Is it possible to make any absolute statement about God?

Question

It is a personal belief of mine that (outside of 'scriptures') it is impossible to make any absolute statement about God because of the nature of what God is supposed to be. If God exists then it might well be impossible to prove that existence because he is supposed to be outside the realm of existence we can perceive. The same problem appears if God doesn't exist because you cannot show something doesn't exist if by it's nature you cannot perceive it. Perhaps I am simply mistaken on the nature of God but I would like to know how Christians and atheists come to their conclusions on the existance of God. Note that this question is about GOD and not RELIGION, there is a difference.

Answer 1

It appears people are fumbling over the true nature of God. Yes, God, in his entirety, is impossible for finite humans with finite reason to grasp. However that does not bar humans from gaining any knowledge of God. It is essential, presuming God exists, to have an accurate definition of God. This definition does not have to be exhaustive or all-encompassing by any means, but must some how sufficiently describe God in the scope of human reason. Therefore, God would be, as Anselm says, "that being than which no greater being can be thought".

This is the briefest, yet most inclusive definition of God. It is inconceivable to think of a greater definition. Any other understanding of God as simply being a "Superior Being", does not truly get at God's essence, but simply places God in a range somewhere greater than that of humans.

Taking from this very basic definition of God, it must be logical that God would have to be a necessary being, a being that can not not be, and therefore must be eternal. Secondly, God cannot be confined to a finite space, such as found with Greek and Roman gods. To confine God to a material space is to lessen his greatness. Therefore God must be transcendent of the universe, being both everywhere, yet nowhere simultaneously.

These are just a handful of absolute statements that can be made about God. If God is to exist, it is only logical to presume that he must have certain characteristics.

-Kerplunk!

Answer 2

There is a definitional difficulty with the word 'God'. People mean a lot of different things when they use that word, and some are a lot easier to envision, describe, or prove than others. Here are just a few:

- Creator and/or controller of the universe.
- Creator and/or controller of the Earth.
- Creator and/or controller of mankind.
- Creator and/or controller of some subset of mankind.
- Observer of events.
- Source and/or enforcer of morality.
- Ruler of the afterlife.
- An example of perfection.
- Something really, really powerful.
- Recipient of hopes and dreams.
- Object of worship.
- Most powerful theoretical entity.

Determining which of the above a person is referring to when a person is talking about God is probably a very good first step. Some religions parse these duties out to a number of different gods, some attribute them all to just one entity, and most of them have gaps where some of the above duties aren't given to anybody.

Thus, for example, the sun - even as an inanimate object - is a very real god to some people because it provides the energy for almost all life on Earth, creates the weather, and is nice to lie under on summer days, not to mention being unspeakably powerful (I find most people can't even IMAGINE how truly powerful the sun is... and they see it every day!). Others would find the concept of the sun as a god to be ridiculous, as it doesn't seem to answer prayers very much, nor does it seem to have much native intelligence (at least so far as we understand such things). Who is right?

What you can absolutely say about any god is going to depend largely on what god IS in the first place!

Answer 3

One can argue to the existence of God from his effects. Even if you cannot perceive God, you can nevertheless argue from sensible effects to an immaterial first cause. You cannot prove the existence of God using his nature as a middle term, as the question points out. However, when we are not able to know the existence of a thing per se through its nature, we can nevertheless understand the thing in terms of its effects, and nominally define the object in terms of its effect. Aquinas' five ways come immediately to mind. Most arguments against the five ways do not have a proper understanding of what Aquinas means by motion or cause. Especially in the first way. Aristotle's first mover is another example of natural philosophy proving the existence of an unmoved immaterial entity.

Answer 4

Ok, little philsosophical baggage you're carrying right now. In terms of definitions, I know you're trying to be clear, but your terms are still to vague. What is meant by "absolute statement"? Do you mean an all incompassing statement that is true in every sense about God? Or a statment that absolutely incompasses God's entirety? The answer to the second should be obvious from the phrasing, as how can any statement encompass that which is limitless by definition? I'll assume you mean the former, and we'll go from there.

Second peice of baggage, why do you inlclude the "scriptures" as absolute statements? Any collection of ideology is inherently finite, so by definition cannot seek to encompass the infinite. At best so-called "scriptures" can illuminate an infinitly small fraction of an all encompassing being.

Given that, we move on to the answer. As an atheist, we make absolutely no claims about God. In fact, we do not say that God does not exist (despite the rhetoric, which is more to get a rise than profess an actual idea). Atheists say there is no reason to believe in any God, a vastly different statement. Every arguement in favor of God's existence has collapsed under reason, leaving only the "Arguement from Design." This argument, that Something had to start it all, is by no means a convincing one, and to that matter points to no single Creator (Judaeo-Christian, Muslim, Hindu, etc.) as any more plausible than another. The facts remain as follows, there is no reason to believe in any religion over another. Further, there is no reason to believe in any God at all. Thus Atheism is not, I repeat not, a positive claim of the active non-existence (see the contradiction in terms there?) of any God or gods (which, as you say, is impossible to prove), Atheism is the claim that there is no reason to believe in any god. This is a different claim in that Atheists do not make any claims about the metaphysics of the world, they merely demand evidence from those who do. That evidence not forth-comming, atheists result to the default position of not positing anything. There is no reason to believe in God, therefor they do not. Religion makes a claim about the world, Atheism makes none.

Answer 5

For me personally, it's just what feels right. What seems to make sense in my own kind of logic. There's nothing written anywhere and nothing anyone can say to me that will prove or disprove something, but if my gut tells me to go in one direction, then that's good enough for me. The funny thing is that half of what I believe is hugely different (or at least more complicated) than any set belief system, and I don't really care if I turn out to be wrong, because right here and now I find a fulfillment in them.

So maybe the only definite statement to be made is "The nature of God is perceived to be duplicitous."

Answer 6

i agree. i believe that God is beyond, what we perceive as "the world": a material existence which is defined by what is called the 5 senses i.e. taste, touch, seeing, hearing and, smell. although these senses are so fundamentally essential to us, God cannot be perceived by any of them, this material existence (by it's very nature) places limitations on how we express or articulate our feelings and/ or ideas about God. which is why i think we have so much difficulty believing in Him.

personally, i don't understand why it should be so important to make an absolute statement about God. through the ages so many people have been persecuted to the point of death (and beyond if you believe in the power of excommunication), simply because they did not adhere to a particular postulation about God. so many people seem to think like: "if i'm right, you must be wrong". they spend so much of their time seeking the differences in another person's ideas about God, instead of seeing the similarities. to me, God is and "in" everybody, even my mother-in-law (smile). where there is good, there is God.

"in the beginning there was the word, and the word was God".

nuff said.

p.s. i'm not a christian

Answer 7

If a person chooses that believing in God is what will bring them absolution then they have decided that God himself is an absolute statement.

I think that a decision to believe or not believe can not be confined by a person's interpretation of scripture or knowing if something does or does not exist, it is the sum of all of our thoughts and beliefs.

Answer 8

TRUE STATEMENT OF GOD:

One can not negate nor confirm the existance of GOD, because one can only contemplate what is within the mind´s reach through contact of the six sensory perceptions.

The Greeks believed that all you could say of GOD was THOU ART.

Your comments are similiar to the Buddhist form of thinking, abstaining from discussing extremes to define GOD or a non-existant self, such as nihilism/existentialism or the opposite, eternal immortality of conciousness.

Answer 9

Where does the light go when you switch it off? Does it then no longer exist?
IMO if you exist, then God (creative force) exists.
The last place I would look for the absolute would be in the scriptures, not that there is not some valuable stuff in there but it is so camouflaged in junk that the writers don't even bother to laugh at our gullibility any more.

Answer 10

If God exists, it is the expression of extreme arrogance to think that any concept of it is perceivable by the mind of man.

Anyone with any minuscule appreciation of the enormity and complexity of the universe and all things within it; not to mention the ever-morphing of event streams throughout it, can understand that it is completely beyond them.

That is not to say that an effort should not be made, but with the humility that no one will ever understand it all.