Announcement

Collapse

Philosophy 201 Guidelines

Cogito ergo sum

Here in the Philosophy forum we will talk about all the "why" questions. We'll have conversations about the way in which philosophy and theology and religion interact with each other. Metaphysics, ontology, origins, truth? They're all fair game so jump right in and have some fun! But remember...play nice!

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

The Identity of God.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • The Identity of God.

    The term God does not give us God's identity. But God nevertheless has a very real identity. This identity if it is not God, there is no God. In other words this identity is very real.

    The universe is not God. And the universe, meaning: everything that exists. Now consider the question "does God exist?" The problem with this question and that the universe being everything that exists, it makes such a God part of His creation. Which of course He is not. The universe being God's creation.

    Now the tautology Existence exists, is a simple self-evident truth. Now space is a type of existence. Every material thing exists in space in some way. Even the non-material things which make up the material things. (Such as electromagnetic energy and gravity.)

    Now the things in space do not make space.

    Now our simple tautology existence exists. Everything real has existence of some kind. Since different things are not the same things, they which have existence are not the existence which self exists.

    The self existent existence is omnipresent, and possesses everything and anything which is real.

    Existence defines what is true. Truth being what really exists.

    The self existent existence needs no God.

    Now that self existent existence is the very identity of God. God's Hebrew name means "Self Existent."

    The self-existent existence is the true ontological proof of God. Being it is God's identity.

    Something more here: Self existent is not caused and is eternal in not having any beginning nor end. And being eternal is a an immutability.

    Noting existence defines what is true. And truth is immutable - absolute. It does not change. The law of non-contradiction.

    But our created universe is temporal. Was caused, all causes are temporal. So whether there is only one discrete cause for the universe or an infinite series leading up to the universe that is now. Either case requires an uncaused cause.

    Now an uncaused cause has two natures. Uncaused is eternal. And a cause is always temporal. So it requires an agent which is both the uncaused, which we identify as the self existent existence. And that the agent is also temporal being a cause. Which is another entity different from being uncaused. This agent is both uncaused and a cause. And that these two entities being both the same and different in being a common uncaused. The common uncaused nature constitutes a third entity being an uncaused essence.

    We have the self existent existence.
    Which precedes everything - which constitutes the fundamental order - which is both uncaused and a cause in of itself.
    Both the uncause existence and the uncaused order/cause are two entities being one uncaused essence constituting a third entity which make those three the one entity we know as God.

    Self Existent, uncaused entity (The Hebrew Name: Yahweh.)
    The uncaused order/cause being both uncaused and temporal. (the Logos)
    And the one uncaused essence - which makes the three entities the one entity. (the Holy Spirit)
    . . . the Gospel of Christ, for it is [the] power of God to salvation to every [one] believing, . . . -- Romans 1:16.

    . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3, 4.

    Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1.

  • #2
    Sounds good. But can I please play Devil's Advocate and ask how your proof proves the Christian God and not the one of the deists?
    (I am a Christian, just want to encourage discussion with some devil advocating. Even though I'm not so good at philosophy. I just had one class in college.)
    If it weren't for the Resurrection of Jesus, we'd all be in DEEP TROUBLE!

    Comment


    • #3
      Are you playing devil's advocate in the thread you made in the apologetic section?
      If it weren't for the Resurrection of Jesus, we'd all be in DEEP TROUBLE!

      Comment


      • #4
        If you are dealing with the possibilities of the nature of a 'Source' some call god(s) there may be a possible dialogue here in Plilosophy, but I am not this is the correct forum, nonetheless I will provide my case on What is the nature of God?' In a separate section of Comparitive Religions I proposed a discussion that does lead to this question, assuming the fallible 'human perspective,' Some of the assumptions that I base my logic are as follows:

        The first assumption is the most important, 'consider the universal' in all things as Aristotle proposed in Physica. This amounts to no a priori assumptions on anything including one's own belief system. This assumption relates to my Buddhist leanings, and the view that we can see more clearly if we wipe the slate clean as humanly possible, and consider all the evidence and possibilities.

        "Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders. Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations. But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, the universal, then accept it and live up to it." – Buddha

        The second assumption is truth as well as knowledge is relative from the human perspective, and cannot be assumed to be absolute in any way. This assumption is based on the evidence of the nature of human knowledge, and the claims of ‘Truth’ over the millennia.

        The fourth assumption is our understanding of the subjective world beyond the objective physical nature of our existence is limited by our fallible nature, and human understanding of the subjective. Philosophy and logic are useful in exploring the subjective, and understanding our human nature, but remain human constructs of the subjective world of the mind only. This assumption is based on the diversity, and often conflicting and inconsistent subjective beliefs and logical arguments over the millennia.

        The sixth assumption is that IF God exists, God is universal and unknowable in the absolute sense. Doctrines and beliefs of individual religions are too inconsistent to be there be a reliable doctrine or dogma concerning nature of the Divine. The scriptures of the religions of the world reflect a human view of Revelation, and the relationship between humanity, Creation and the Source some call God(s). This is related to the first, second, and fourth assumptions.
        Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
        Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
        But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

        go with the flow the river knows . . .

        Frank

        I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

        Comment


        • #5
          Now that self existent existence is the very identity of God.
          This needs to be established (and pointing out how it is labelled in hebrew does not do that).
          But our created universe is temporal. Was caused, all causes are temporal. So whether there is only one discrete cause for the universe or an infinite series leading up to the universe that is now. Either case requires an uncaused cause.
          Again, you need to establish that the universe was caused. It could have appeared spontaneously, it could be eternal (the Big Bang indicates our space-time had a start, but our space-time could exist in a larger continuum).
          My Blog: http://oncreationism.blogspot.co.uk/

          Comment


          • #6
            In response to your argument concerning caused and uncaused, being a basis for the nature of the 'Source,' is more part of the argument for the existence of god(s), not necessarily the nature of God. From the natural perspective the cause is the inherent nature of the Laws of Nature and our physical existence that could possibly be eternal.
            Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
            Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
            But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

            go with the flow the river knows . . .

            Frank

            I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by 37818 View Post
              ... God's Hebrew name means "Self Existent."...

              Self Existent, uncaused entity (The Hebrew Name: Yahweh.)

              ...
              Are you sure about that?
              βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
              ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

              אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by robrecht View Post
                Are you sure about that?
                This represents a highly interpretive meaning of Yahweh. In other words quit a stretch of meaning. Yes, if God exists God is obviously a self-existent uncaused entity.
                Last edited by shunyadragon; 03-28-2014, 01:37 PM.
                Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                go with the flow the river knows . . .

                Frank

                I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                  The sixth assumption is that IF God exists, God is universal and unknowable in the absolute sense. Doctrines and beliefs of individual religions are too inconsistent to be there be a reliable doctrine or dogma concerning nature of the Divine.
                  You claim that God is unknowable, then turn around and claim that you know something about God - that He is unknowable? And so what if different religions differ on the nature of God? It doesn't follow that one of them isn't correct.
                  Last edited by seer; 03-28-2014, 03:04 PM.
                  Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by seer View Post
                    You claim that God is unknowable, then turn around and claim that you know something about God - that He is unknowable? And so what if different religions differ on the nature of God? It doesn't follow that one of them isn't correct.
                    Incomplete, as far as what I believe, and what I consider that humans may know about God. No, it is unlikely that any one is correct considering the fallible nature of humans and the inconsistency of the beliefs of different religions, it is more likely that no one religion is correct to the degree that they claim.

                    You have been around long enough to understand the apophatic view of God.
                    Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                    Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                    But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                    go with the flow the river knows . . .

                    Frank

                    I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                      Incomplete, as far as what I believe, and what I consider that humans may know about God. No, it is unlikely that any one is correct considering the fallible nature of humans and the inconsistency of the beliefs of different religions, it is more likely that no one religion is correct to the degree that they claim.

                      You have been around long enough to understand the apophatic view of God.
                      Saying that we have an incomplete view of God is not the same as saying these He is unknowable. Of course He is not unknowable, as Christ said, he who sees me sees the Father. So we certainly can know a great deal about God and His character - if not everything.
                      Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by seer View Post
                        Saying that we have an incomplete view of God is not the same as saying these He is unknowable. Of course He is not unknowable, as Christ said, he who sees me sees the Father. So we certainly can know a great deal about God and His character - if not everything.
                        This does not represent an understanding of the differences between the apophatic versus cataphatic view of the nature of what may be known of God. For example: Defining God as Trinitarian is a cataphatic understanding of God by traditional Christian Doctrine. The Jewish and Baha'i view that God's nature is unknowable to the extent that God cannot be defined as Trinitarian is an apophatic view of God.
                        Last edited by shunyadragon; 03-28-2014, 05:03 PM.
                        Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                        Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                        But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                        go with the flow the river knows . . .

                        Frank

                        I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                          This does not represent an understanding of the differences between the apophatic versus cataphatic view of the nature of what may be known of God. For example: Defining God as Trinitarian is a cataphatic understanding of God by traditional Christian Doctrine. The Jewish and Baha'i view that God's nature is unknowable to the extent that God cannot be defined as Trinitarian.
                          The Christian dogma of the Trinity is in some senses kataphatic, but in other senses apophatic. Speaking of three persons of the Trinity is kataphatic, perhaps even anthropomorphic for some, but it is certainly apophatic in nonetheless affirming the complete monotheistic mystery of the simplicity (incomprehensible, unable to be defined) of God.
                          βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
                          ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

                          אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by robrecht View Post
                            The Christian dogma of the Trinity is in some senses kataphatic, but in other senses apophatic. Speaking of three persons of the Trinity is kataphatic, perhaps even anthropomorphic for some, but it is certainly apophatic in nonetheless affirming the complete monotheistic mystery of the simplicity (incomprehensible, unable to be defined) of God.
                            Yes, Christianity may have apophatic (mysteries) beliefs concerning God, but the difference between the apophatic view and kataphatic view is the basis of the difference between traditional Christianity and other beliefs. The Islamic view of God, Buddhist view of the unknowable 'Source', the Taoist view of the Tao, and Hindu view of the Brahman all represent apophatic views of a 'Source' some call God(s). All these views acknowledge that the attributes of the 'Source,' such as love, wisdom and justice, may be known as well as revealed laws, but the 'Source' itself remains unknowable and undefinable by Doctrine and Dogma.

                            Also the exclusive beliefs of Christianity, and even to the point as God may be exclusively 'personally known' or 'saved' through their Doctrines and Dogmas of belief of individual churches remains a distinct Kataphatic extension of the belief in the Christian Trinity.
                            Last edited by shunyadragon; 03-28-2014, 05:24 PM.
                            Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                            Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                            But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                            go with the flow the river knows . . .

                            Frank

                            I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                              Yes, Christianity may have apophatic (mysteries) beliefs concerning God, but the difference between the apophatic view and kataphatic view is the basis of the difference between traditional Christianity and other beliefs. The Islamic view of God, Buddhist view of the unknowable 'Source', the Taoist view of the Tao, and Hindu view of the Brahman all represent apophatic views of a 'Source' some call God(s). All these views acknowledge that the attributes of the 'Source,' such as love, wisdom and justice, may be known as well as revealed laws, but the 'Source' itself remains unknowable and undefinable by Doctrine and Dogma.

                              Also the exclusive beliefs of Christianity, and even to the point as God may be exclusively 'personally known' or 'saved' through their Doctrines and Dogmas of belief of individual churches remains a distinct Kataphatic extension of the belief in the Christian Trinity.
                              I guess it depends on how you define 'traditional Christianity'. I would not define it so narrowly and I'm in pretty good company on this in terms of traditional Christian thinkers through the past couple of thousand years.
                              βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
                              ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

                              אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

                              Comment

                              Related Threads

                              Collapse

                              Topics Statistics Last Post
                              Started by Diogenes, 10-10-2020, 08:38 PM
                              15 responses
                              120 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Sparko
                              by Sparko
                               
                              Started by Andius, 10-07-2020, 07:38 PM
                              10 responses
                              75 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post shunyadragon  
                              Working...
                              X