posted on Aug, 8 2013 @ 04:51 PM
reply to post by 1Learner
As for "how can we know?", we have to move from philosophy to theology.
I re-quote part of the "definition of God" I quoted earlier;
God is one who Communicates
This assumption is built into Biblical religion.
In the first place, the Bible is believed to contain examples of communication (as reported, for example, by the prophets).
Furthermore, the Bible is believed to reflect a policy of communication.
It is said that God is using the Bible to "reveal himself", and so Biblical religion used to be described as "revealed religion".
The belief that "God is one who Communicates" links back with the belief that "God is one who Creates".
In the first place, some of the content of the communication points to God as Creator.
The proper Biblical answer to the question "Why do you believe your God made the universe?" is not really "Becasue that's the only way to account for
The truly Biblical answer is "Because he says he did, and I believe him."
But I think the very act of communication also points to God as a Creator.
Any act of communication necessarily implies a distinction between the communicator and the other party.
I've already said the Biblical understanding of Creation involves a distinction between God and the universe.
An act of communication implies the existence of a "will" in the communicator, or at least some sort of analogy of one.
But the same could be said, surely, of an act of "Creation".
Finally, a God who creates a universe thereby sets up a relationship between himself and the universe.
The effect of communication is to set up a relationship between himself and individuals (or even a group of individuals) within the same universe.
I assume that a purely monistic deity would not be communicating with, or setting up a relationship with, parts of itself.
My point is that
The idea of the God who Creates
and the idea of the God who Communicates
are very akin to one another.
The kind of God who would Create would also be the kind of God who could Communicate.
However, the language used in this self-revelation can't be used in an unqualified way.
Theologians have long understood that when God is said to sit, to use his arm, to be angry, even to love, these can only be understood
They give us an indirect idea of the way that God relates to the world.
The language may not be strictly true, but ir's the nearest we can get.
If we want to say anything about him at at all, we have to use it.
(Whereas if we confine ourselves to philosophy, we could say nothing. But philosophy, on its own, would not come up with Creation teaching in the
As for "inconceivability"; I suggest that this, like the word "sin", is actually about the gap between ourselves and the Creator.
edit on 8-8-2013 by DISRAELI because: (no reason given)