Why dont you want your beliefs challenged?

[Jac3510]

The most likely scenario is that they do not fully understand it. At its core is the true display of reason.

True, but in my experience, a lot of the time it is equally based on simply disliking God as understood by DS. People want God to be a human. So you have blatant versions like Mormonism. You have old, discredited pagan ideas like Greek mythology. You have still more commonly accepted avatar-styled views as in Hinduism. And then you have much of Christianity, where God is conceived, intentionally or not, not as existence itself, but as a sort of super-Person, as if the difference in God and Man were merely one of degree. They make that mistake because they want to use univocal language between God and themselves . . . they don't want God to be wholly other. So whether it's a conservative anthropomorphizing God or a liberal process theologian doing it, the results are the same: God is not really God (in the classical sense of the word).

Of course, the flip side of it is that they accuse those of us who adhere to DS of making God not really God. That's why I say that it's not really about not understanding the doctrine. For many, it is about what they want God to be. Desire is a strong thing. It effects how we reason, even when we don't know it.

[Noah1201]

Can you explain in lay-man terms what you mean by God being "existence itself"?

[RickD]

The most likely scenario is that they do not fully understand it. At its core is the true display of reason.

True, but in my experience, a lot of the time it is equally based on simply disliking God as understood by DS. People want God to be a human. So you have blatant versions like Mormonism. You have old, discredited pagan ideas like Greek mythology. You have still more commonly accepted avatar-styled views as in Hinduism. And then you have much of Christianity, where God is conceived, intentionally or not, not as existence itself, but as a sort of super-Person, as if the difference in God and Man were merely one of degree. They make that mistake because they want to use univocal language between God and themselves . . . they don't want God to be wholly other. So whether it's a conservative anthropomorphizing God or a liberal process theologian doing it, the results are the same: God is not really God (in the classical sense of the word).

Of course, the flip side of it is that they accuse those of us who adhere to DS of making God not really God. That's why I say that it's not really about not understanding the doctrine. For many, it is about what they want God to be. Desire is a strong thing. It effects how we reason, even when we don't know it.

Slaughter the fattened calf, the prodigal son has returned!

Welcome back Jac!

[Jac3510]

Can you explain in lay-man terms what you mean by God being "existence itself"?

I think saying that God is existence itself is putting it in layman's terms . . .

I'll try to answer your question though . . . God says that His name is I AM. I mean . . . He just is. You can add all kinds of things, but it's incredibly profound to realize that every qualifier you add to that simple sentence ("God is") is, in some sense, a way to focus on some particular aspect of His Being to get your mind around it. But, really, in the end, God just is.

Look at it this way: what is the one thing that EVERYTHING has in common--everything from angels to dirt? Put simply, they exist. Even things that don't exist, like unicorns, have to exist in the mind in some sense so that you can ask the question whether or not they really exist. So existence is the one property of things that is common to all things. But what about the property of existence itself? Does existence have the property of existence? It's a sill sounding question . . . to ask, "Does existence exist?" is just absurd. (That, by the way, is what Byblos was getting at earlier when he said that the idea that God doesn't exist is just absurd.)

So without getting technical, the idea is that everything you have ever seen or thought is really just existence existing some way. In one way, existence is a horse. In another way, it's an an angel. In another, it's a thought--a thought of a unicorn or a thought of a child. In another way, it is a nature, and in still another, it is an atom. But everything is just that -- it is existence in this or that particular form. In other words, it is existence in some limited way.

But what about God? Is God a thing that exists in some definable way? Is God dependent on the reality called existence for His own existence? Is God limited, a being that exists this way rather than that? Classical theism, which Byblos was talking about (and which I agree with) says no. It says that God is unlimited and infinite. God just is existence. He is being itself. Therefore, to the extent that anything exists, it exists only because it is in some sense in Him, partaking in Him, being sustained by Him. We are accustomed to saying things like, "Every breath is a gift of God," but even your moment by moment existence is from God. He gives it to you just because He wants to. And that is what makes atheism so horribly arrogant and evil. The very existence upon which we depend for ourselves and upon which our thought "God does not exist" depends is given to us by Existence Itself. Atheists borrow from God to deny Him. It is the height of absurdity.

God just IS. He is the "isness" that holds everything together. It's very, very profound, and very, very deep. And, again, this is classical theism. This is nothing new.

I hope that helps--please note that the above is in very simplified language, but I hope it helps you get the idea.

Slaughter the fattened calf, the prodigal son has returned!

Welcome back Jac!

Hi, Rick!

[Furstentum Liechtenstein]

Welcome back, Jac. We're much more fun than those happy atheist bozos you've been spending time with.

FL

[jlay]

Divine simplicity just aint simple.

[zacchaeus]

and for Mag, same question you pose... When science is our freind, points to a creator (God)- not proves considering observation, which one would have to already know their is a god in order to convey such tests/reults considering one would have to have a control... the only way to Compare and contrast God would be to compare Him against Himself. Science and History is our freind... when this is clear, and it is what will you do? Rick said "if" in a 100 years then he would ignore it... this is what you Mag have already done. The accuser committs the same crime... you've already made up your mind!!! Time to turn you over... pray!!! Peace, joy, LOVE