Is "Why is there something rather than nothing?" a legitimate question?

[JimL]

God is defined exactly as he would be, with the attributes of love, compassion and justice etc etc. if his existence were naught but an imaginative creation in the minds of men. God is a fantasy created in the image of man, for how else would be able to define a nature that is beyond our ability to know?

[robrecht]

God is defined exactly as he would be, with the attributes of love, compassion and justice etc etc. if his existence were naught but an imaginative creation in the minds of men. God is a fantasy created in the image of man, for how else would be able to define a nature that is beyond our ability to know?

Traditional Christian theology does not believe we are capable of giving a definition of God. Even when naming some of his attributes, it is understood that we only perceive a very limited reflection of God's glory. What we refer to as his goodness, love, mercy, justice, etc, is infinitely less than his true reality. So unlike our existence is the existence of God, that Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite, an important early influence on Western theology in general, and Thomas Aquinas specifically, would say that it is more true to say that God does not exist than to say that God exists, so limited is our understanding of his existence.

[JimL]

Traditional Christian theology does not believe we are capable of giving a definition of God. Even when naming some of his attributes, it is understood that we only perceive a very limited reflection of God's glory. What we refer to as his goodness, love, mercy, justice, etc, is infinitely less than his true reality. So unlike our existence is the existence of God, that Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite, an important early influence on Western theology in general, and Thomas Aquinas specifically, would say that it is more true to say that God does not exist than to say that God exists, so limited is our understanding of his existence.

Why do you think that you perceive even a limited reflection of gods attributes? Why do you define gods attributes with terms such as goodness, love, mercy, justice etc. etc.? And why do you think you have even a limited understanding of gods existence?

[robrecht]

Why do you think that you perceive even a limited reflection of gods attributes? Why do you define gods attributes with terms such as goodness, love, mercy, justice etc. etc.? And why do you think you have even a limited understanding of gods existence?

For me it is a kind of intuition, partly intellectual but only partly so, partly attitudinal, partly a thirst for underlying rationality and an unlimited source of love and goodness, for which I have yet to experience a limit. It is an intuition fed primarily by the example of love and service of others in the church, especially the experience of social ministry with the poor, and profound experiences in prayer, especially in the celebration of the Eucharist, that leave me with a subjective certitude that seems to run very deep. None of this comes close to a definition, however, and it is not content with overly conceptual approaches that do not seem capable of capturing the depth of experience and certainly cannot capture the divine reality itself, of which our experience is just a taste or poor reflection.

[shunyadragon]

You will not answer direct questions about your own position and yet you accuse me of "duck, bobbing weaving"! Why are you so reluctant to discuss your views? Is it because you realize you are being inconsistent? Or are you perhaps embarrassed by a possible association with reified infinite, co-eternal neo-Platonic emanations, if that is indeed associated with Baha'i faith/theology of divine attributes? Why the reluctance to discuss your views?

It is the answer you will get. You keep duck, bobbing weaving to find subtle rewording to pick an argument, and will not accept my responses as genuine. You really have problems communicating and only expect the answers you want to hear.

I have answered this question already, and no need to beat the dead horse. Your statements were specific; God is love, and God is good. These are positive cataphatic statements defining God. I would not use this terminology to define God.

Your rewording as 'goodness' from your original cataphatic descriptions of what God is . . . does not change anything, because a description of 'goodness' is to vague, anecdotal and subject to human value judgments as what is 'good.'

I believe the description of the attributes of God as revealed by the Baha'i Faith is as far as I will go. There are no references in the Baha'i writings that would translate to the positive cataphatic statements such as; God is love, God is good, nor the arbitrary, anecdotal, vague poorly defined concept of 'goodness?'.

[robrecht]

It is the answer you will get. You keep duck, bobbing weaving to find subtle rewording to pick an argument, and will not accept my responses as genuine. You really have problems communicating and only expect the answers you want to hear.

I have answered this question already, and no need to beat the dead horse. Your statements were specific; God is love, and God is good. These are positive cataphatic statements defining God. I would not use this terminology to define God.

Your rewording as 'goodness' from your original cataphatic descriptions of what God is . . . does not change anything, because a description of 'goodness' is to vague, anecdotal and subject to human value judgments as what is 'good.'

I believe the description of the attributes of God as revealed by the Baha'i Faith is as far as I will go. There are no references in the Baha'i writings that would translate to the positive cataphatic statements such as; God is love, God is good, nor the arbitrary, anecdotal, vague poorly defined concept of 'goodness?'.

Yet another wall of repetition without response.

[shunyadragon]

God is defined exactly as he would be, with the attributes of love, compassion and justice etc etc. if his existence were naught but an imaginative creation in the minds of men. God is a fantasy created in the image of man, for how else would be able to define a nature that is beyond our ability to know?

This view is a possibility, but at present I am a Theist, and believe in God. If the ancient world views of Judaism, Christianity and Islam were the only alternatives with all their contorted variations, I would be a strong agnostic/weak atheist. Considering all the evidence any single one of these religions and their variations are irrational and illogical, and can only be justified with selfish logic, and desires of sense of belonging and cultural attachment to past paradigms.

[shunyadragon]

Yet another wall of repetition without response.

It is the answer you will get. You keep duck, bobbing weaving to find subtle rewording to pick an argument, and will not accept my responses as genuine. You really have problems communicating and only expect the answers you want to hear.

I have answered this question already, and no need to beat the dead horse. Your statements were specific; God is love, and God is good. These are positive cataphatic statements defining God. I would not use this terminology to define God.

Your rewording as 'goodness' from your original cataphatic descriptions of what God is . . . does not change anything, because a description of 'goodness' is to vague, anecdotal and subject to human value judgments as what is 'good.'

I believe the description of the attributes of God as revealed by the Baha'i Faith is as far as I will go. There are no references in the Baha'i writings that would translate to the positive cataphatic statements such as; God is love, God is good, nor the arbitrary, anecdotal, vague poorly defined concept of 'goodness?'.

[robrecht]

It is the answer you will get. You keep duck, bobbing weaving to find subtle rewording to pick an argument, and will not accept my responses as genuine. You really have problems communicating and only expect the answers you want to hear.

I have answered this question already, and no need to beat the dead horse. Your statements were specific; God is love, and God is good. These are positive cataphatic statements defining God. I would not use this terminology to define God.

Your rewording as 'goodness' from your original cataphatic descriptions of what God is . . . does not change anything, because a description of 'goodness' is to vague, anecdotal and subject to human value judgments as what is 'good.'

I believe the description of the attributes of God as revealed by the Baha'i Faith is as far as I will go. There are no references in the Baha'i writings that would translate to the positive cataphatic statements such as; God is love, God is good, nor the arbitrary, anecdotal, vague poorly defined concept of 'goodness?'.

Shuny, don't you feel silly repeating yourself over and over again? Why not try to have a meaningful conversation?

[shunyadragon]

Shuny, don't you feel silly repeating yourself over and over again? Why not try to have a meaningful conversation?

It is the answer you will get. You keep duck, bobbing weaving to find subtle rewording to pick an argument, and will not accept my responses as genuine. You really have problems communicating and only expect the answers you want to hear.

I have answered this question already, and no need to beat the dead horse. Your statements were specific; God is love, and God is good. These are positive cataphatic statements defining God. I would not use this terminology to define God.

Your rewording as 'goodness' from your original cataphatic descriptions of what God is . . . does not change anything, because a description of 'goodness' is to vague, anecdotal and subject to human value judgments as what is 'good.'

I believe the description of the attributes of God as revealed by the Baha'i Faith is as far as I will go. There are no references in the Baha'i writings that would translate to the positive cataphatic statements such as; God is love, God is good, nor the arbitrary, anecdotal, vague poorly defined concept of 'goodness?'.

[shunyadragon]

Theopedia is not the catechism of the Catholic church. Read the references I have given you previously to the writings of Thomas Aquinas.

Source: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15047a.htm

Thus, in the words of the Athanasian Creed: "the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, and yet there are not three Gods but one God." In this Trinity of Persons the Son is begotten of the Father by an eternal generation, and the Holy Spirit proceeds by an eternal procession from the Father and the Son. Yet, notwithstanding this difference as to origin, the Persons are co-eternal and co-equal: all alike are uncreated and omnipotent. This, the Church teaches, is the revelation regarding God's nature which Jesus Christ, the Son of God, came upon earth to deliver to the world: and which she proposes to man as the foundation of her whole dogmatic system.

In Scripture there is as yet no single term by which the Three Divine Persons are denoted together. The word trias (of which the Latin trinitas is a translation) is first found in Theophilus of Antioch about A.D. 180. He speaks of "the Trinity of God [the Father], His Word and His Wisdom (To Autolycus II.15). The term may, of course, have been in use before his time. Afterwards it appears in its Latin form of trinitas in Tertullian (On Pudicity 21). In the next century the word is in general use. It is found in many passages of Origen ("In Ps. xvii", 15). The first creed in which it appears is that of Origen's pupil, Gregory Thaumaturgus. In his Ekthesis tes pisteos composed between 260 and 270, he writes:

There is therefore nothing created, nothing subject to another in the Trinity: nor is there anything that has been added as though it once had not existed, but had entered afterwards: therefore the Father has never been without the Son, nor the Son without the Spirit: and this same Trinity is immutable and unalterable forever (P.G., X, 986).

© Copyright Original Source

[Adrift]

Shuny, don't you feel silly repeating yourself over and over again? Why not try to have a meaningful conversation?

Because he's afraid that if you can nail down any of his views, it'll expose how weak his own position is, and he'll no longer be able to attack other religions (specifically Christianity) without defending his own poorly thought out worldview. It's fear based, and he thinks that acting like a child will make you go away and leave him alone.

[robrecht]

Source: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15047a.htm

Thus, in the words of the Athanasian Creed: "the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, and yet there are not three Gods but one God." In this Trinity of Persons the Son is begotten of the Father by an eternal generation, and the Holy Spirit proceeds by an eternal procession from the Father and the Son. Yet, notwithstanding this difference as to origin, the Persons are co-eternal and co-equal: all alike are uncreated and omnipotent. This, the Church teaches, is the revelation regarding God's nature which Jesus Christ, the Son of God, came upon earth to deliver to the world: and which she proposes to man as the foundation of her whole dogmatic system.

In Scripture there is as yet no single term by which the Three Divine Persons are denoted together. The word trias (of which the Latin trinitas is a translation) is first found in Theophilus of Antioch about A.D. 180. He speaks of "the Trinity of God [the Father], His Word and His Wisdom (To Autolycus II.15). The term may, of course, have been in use before his time. Afterwards it appears in its Latin form of trinitas in Tertullian (On Pudicity 21). In the next century the word is in general use. It is found in many passages of Origen ("In Ps. xvii", 15). The first creed in which it appears is that of Origen's pupil, Gregory Thaumaturgus. In his Ekthesis tes pisteos composed between 260 and 270, he writes:

There is therefore nothing created, nothing subject to another in the Trinity: nor is there anything that has been added as though it once had not existed, but had entered afterwards: therefore the Father has never been without the Son, nor the Son without the Spirit: and this same Trinity is immutable and unalterable forever (P.G., X, 986).

© Copyright Original Source

This summary of Trinitarian doctrine does not contradict the fact that traditional Catholic theology does not believe that God can be defined. See the references to Thomas Aquinas that I have given to you previously.

[shunyadragon]

Shuny, don't you feel silly repeating yourself over and over again? Why not try to have a meaningful conversation?

No, they are simply a clear and concise response to my beliefs and view in response to your questions, which you persist in repeating needling frog hair picking questions over and over again that have already been answered.

[shunyadragon]

This summary of Trinitarian doctrine does not contradict the fact that traditional Catholic theology does not believe that God can be defined. See the references to Thomas Aquinas that I have given to you previously.

Thomas Aquinas does not define the doctrine and dogma of the Roman Church. The Roman Church defines the Trinity.