It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


What is "GOD"?

page: 1

log in


posted on Apr, 20 2008 @ 09:30 PM
What is GOD?

"God is a immaterial, transcendent, conscious 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.

posted on Apr, 20 2008 @ 09:30 PM

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.



posted on Apr, 21 2008 @ 03:27 PM
1. What is God?

"God is the Supreme Intelligence--First Cause of all things."

2. What is to be understood by infinity?

"That which has neither beginning nor end; the unknown: all that is unknown is infinite."

3. Can it be said that God is infinity?

"An incomplete definition. Poverty of human speech incompetent to define what transcends human intelligence."

God is infinite in His perfections, but "infinity" is an abstraction. To say that God is infinity is to substitute the attribute of a thing for the thing itself, and to define something unknown by reference to some other thing equally unknown.

Proofs of the Existence of God
4. What proof have we of the existence of God?

"The axiom which you apply in all your scientific researches, 'There is no effect without a cause.' Search out the cause of whatever is not the work of man, and reason will furnish the answer to your question."

To assure ourselves of the existence of God, we have only to look abroad on the works of creation. The universe exists, therefore it has a cause. To doubt the existence of God is to doubt that every effect has a cause, and to assume that something can have been made by nothing.
5. What is to be inferred from the intuition of the existence of God which may be said to be the common property of the human mind?

"That God exists; for whence could the human mind derive this intuition if it had no real basis? The inference to be drawn from the fact of this intuition is a corollary of the axiom 'There is no effect without a cause.'"

6. May not our seemingly intuitive sense of the existence of God be the result of education and of acquired ideas?

"If such were the case, how should this intuitive sense be possessed by your savages?"

If the intuition of the existence of a Supreme Being were only the result of education, it would not be universal, and would only exist, like all other acquired knowledge, in the minds of those who had received the special education to which it would be due.
7. Is the first cause of the formation of things to be found in the essential properties of matter?

"If such were the case, what would be the cause of those properties? There must always be a first cause."

To attribute the first formation of things to the essential properties of matter, would be to take the effect for the cause, for those properties are themselves an effect, which must have a cause.
8. What is to be thought of the opinion that attributes the first formation of things to a fortuitous combination of matter, in other words, to chance?

"Another absurdity! Who that is possessed of common sense can regard chance as an intelligent agent? And, besides, what is chance? Nothing."

The harmony which regulates the mechanism of the universe can only result from combinations adopted in view of predetermined ends, and thus, by its very nature, reveals the existence of an Intelligent Power. To attribute the first formation of things to chance is nonsense for chance cannot produce the results of intelligence. If chance could be intelligent, it would cease to be chance.
9. What proof have we that the first cause of all things is a Supreme Intelligence, superior to all other intelligences?

"You have a proverb which says, 'The workman is known by his work.' Look around you, and, from the quality of the work, infer that of the workman."

We judge of the power of an intelligence by its works as no human being could create that which is produced by nature, it is evident that the first cause must be an Intelligence superior to man. Whatever may be the prodigies accomplished by human intelligence, that intelligence itself must have a cause and the greater the results achieved by it, the greater must be the cause of which it is the effect. It is this Supreme Intelligence that is the first cause of all things, whatever the name by which mankind may designate it.

[edit on 21-4-2008 by IvanZana]


log in