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

[robrecht]

Brush up on your English, saying God is all-Loving is most definitely not the same as saying God is Love. It is a matter of understanding sentence structure, nouns and adjectives, etc. Think about it carefully, saying 'John is a loving person,' is most definitely not saying 'John is love.'

Your trying real, real hard, too hard.

So you were being too simplistic when you said merely that 'God is ...' statements are definitions of God. So perhaps you could try to be better express whatever you were trying to say. Also, allow me to remind you that it was also you yourself who said, 'God is love', 'though apparently you misspoke, as I suspected, when you said this.

[shunyadragon]

So you were being too simplistic when you said merely that 'God is ...' statements are definitions of God.

No, your statements are what I was referring to as too simplistic in the context of our previous discussion where you were proposing God is Love, and God is Good. You and Jim brought up the the Baha'i references, which in clear simple English mean something different.

So perhaps you could try to be better express whatever you were trying to say. Also, allow me to remind you that it was also you yourself who said, 'God is love', 'though apparently you misspoke, as I suspected, when you said this.

A corrected error in my posts need not be a 'allow me to remind you,' and not meaningful in the discussion. Other than the corrected error have been very clear and specific as to my position.

[robrecht]

No, your statements are what I was referring to as too simplistic in the context of our previous discussion where you were proposing God is Love, and God is Good. You and Jim brought up the the Baha'i references, which in clear simple English mean something different.

A corrected error in my posts need not be a 'allow me to remind you,' and not meaningful in the discussion. Other than the corrected error have been very clear and specific as to my position.

Previously, you would only say that you 'may have' misspoke. Thanks for finally admitting to your 'corrected error'. Perhaps you can also try and correct your prior simplistic attempt to assert that 'God is ...' statements are definitions of God. Perhaps you would now even try to better explain your statements about the attributes of God.

[shunyadragon]

So you were being too simplistic when you said merely that 'God is ...' statements are definitions of God.

NO! You were being too simplistic defining God simply by one word.

So perhaps you could try to be better express whatever you were trying to say. Also, allow me to remind you that it was also you yourself who said, 'God is love', 'though apparently you misspoke, as I suspected, when you said this.

Why harp on a meaningless mistake which was corrected?!?!?!!? I may respond in part to this problem if you can get off this meaningless tangent, about 'What?' and the 'Why?' of there is something 'God' and the possible reverse; There is no answer 'Why?' and 'What?' that cannot be defined from the human perspective and may not exist at all.

[robrecht]

NO! You were being too simplistic defining God simply by one word.

I did not define God. As I've said many times, I do not believe we are capable of defining God. It is you who are having difficulty explaining what you think a definition is.

Why harp on a meaningless mistake which was corrected?!?!?!!? I may respond in part to this problem if you can get off this meaningless tangent, about 'What?' and the 'Why?' of there is something 'God' and the possible reverse; There is no answer 'Why?' and 'What?' that cannot be defined from the human perspective and may not exist at all.

Shuny, you are responding to an old post that you have already responded to before. Perhaps that is creating the mistaken impression in your mind that I am 'harping' on your mistake.

[shunyadragon]

I did not define God. As I've said many times, I do not believe we are capable of defining God. It is you who are having difficulty explaining what you think a definition is.

I believe the Christian belief in the Trinity is a positive cataphatic definition for the nature of God, regardless of how many times you repeat it is not. I have clearly acknowledge the belief in Christiannity of the unknowable apophatic nature of God in Christianity beyond the dogma and doctrine of the Trinity.

Shuny, you are responding to an old post that you have already responded to before. Perhaps that is creating the mistaken impression in your mind that I am 'harping' on your mistake.

Not there is no mistake. Harping on the 'God is . . .' has continued unabated.

[robrecht]

I believe the Christian belief in the Trinity is a positive cataphatic definition for the nature of God, regardless of how many times you repeat it is not. I have clearly acknowledge the belief in Christiannity of the unknowable apophatic nature of God in Christianity beyond the dogma and doctrine of the Trinity.

Not there is no mistake. Harping on the 'God is . . .' has continued unabated.

How are you currently understanding your use of the term 'definition'? Is it no longer the mere use of a 'God is ...' statement? You have already admitted your mistake--are you now attempting to withdraw that concession? Or are you sayin that you are purposefully and repeatedly responding to earlier posts while ignoring my current posts?

[shunyadragon]

How are you currently understanding your use of the term 'definition'?

By the dictionary The Trinity defines a positive cataphatic nature of God being the central dogma and doctrine of the Roman Church and most other churches. Again I have no problem with the ultimate apophatic view of God held by most Christians beyond the dogma and doctrine of the Trinity.

Is it no longer the mere use of a 'God is ...' statement? You have already admitted your mistake--are you now attempting to withdraw that concession?

What concession?!?!?!? I only acknowledged an error in a previous post, and corrected any misunderstanding of my view that may have resulted.

[robrecht]

By the dictionary The Trinity defines a positive cataphatic nature of God being the central dogma and doctrine of the Roman Church and most other churches. Again I have no problem with the ultimate apophatic view of God held by most Christians beyond the dogma and doctrine of the Trinity.

What concession?!?!?!? I only acknowledged an error in a previous post, and corrected any misunderstanding of my view that may have resulted.

What dictionary definition are you referring to here?

I have already explained to you and cited (#483) how in the Western Catholic tradition the kataphatic doctrine of the Trinity is to be understood in a more fundamentally apophatic manner.

You conceded that you misspoke when you said that God is love according to the Baha'i tradition. You have not yet clarified how exactly you distinguish between some 'God is ...' statements that you consider to be definitions of God and other 'God is ...' statements that you do not not consider to be definitions of God. We await any positive and coherent contribution that you would like to make to this thread.

[shunyadragon]

What dictionary definition are you referring to here?

Source: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/definition

Definition - : a statement that describes what something is

© Copyright Original Source

[qute] I have already explained to you and cited (#483) how in the Western Catholic tradition the kataphatic doctrine of the Trinity is to be understood in a more fundamentally apophatic manner. [/quote]

. . . and I disagree. It remains the central Western Christian kataphatic dogma and doctrine regardless of what you consider how it is to be understood. Different understandings do not define the Trinity. The central kataphatic doctrine defines what the Trinity is.

You conceded that you misspoke when you said that God is love according to the Baha'i tradition. You have not yet clarified how exactly you distinguish between some 'God is ...' statements that you consider to be definitions of God and other 'God is ...' statements that you do not not consider to be definitions of God. We await any positive and coherent contribution that you would like to make to this thread.

This is not a concession. It was simply a correction of an error. The correction of an error is not a concession. Let's move on!

I have already clarified the issue. Your problem is understanding plan and simple English sentence structure, nouns and adjectives.Again . . .

Saying John is a loving person describes an attribute of John. Say John is Love would be to define John as Love.

[robrecht]

Source: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/definition

Definition - : a statement that describes what something is

© Copyright Original Source

. . . and I disagree. It remains the central Western Christian kataphatic dogma and doctrine regardless of what you consider how it is to be understood. Different understandings do not define the Trinity. The central kataphatic doctrine defines what the Trinity is.

This is not a concession. It was simply a correction of an error. The correction of an error is not a concession. Let's move on!

I have already clarified the issue. Your problem is understanding plan and simple English sentence structure, nouns and adjectives.Again . . .

Saying John is a loving person describes an attribute of John. Say John is Love would be to define John as Love.

Exactly the opposite. 'John is a loving person' precisely fits the classical paradigm of a definition, genus and species. It defines what John is, ie, a loving person. Genus: person. Specific difference: What kind of a person is John? A loving one. It is precisely this type of definition that cannot be given of God according to Thomas Aquinas. God is not in a genus. We cannot comprehend what God is. On the other hand, saying, 'John is love', cannot be understood literally. It is merely a poetic, evocative statement.

You are trying to oppose how you understand the Trinity to how I consider it is to be understood. But I did not merely tell you how I think it should be understood. I cited for you the view of Thomas Aquinas, cited by the Roman Catholic catechism. Specifically with respect to the Trinity, it does not denote something positive about God. "Hilary says (De Trin. iv): "If we admit companionship"--that is, plurality--"we exclude the idea of oneness and of solitude;" and Ambrose says (De Fide i): "When we say one God, unity excludes plurality of gods, and does not imply quantity in God." Hence we see that these terms are applied to God in order to remove something; and not to denote anything positive."

[shunyadragon]

Exactly the opposite. 'John is a loving person' precisely fits the classical paradigm of a definition, genus and species. It defines what John is, ie, a loving person. Genus: person. Specific difference: What kind of a person is John? A loving one. It is precisely this type of definition that cannot be given of God according to Thomas Aquinas. God is not in a genus. We cannot comprehend what God is. On the other hand, saying, 'John is love', cannot be understood literally. It is merely a poetic, evocative statement.

Disagree with your misuse of the English language.

You are trying to oppose how you understand the Trinity to how I consider it is to be understood. But I did not merely tell you how I think it should be understood.

confusing use of pronouns.

I cited for you the view of Thomas Aquinas, cited by the Roman Catholic catechism. Specifically with respect to the Trinity, it does not denote something positive about God. "Hilary says (De Trin. iv): "If we admit companionship"--that is, plurality--"we exclude the idea of oneness and of solitude;" and Ambrose says (De Fide i): "When we say one God, unity excludes plurality of gods, and does not imply quantity in God." Hence we see that these terms are applied to God in order to remove something; and not to denote anything positive."

Again and again Aquinas. Hilary nor Ambrose do not define the dogma and doctrine of the Roman Church. Commentary on the understanding and 'mystery' of God from the human perspective addresses the ultimate apophatic unknowable nature of God. The Trinity stands as the positive cataphatic central dogma and doctrine of God and defines God.

[robrecht]

Disagree with your misuse of the English language.

confusing use of pronouns.

Again and again Aquinas. Hilary nor Ambrose do not define the dogma and doctrine of the Roman Church. Commentary on the understanding and 'mystery' of God from the human perspective addresses the ultimate apophatic unknowable nature of God. The Trinity stands as the cataphatic central dogma and doctrine of God and defines God.

I think you missed the part that the catechism cites this sectuin of Thomas Aquinas when explaining that we cannot grasp what God is, but only what he is not. The catechism does define and explain the doctrines of the Catholic church. If you want to understand theological doctrines, you need to use a thelogical method, developed by theologians.

[shunyadragon]

I think you missed the part that the catechism cites this sectuin of Thomas Aquinas when explaining that we cannot grasp what God is, but only what he is not. The catechism does define and explain the doctrines of the Catholic church. If you want to understand theological doctrines, you need to use a thelogical method, developed by theologians.

No, I did not miss any thing, yes, Aquinas provides commentary on the limits of human understanding of the ultimate apophatic mystery of God and the Trinity from the human perspective. I have acknowledged this repeatedly. Nonetheless, the central dogma, doctrine of the Trinity in most Christian churches is specifically defined and described as the nature of God, and cannot be factually questioned.

[robrecht]

No, I did not miss any thing, yes, Aquinas provides commentary on the limits of human understanding of the ultimate apophatic mystery of God and the Trinity from the human perspective. I have acknowledged this repeatedly. Nonetheless, the central dogma, doctrine of the Trinity in most Christian churches is specifically defined and described as the nature of God, and cannot be factually questioned.

When you say "most Christian churches", to which churches are you referring? If you are not referring to the doctrine of the Catholic church, defined with reference to the theology of Thomas Aquinas, do you have any specific churches or theologians in mind? Or is this merely your attempt to generalize with your own opinion without any substantiation whatsoever?