Can you describe your god objectively?

For all the attrbutes you hold to be true about your god(s), do you ever think about them objectively or do you define everything using your god as a reference point to determine the magnitude of another creatures attributes?

For example, if I defined a milliwob to be an entity that is perfectly good/moral/etc... then for any action it performs these actions must be good...even if said milliwob was to torturously exterminate all living creatures in every part of the universe we are forced to accept this is a good thing to be done if we accept that a milliwob does exist and is perfectly good.

My question is can you describe the attributes of your god without using tautologies such as "He has perfect judgement, perfect morals, is without sin etc..."?

Originally posted by Agerg
For all the attrbutes you hold to be true about your god(s), do you ever think about them objectively or do you define everything using your god as a reference point to determine the magnitude of another creatures attributes?

For example, if I defined a milliwob to be an entity that is perfectly good/moral/etc... then for any action it performs these action ...[text shortened]... t using tautologies such as "He has perfect judgement, perfect morals, is without sin etc..."?

I don't think God can be described using the rules you've laid down. (How's that for a description?)😏

Originally posted by Agerg
"He has perfect judgement, perfect morals, is without sin etc..."?

How are these tautologies?

Originally posted by Agerg
For all the attrbutes you hold to be true about your god(s), do you ever think about them objectively or do you define everything using your god as a reference point to determine the magnitude of another creatures attributes?

For example, if I defined a milliwob to be an entity that is perfectly good/moral/etc... then for any action it performs these action ...[text shortened]... t using tautologies such as "He has perfect judgement, perfect morals, is without sin etc..."?

Is it possible to describe the infinite objectively? God seems to have described himself as the I am that I am. How's that?

How are these tautologies?


because these things you accept are measured relative to your god anyway...sin more so because it is defined to be something tha your god would find ahem...displeasing...to say God is "perfectly moral" etc...is to make he word "perfectly" redundant since if morality is measured using your god as a point of origin then this sort of implies it has to be perfect anyway!

Hmm...I should say that I wouldn't ask you to define the things about your god you cannot know ie..I'm not asking you to define a spirit, but I would ask you to say in more precise terms what it means to be say...perfect (since perfect can be talked about in terms of what an entity can do and what others can't)

My God may or may not exist.

Can't get more objective than that. 😛

Originally posted by whodey
Is it possible to describe the infinite objectively? God seems to have described himself as the I am that I am. How's that?

If you are happy to accept that a jiggydob is a bubbidink then thats fair enough...otherwise you might want a bit more information

Originally posted by Agerg
For all the attrbutes you hold to be true about your god(s), do you ever think about them objectively or do you define everything using your god as a reference point to determine the magnitude of another creatures attributes?

For example, if I defined a milliwob to be an entity that is perfectly good/moral/etc... then for any action it performs these action ...[text shortened]... t using tautologies such as "He has perfect judgement, perfect morals, is without sin etc..."?

You post seems to focus on the moral aspect of God, e.g., "perfectly good/moral/without sin, etc...." Is this intentional?

I can tell you that the God of the Bible is not perfectly good. If we define a "perfectly good" being as someone who never causes harm, God simply cannot fit that bill. For example, God has on many occasions ordered the deaths of large populations of people, He has personally struck dead those who've disregarded His commands, and furthermore, explicitly guarantees in his Word the eternal damnation of those who reject His Son, Jesus Christ. All of this has and will entail a great deal of suffering, according to God's will; therefore God, as He is revealed in the Bible, cannot be called, "perfectly good."

That which prevents God from being "perfectly good" is the objective reality that He is holy. Being holy, God cannot abide the presence of sin. As such, He must also be a God of judgment, holding accountable those who transgress His holy law. A "perfectly good" God, as a rule, could not mete out any punishment whatsoever, since to do so would necessarily entail the imposition of suffering.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
You post seems to focus on the moral aspect of God, e.g., "perfectly good/moral/without sin, etc...." Is this intentional?

I can tell you that the God of the Bible is not perfectly good. If we define a "perfectly good" being as someone who never causes harm, God simply cannot fit that bill. For example, God has on many occasions ordered the deaths ...[text shortened]... ent whatsoever, since to do so would necessarily entail the imposition of suffering.

I focused on them points because you can objectively define what is say, a perfect plan, or omnipotence, omniscience (doing so might encourage such people as myself to then look for counter-examples to such definitions), but I can't see how god's morality, goodness etc... can be measured objectively Also I find that talking about God as being sinless to be absurd since sin can be loosely defined to be *not doing as god wants* therefore we'd expect that an omnipotent god would never do what he doesn't want himself to do.

I'm glad you are honest enough not to engage in the double-think strategy of championing a perfectly good god that *can* order mass killings

What I find difficult about sin is that I have heard it has such terrible consequences etc...but surely an omnipotent god would be able to change the nature of sin such that it *didn't* have such terrible effects. Unless of course your god's omnipotence is bounded with respect to what can or can't be done. But then I would find myself conceiving a more powerful god that could circumvent such bounds.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
You post seems to focus on the moral aspect of God, e.g., "perfectly good/moral/without sin, etc...." Is this intentional?

I can tell you that the God of the Bible is not perfectly good. If we define a "perfectly good" being as someone who never causes harm, God simply cannot fit that bill. For example, God has on many occasions ordered the deaths ...[text shortened]... ent whatsoever, since to do so would necessarily entail the imposition of suffering.

Interesting. If you renounce god's moral perfection it would pretty much circumnavigate the problem of evil. The question then becomes - is a morally imperfect god worthy of worship? Does this theodicy leave you with too little left?

Originally posted by epiphinehas
You post seems to focus on the moral aspect of God, e.g., "perfectly good/moral/without sin, etc...." Is this intentional?

I fully understand what Agerg is saying and have in the past seen it used for many more properties of God than morality. A while back there was a poster (I forget who) who just loved to write long posts 'defining' God. He would tell us something like 'God is Regal' then proceed to 'prove' it essentially by finding some reference that essentially defined 'regal' as 'God like' or something to that effect.

God was, is, and always will be...the Alpha and the Omega...the beginning and the end. God was in the Word; He became the Word; He became fleah in the form of Jesus; He lives, and those who believe in His son, Jesus, as their savior Shall inherit eternal life. All other debates, speculations, derisions, etc. are moot....

Originally posted by dystoniac
God was, is, and always will be...the Alpha and the Omega...the beginning and the end. God was in the Word; He became the Word; He became fleah in the form of Jesus; He lives, and those who believe in His son, Jesus, as their savior Shall inherit eternal life. All other debates, speculations, derisions, etc. are moot....

The only problem is that nobody will simply take your word for it.

Originally posted by twhitehead
The only problem is that nobody will simply take your word for it.

Yes, I agree with you, and that is where faith comes in. Works without faith mean nothing. Faith means EVERYTHING because without it, Christianity would have never founded. This is the essence of Christianity: one MUST have absolute faith in Jesus; without it, all the good one does means nothing. Eternal life is a gift. The only way to accept this gift is by faith. I know, this explanation will not cut it for most people, but it is the way, and it is up to everybody to decide for themselves whether to believe or not. Don't take my word for it. The Bible is clear about the way to eternal life. Peace.