I suggest you look up the standard definitions of omnipotent (all powerful), omniscient (all knowing) and omnibenevolent (all good). That is what I was using when I made my explanation. I say this because I think you may be missing the point I was trying to make.

“Hebrews 11:1,2. Faith is the assured expectation of what is hoped for” says nothing other than it is a hope. One cannot base anything upon hope.

Your second definition, from the OED, you selected the wrong definition of those offered “[uncountable] faith (in somebody/something) trust in somebody’s ability or knowledge; trust that somebody/something will do what has been promised” is really nothing more than saying you have confidence in something.

At http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/... it says: noun, 1. Complete trust or confidence in someone or something, (which does not apply here) and 2. “Strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.” This does apply here. You are certainly claiming a “Strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.” Exactly out of the dictionary.

You refer to the sun. An interesting analogy since the folks who wrote the Bible did not know where the sun went at night. They were quite ignorant of the earth (also believing it to be flat), not to mention the universe. But, all of this is not relevant to the topic of this thread.

To get back on topic, state a definition of god that is intelligible. If you want to discuss some particular aspect, such as omnipotence, then say so. In the course of the discussion you will have to use words in the standard meanings, not with some spin you may wish to add to them. Otherwise no discussion is possible because neither of us will understand the other.

If the point is that you don't believe in God, and are not going to even accept any definition of one, believe me, we get it.

excuse me. . when our natural rights are taken away, and they are,
things get really gross and people start making changes. . war, etc....... -- j
.

Look up the standard definitions of omnipotent (all powerful), omniscient (all knowing) and omnibenevolent (all good). That is what I was using when I made my explanation. I say this because I think you may be missing the point I was trying to make.

The 2nd Jesus makes sort of a cameo appearance in the Bible, but seems like a much nicer guy than the more famous character of the same name in the novel. I found him when writing my book www.godontrial.ws and used him in the trial on cross-examination.

The only answer I can ever come up with is. "Life "is""

Biblically God is defined as "Love." i.e. God Is Love. 1 John 4:16; 1 John 4:8

d'accord

Are you saying everything unkown is god?

Is there any possible way you can force your mind to figure out an intelligible definition of your god? Without a defintion, there can be no discourse.

That is the question. What is it?

Uh, patooie!
You can bite me first.

Yes, and this came from a specific document called the Nicene Creed - an extra-Biblical document created around 400 AD by a communal gathering of leaders of the various sects of Christianity which had been largely isolated and persecuted nearly to extinction. The people that attended this conference came from a wide variety of backgrounds with widely varying traditions and cultures and were trying to democratically come to an agreement on many things, including the definitive traits of Deity. Imagine Congress trying to universally agree on a bill and you can imagine that convocation.

I will just respond by saying I do not believe the Nicene Creed nor any religion that adheres to such to be truly Christian. I personally do not believe in a God that is unknowable, nor in one who is "without parts, passions," etc. As you conclude, so do I: that such a notion is preposterous and illogical. I believe that there is a God who exists, is absolutely definable, and who is personable, i.e. relatable and concrete. Anything more should be taken to a private thread so as not to hijack it.

I love you but just can't help it...has to come out...Old Dino, you can bite me.

Which church? There are many Christians who happen to believe that the Roman Catholic and Greek/Russian Orthodox faiths apostatized and no longer represent true Christianity. They would agree with you completely yet defend their own principles.

Just playing devil's advocate here ;) Wait a minute... =D

Well said. We will all eventually know - or we won't (because there won't be anything to do the "knowing". I prefer to bet on option A.

If you would like, I will open a private thread where perhaps I can tell you why Christians believe certain things. I don't really want to hijack this thread with it, however.

And THAT is the crux of the matter entirely. Unfortunately, it is not for the realm of this thread. If you want, however, I will open a private thread where we can take up this subject.

With respect to omnipotence, what you are proposing is to have unlimited power without the anticipation or understanding of the results of that power. It would mean that you would have a being that could obliterate planets simply by bumbling around and that that being was so daft that they couldn't put one + one together to understand the results of their own actions! I hope you can see how absurd such a notion is.

With respect to omniscience, you are confusing control with choice: placing every single one of our actions at the whim of some benevolent dictator. You are also confusing the very notion of future. May a God exist that can predict with great certainty the results of certain actions? Absolutely. Does that necessarily mean, however, that the choice is already made and incontrovertible? No. What you are proposing is the termination of will. Any parent of a child can watch a child and predict that the child's curiosity to touch that hot pan will overcome the parent's warning to the child. The parent warns the child because they love the child, but the parent knows the child must be allowed to touch the hot pan despite the warnings if it is to learn and grow.

With respect to good, you similarly invent a definition which suits your goal instead of one that actually fits. Good describes either certain actions or the tendency of an agent to act for the "good". But what that really means is that those actions are calculated such as to reach a certain goal, with a "good" action being one which advances the pursuance of the goal and a "bad" or "evil" action as one which hinders it. The only way to evaluate "good" and "evil" is to know the goal. There is no other way.

With respect to this being intelligible, you are correct in that they are not - insofar as you have defined them. In the alternate light I propose, you can see that they are, in fact, quite intelligible.

The idea that God is basically unknowable is common to most major theistic traditions. Since this discussion was about Christianity in particular, Christian theologians have long argued/understood their god to be unknowable in essence.

Sure, God could be the local galactic representative of the green lantern corps. But that's not really what we are talking about here.

I'll present you with an alternate view to help you understand how Christians think.

First of all, you are completely right that it makes no sense with an atheistic worldview in mind (and not just because it denies the existence of God). Christians, however, do not look at this life as the end of existence, merely a stage such that we will go on to face more decisions and more existence (though in an alternate state than our present) after death. In order to comprehend ANY part of Christian theology, you must consider it under this lens.

Now, let's say that this life is a test to see how we will handle things here and that if we pass the test, there will be opportunities opened up to us in the next life. Let's say for the sake of explanation that death is merely a one-way door we pass through rather than an annihilator of being. Now the second core principle to understand is that Christians view all people everywhere as God's children for whom he is looking out. He is trying to balance our ability to take the test and act on our own without the coercion of His presence to skew the results. In that he has to allow us not only to make decisions that help us pass the test, but decisions that will prevent us from getting a good grade. And some of those decisions are going to negatively affect other people - especially our children.

At some point, God has to weigh the opportunity for success of the children of those peoples who altogether turn away from choices that would help them pass the test. It is evident at some point to Him whether or not someone is going to pass the test, but He is also considering the conditions new participants in the test have to undergo and their potential to successfully navigate it. Can you see that there might be some conditions where to continue to allow those civilizations is also to doom their children to failing the test? Thus in the Bible, those civilizations which were destroyed were those who had already failed the test in such a spectacular way that they not only failed, but were bound and determined to bring down all those they could.

You are also looking at it as a matter of death ending existence. If death is merely a stepping stone to the next phase of existence (as Christians believe), all death does is cut off the test - it doesn't snuff out that individual's existence. Now, I will freely admit that there are many different sects of Christians and not all believe precisely the same with regards to the afterlife. Only one is likely to be the correct view, so lumping all Christians into the same boat there is overly simplistic, but it serves the purpose of this discussion.

The real difference that I can determine between Christians and Objectivists is in the treatment of Death. If existence terminates with death, no, nothing in the Bible will make rational sense at all. If, however, existence does not terminate with Death, then consideration for that next life then weighs very heavily in the discussion. Above any other consideration - including faith - it is the question of the persistence of intellect that defines the discussion.

"Religious faith requires belief in something that is, by definition, intrinsically unknowable in its being or essence."

The main problem with many atheists' definitions of faith is that they try to define a God who can not exist, instead of focusing on one that can and looking for it. This is a straw man argument by very definition.

The real problem I have is that they try to paint faith as an exclusively religious concept, when scientists use it all the time when formulating potential concepts to test. They don't know whether or not their test will prove what they desire when they conduct the test - they only know afterwards. They hope that the test confirms what they believe, but until they actually conduct the test, it is merely faith - nothing more and nothing less. I know this will seem blasphemous to many, but look at it and you will see it is true. Knowledge is things of the past. Faith deals with things as they may be.

The real question of God comes down to how you formulate your concept of God and how you go about confirming whether or not that concept is real. There are plenty of formulations of God that are nonsense - Plato did a pretty good job taking apart the Greek Pantheon in his "Republic". However, it is a fallacy to conclude that because one particular view of God is incorrect that another can not exist. This is the fallacy too many fall for when discussing matters of religion.

I actually have provided that definition several times in this thread; however, here it is.

Hebrews 11:1,2
Faith is the assured expectation of what is hoped for, the evident demonstration of realities that are not seen. 2 For by means of it, the men of ancient times had witness borne to them.

Oxford English:
[uncountable] faith (in somebody/something) trust in somebody’s ability or knowledge; trust that somebody/something will do what has been promised


Faith in the "religious" definition, is just like the Sun rising. There is no way you can PROVE the sun will rise in the morning. The only thing you can do is reference that the sun has in FACT risen every morning since the beginning of recorded history, and based on that previous "beheld" evidence, have "Faith" the sun will rise tomorrow, even though you have not seen it rise "tomorrow" and cannot PROVE it will rise tomorrow.

THAT is the definition of faith. Faith is not blind at all, and when people do not use "reason" in their argument, then it is blind and not representative of Biblical Faith.

Next Mirriam-Webster is secular, and I said tainted with an atheist slant, since Mirriam-Webster is using terminology that specifically does not represent the meaning of what "Faith is and how it is used and defined. If you go back to the original Greek and Hebrew words for Faith, there is nothing about "no proof" but as the analogy of the Sun is how the Hebrew and Greek used the word Faith, hence the "Atheist slant and incorrect version of that definition.

I thought Brown did a good job in writing the da Vinci Code. Tastes differ.

You refer to a definition of fath, but you do not provide it. Please do so. Without knowing what you are trying to say, I am at a loss to agree or disagree or take some position in between.

I do not understand your ad hominem attacks on me or Merriam-Webster, etc. Please explain those, too. From my point of view you seem to be in cognitive quagmire, unable to remain focused on the topic and intellectually floppoing about. I'd like to see a little more precision in your communication so I may understand what you are saying.

Sorry, but you simply cannot be both.
Humility is not a virtue, religion provides absolutely no source of knowledge, and optimism has nothing to do with philosophy. Maybe you can call yourself "accepting of some Obj.ist ideas."

IndianaGary, you may of course choose to exit the conversation, but I do have a question for you. Why did you "Choose a secular book to provide your definition of "Faith?"

Isn't that paramount to asking a Muslim to Define Christianity, or a Communist to define Capitalism?

To define a specific "religious term" I would think you would use a source that understands the term.

The Oxford Dictionary uses a definition much closer to that which is in the Bible.
"[uncountable] faith (in somebody/something) trust in somebody’s ability or knowledge; trust that somebody/something will do what has been promised"

If you go straight to the Hebrew or Greek word "Faith" which is the context in the Bible the below is the definition:

Strong's Encyclopedia on Faith referencing the actual word used IN context and during that time.

pivstiß Pistis (pis'-tis);
Word Origin: Greek, Noun Feminine, Strong #: 4102


conviction of the truth of anything, belief; in the NT of a conviction or belief respecting man's relationship to God and divine things, generally with the included idea of trust and holy fervour born of faith and joined with it
relating to God
the conviction that God exists and is the creator and ruler of all things, the provider and bestower of eternal salvation through Christ
relating to Christ
a strong and welcome conviction or belief that Jesus is the Messiah, through whom we obtain eternal salvation in the kingdom of God
the religious beliefs of Christians
belief with the predominate idea of trust (or confidence) whether in God or in Christ, springing from faith in the same
fidelity, faithfulness
the character of one who can be relied on