01 Feb '08 10:49>1 edit
Originally posted by NemesioBetter, except that it would be untrue.
Don't you think that the unclear presentation would be fixed by simply adding a few words?
1.2 GOD cannot be fully defined or adequately described. To to have completely
described GOD is to have completely defined GOD, and to have completely
defined GOD is to reduce GOD to a finite limited existence.
A definition, even a complete one, does not guarantee finiteness. The real numbers which are uncountably infinite, are completely defined.
I also do not really understand why "GOD is the entirety of existence" is not adequate as a definition, though I do realize that it falls short as a full definition. But then no definition can really be complete without essentially containing a complete replica of the original and that is clearly impossible for "all existence".
But then again, anything is in itself a complete description of itself, which might explain the "I am who I am" that caissad4 so despises. Is it possible that that is the only valid "complete definition" for the entirety of existence?