Wednesday, July 19, 2017

The Burning Bush: God is not a list of attributes but the basis of reality

Image result for metacrock's blogImage result for metacrock's blog




In the discussion on my argument I in the "debate" with Bowen Eric Sotnak raised an argument in order to preempt a possible answer from me, the possibility that I could argue that the Vacuum flux or whatever physical situation science finds caused the big bang expansion,is God. Of course I don't argue That but in preempting it he asserted that the real Christian concept of God is standardized consisting of "traditional theistic attributes. " One can't help but think of the big man in the sky,



Eric Sotnak said...

It seems to me that for something to be deserving of the name "God" some substantive set of traditional theistic attributes must be predicated of it. Thus far in the presentation of your argument, I think little has been done to fill in the missing details. Presumably those details will center on the sense of the numinous you invoked in the original argument. Am I correct in assuming that such details are planned for future stages of the argument?
my reply:
No I think this is a case where Christian apologetic has done a disservice because it;s lent itself to setting this easy little list of omni's as a quick shorthand to God's description and identity,it's really missing the point about the nature of God and what it means to attack that word to some set of characteristics.That gives me a great theme for Wedneday's blog. I will save the brunt of my comet for then, but I'll says this:first SON is about love, love is personal so the personal dimension is implied in my argument. I think TS would imply the omni's but we really have to re think the omni's.

2 comments:

Eric Sotnak said...

How different could the Ground of Being get from the traditional theistic concept and still be deserving of the name "God"? What do you consider to be the essential (necessary and sufficient) characteristics of God?

Joe Hinman said...

How different could the Ground of Being get from the traditional theistic concept and still be deserving of the name "God"? What do you consider to be the essential (necessary and sufficient) characteristics of God?

I don't want to replace one set of characteristics with another. I was talking about organic connections,and things we can experience, God is the object of all of those mystical experiences,the thing sensed that we call "sense of the numinous." He's the thing that loves us when we experience the ominous, get that all pervasive sense of love.He is not a :he" or a she" or an it.

Certain qualities or distinctions are essential. "He" has to be eternal, necessary in broadly logical sense and in terms of causal independence. So he is the creator of all that is not him. He is the ground of Being and the depth of being,and the source of love. That means God can't be an impersonal force. He may be beyond our comprehension but we can recognize love when we feel it, Se may not understand God but we can know he is love, he's not impersonal or evil or selfish.

It is unclear, but it should be, because we can't understand God, We can know certain things, such as God is teh good and the source of love.