply tells us what a “soul” is not, not what a “soul” is, and thus there is no connection established between a “souls” ’metaphysical nature and any secondary properties that one should wish to attach to it. If a term’s primary attribute is unidentified, we cannot say what attributes can be applied to it or not applied to it ,because we are unable to say what it is that it may possess any particular characteristics at all.

Consequently, this statement is meaningless.

In closing, the argument still stands, the term God is meaningless, therefore does not exist; it does not exist anymore than than the term "jgudhfudhf" does, for they both have no meaning. And don't say my arguments rest upon a belief in "materialism", because it doesn't, it rest upon logic and the knowledge of how we know things.

Read the forum guidelines right above your post .

The term God is used to describe any divine being.

The attributes of the Christian God are clearly defined in the bible. You can read them for yourself.

The Christian God has no formal name. Thats why we call him God. Also calling him the "I Am" is a bit of a mouthful. Call him whatever you want. It does not change his nature.

The nature of God is one that has plagued man for centuries and you are no different. No one completely understands the nature of God because to do so you would have to be able to understand and fully comprehend eternity. Imaging a being that had no beginning and no end is impossible for the human mind. I don't care how smart you are its just not possible to fully comprehend it. Keep in mind our perceptions of God and his nature are limited by our three dimensional existence. We are bound by time as well. Everything we do is affected by time. God is not affected by time and in fact he is completely outside of time its self. He can affect time, and he can affect the material world because he created it. This is why humans so often put the restrictions of time on God. You can say God has moved with a specific time line through out history, but from God's perspective Everything in history has already happened, will happen, and is happening all at the same time. He is not simply extradimensional, he is outside of existence all together.

try as you might, you will never be able to understand God's nature and his motives. You can try, but even what i have written here falls painfully short of the reality of the I Am.

hmmm, let me clear this up his name is yaweh he is an embodyment of the best traits of humans "love" "justice" "bravery" "power" "farsightedness"

he is very personal and we can have an individual relationship with him! god never said he wasnt anything. But he did say "i am love"

i like how atheist and hardcore followers of science will say you can't disprove god, god could exist, and all this stuff but then go ranting about how god doesn't exist.......that's seems more controdicting then religion it's self.

You are joking? Saying something doesn't exist isn't the same as disproving something. 150ft Chickens don't exist, but we can't disprove it. Nothing will ever be more contradicting than religion.

Its just not the same thing.

what? if your going to say something doesn't exist then surely you have disproved it.

Thanks for quoting me in your signature. Very flattering.

As for the OP...he is in violation technically, but I doubt anything will happen.

My post that you quoted applies here as well.

Godofcats:
It's folly to toss the "you have to prove it doesn't exist" thing out there. It's been done to death. You know, proving a negative? Prove there is not a dinosaur in my butt, right now. Prove it! You can't. Folly my friend.

The OP is indeed applying attributes that do not fit. Brown is a color dude. The soul can't be brown, much like thought can't be brown. Your mixing metaphors, and applying logical techniques to something logic is not applicable to. Where is your source? That sounds oddly familiar.

i can't prove there isn't a dinosaur in your butt, you can't prove i'm not an actual cat who learned english and how to type. but you'll say that's rediculas when i am going to continue to claim to everybody on this site that i'm not a humaniod but an actual feline typing this.....i am. anyway that's exactly my point, people say you can't disprove god then go and tell people who believe in god they are wrong.......so you want me to believe there could be a god but there isn't a god all at the same time? no evidence for god.....okay that's fine.....no evidence there isn't a god, what evolution, that doesn't disprove god in any way. so it's going both ways here, atheist just get let off the hook because it's the more popular idea (at least on this site).

God help me here!

Do some studying on the vibrations of color! Your soul can vibrate at the same frequency of brown, blue, orange, or whatever. That is a little technical, though. God is a vibration. Love is a vibration. Light is a vibration. Though color is a Hertz vibration, your voice can be the same vibration. Each soul has a vibration. God probably operates at a level of Millions of Hertz; that is Megahertz, Gigahertz, and Pentahertz. That is why you can't see Him.

As the OP is no longer a member here this thread is closed!