Where does God come from?

Did God happen by chance?
Who created God?

Replace "God" with "the universe" and re-ask those questions. Is it then, that God can be replaced by the universe and vice versa? Most theists reject these questions on the simple premise that God always was. Pantheists accept these questions, seeing as how they view God to be all. Atheists, of course, use this questions to question the logic of theists. It makes a strong argument for pantheism, but it's largely in part relied on a circular path of questioning that will ultimately lead to further questions. These sort of questions are the questions that can't be answered, whether it be God or the universe, so essentially one comes to their own deduction from their personal belief.

It's interesting to though to think that, if God exists, does He exist by chance? Or does He exist because He wants to, which basically means that He created Himself? Or perhaps He has always existed?

Take human existence. We don't know entirely how we got here and we probably never will. Sure, we know that a male and a female gametes had formed us into a zygote that would eventually grow into an adult. We don't even know why we're here entirely, which is up to debate. If God exists, what do you think is the origin of His existence and the purpose of His existence? I think it's a question without a feasible answer. Post me your thoughts, please. Peace. 

I think it is a good question that theists tend to overlook, especially the questions about "Did God create himself."

I'm currently reading The God Delusion and Dawkins says that there doesn't have to be a stopping point (in terms of who created what). People assume that at one time there had to be a creator, and can't accept the possibility that the universe just always was. I think we should remember that time didn't start until the Big Bang occured, so (I'm assuming) that there was no starting point previous to the Big Bang. I am anticipating when science can tell us what occured in the event immediately following the Big Bang. Hopefully I'll be alive when that happens.

The Abraham God wouldn't need to follow the rules you set forth, but a pantheistic god surely would. I think the argument you present is just another hole poked into the god theory, so to speak.

if you were a bit more diligent you would have come upon Leibniz' principle of sufficient reason and his argument from contingency. I will now take time to discuss his argument because, quite frankly, I consider it to be the strongest argument for the existence of God in existence, considering its simplicity (For instance, the Kalam argument and teleological argument are much simpler, but aren't necessarily more cogent. Plantinga's Ontological argument is much stronger, but it is very complicated and hard-to-understand. Leibniz' argument is both simple and strong). The difference between God and the Universe is that the universe cannot exist necessarily. God however, being a maximally great being, must exist necessarily if he exists (epistemically speaking). There is no reason to suppose that there is no possible world in which the universe does not exist.

Now since the universe is not a necessary entity, it still needs an explanation. God however exists by the necessity of his own nature and, hence, needs no explanation beyond himself.

Very good and well thought out question Gene.  I think we invented God.  When we couldn't understand why natural events occurred (weather, famine, disease, ect...) we had to put a reason to it.  The reason became God IMO.  And we also wished, and still do, that there is more to life that just the fairly short life we live (which I find very odd, life is wonderful, good and bad.) btaylor2404

Took the words right outta my mouth (or off my fingers if you will).

Plantinga's Ontological argument is much stronger, but it is very complicated and hard-to-understand.

danwallacefan

Just out of curiosity: who came up with that "argument"?

Now since the universe is not a necessary entity, it still needs an explanation. God however exists by the necessity of his own nature and, hence, needs no explanation beyond himself.

danwallacefan

Bingo. Couldn't have said it better myself. 

[QUOTE="danwallacefan"]

Now since the universe is not a necessary entity, it still needs an explanation. God however exists by the necessity of his own nature and, hence, needs no explanation beyond himself.

Lansdowne5

Bingo. Couldn't have said it better myself.

[QUOTE="Lansdowne5"][QUOTE="danwallacefan"]

Now since the universe is not a necessary entity, it still needs an explanation. God however exists by the necessity of his own nature and, hence, needs no explanation beyond himself.

Teenaged

Bingo. Couldn't have said it better myself.

I would ask you to prove it...but seeing as you won't discuss it any further, it appears to be nothing more than a baseless, unsubstantiated, and highly opinionated statement. 

[QUOTE="Teenaged"][QUOTE="Lansdowne5"][QUOTE="danwallacefan"]

Now since the universe is not a necessary entity, it still needs an explanation. God however exists by the necessity of his own nature and, hence, needs no explanation beyond himself.

Lansdowne5

Bingo. Couldn't have said it better myself.

I would ask you to prove it...but seeing as you won't discuss it any further, it appears to be nothing more than a baseless, unsubstantiated, and highly opinionated statement.

So I don't want to discuss it because I kind of know how it will end. Either my arguments getting ignored or getting such an empty response as the ones BR is used to provide with.

I'm currently reading The God Delusion and Dawkins says that there doesn't have to be a stopping point (in terms of who created what). People assume that at one time there had to be a creator, and can't accept the possibility that the universe just always was. I think we should remember that time didn't start until the Big Bang occured, so (I'm assuming) that there was no starting point previous to the Big Bang. I am anticipating when science can tell us what occured in the event immediately following the Big Bang. Hopefully I'll be alive when that happens.

helium_flash

Your wait is over, because scientists (thanks to string theory and quantum mechanics) now no longer think the Big Bang was the starting point of all time and space, just our universe.  They now say that our universe either broke off a parallel universe, or was birthed by the collision of two giant Branes.  Another universe will break off of ours, and another after that one, ect, ect, very similar to the old Oscillating Universe theory.  They now say our universe is infinite in size.  They say that there are infinite number of parallel infinite universes like ours.  In addition, there are an infinite number of micro-world universes that occupy the same space that these infinite parallel infinite universes do.  And to top it all off, there are infinite universes that have different laws of physics governing them.  Where did all of these infinite universe-birthing universes come from?  It is the repackaged causeless, eternal universe theory (spoken quite fondly of by Marx).  I find the idea interesting, but only in the same way I find science fiction interesting, not the latest scientific theory.  To me, this is about as desperate an attempt as anyone can get to explain how the universe could have created itself without God.  

If you want to see the hour long presentation on this parallel universe idea, look no further.

[QUOTE="Teenaged"][QUOTE="Lansdowne5"][QUOTE="danwallacefan"]

Now since the universe is not a necessary entity, it still needs an explanation. God however exists by the necessity of his own nature and, hence, needs no explanation beyond himself.

Lansdowne5

Bingo. Couldn't have said it better myself.

I would ask you to prove it...but seeing as you won't discuss it any further, it appears to be nothing more than a baseless, unsubstantiated, and highly opinionated statement.

Your wait is over, because scientists (thanks to string theory and quantum mechanics) now no longer think the Big Bang was the starting point of all time and space, just our universe.  They now say that our universe either broke off a parallel universe, or was birthed by the collision of two giant Branes.  Another universe will break off of ours, and another after that one, ect, ect, very similar to the old Oscillating Universe theory.  They now say our universe is infinite in size.  They say that there are infinite number of parallel infinite universes like ours.  In addition, there are an infinite number of micro-world universes that occupy the same space that these infinite parallel infinite universes do.  And to top it all off, there are infinite universes that have different laws of physics governing them.  Where did all of these infinite universe-birthing universes come from?  It is the repackaged causeless, eternal universe theory (spoken quite fondly of by Marx).  I find the idea interesting, but only in the same way I find science fiction interesting, not the latest scientific theory.  To me, this is about as desperate an attempt as anyone can get to explain how the universe could have created itself without God.  

If you want to see the hour long presentation on this parallel universe idea, look no further.

Alter_Ego

His wait isn't quite over yet, because to date string theory remains unfalsifiable, and, thus, not real science.  I'll get excited once string theory actually makes a real, testable prediction that is borne out in reality. :P

[QUOTE="Lansdowne5"]

I would ask you to prove it...but seeing as you won't discuss it any further, it appears to be nothing more than a baseless, unsubstantiated, and highly opinionated statement.

THUMPTABLE

[QUOTE="helium_flash"]

I'm currently reading The God Delusion and Dawkins says that there doesn't have to be a stopping point (in terms of who created what). People assume that at one time there had to be a creator, and can't accept the possibility that the universe just always was. I think we should remember that time didn't start until the Big Bang occured, so (I'm assuming) that there was no starting point previous to the Big Bang. I am anticipating when science can tell us what occured in the event immediately following the Big Bang. Hopefully I'll be alive when that happens.

Alter_Ego

Your wait is over, because scientists (thanks to string theory and quantum mechanics) now no longer think the Big Bang was the starting point of all time and space, just our universe. They now say that our universe either broke off a parallel universe, or was birthed by the collision of two giant Branes. Another universe will break off of ours, and another after that one, ect, ect, very similar to the old Oscillating Universe theory. They now say our universe is infinite in size. They say that there are infinite number of parallel infinite universes like ours. In addition, there are an infinite number of micro-world universes that occupy the same space that these infinite parallel infinite universes do. And to top it all off, there are infinite universes that have different laws of physics governing them. Where did all of these infinite universe-birthing universes come from? It is the repackaged causeless, eternal universe theory (spoken quite fondly of by Marx). I find the idea interesting, but only in the same way I find science fiction interesting, not the latest scientific theory. To me, this is about as desperate an attempt as anyone can get to explain how the universe could have created itself without God.

If you want to see the hour long presentation on this parallel universe idea, look no further.

[QUOTE="Alter_Ego"]Your wait is over, because scientists (thanks to string theory and quantum mechanics) now no longer think the Big Bang was the starting point of all time and space, just our universe. They now say that our universe either broke off a parallel universe, or was birthed by the collision of two giant Branes. Another universe will break off of ours, and another after that one, ect, ect, very similar to the old Oscillating Universe theory. They now say our universe is infinite in size. They say that there are infinite number of parallel infinite universes like ours. In addition, there are an infinite number of micro-world universes that occupy the same space that these infinite parallel infinite universes do. And to top it all off, there are infinite universes that have different laws of physics governing them. Where did all of these infinite universe-birthing universes come from? It is the repackaged causeless, eternal universe theory (spoken quite fondly of by Marx). I find the idea interesting, but only in the same way I find science fiction interesting, not the latest scientific theory. To me, this is about as desperate an attempt as anyone can get to explain how the universe could have created itself without God.

If you want to see the hour long presentation on this parallel universe idea, look no further.

danwallacefan

"They" are physicists, and they base these theories on what they have learned from quantum mechanics. I am not that familiar with the experiments they use to base their theories on, but I think some of it consists of smashing protons together in particle accelerators ect, and measuring the results. According to the video, energy or particles 'disappear' when they do certain tests, but they are not entirely sure where it goes.

Btw, I dont think the poster you quoted totally agrees with what they are saying, hence why they posted "To me, this is about as desperate an attempt as anyone can get to explain how the universe could have created itself without God."

If God is real then he is a necessary being.  In other words, he is either necessary or impossible.  Everything else, aka the creation, is contingent/unnecessary.  The contingent relies upon the necessary to exist.  The necessary is the "first cause."  Without this first cause, nothing exists.  To say the first cause must have a cause itself would mean it is no longer a necessary being but a contingent being which relies upon an even greater necessary being to exist.  God would then cease in being God as something greater than God would exist.

Indeed, I assume there was a beginning which would be the case if God exists (or at the very least the universe would require God for it's existence). My basic argument is thus, if God is a necessary being then nothing created him, he always was and requires no beginning.

If God is real then he is a necessary being.  In other words, he is either necessary or impossible.  Everything else, aka the creation, is contingent/unnecessary.  The contingent relies upon the necessary to exist.  The necessary is the "first cause."  Without this first cause, nothing exists.  To say the first cause must have a cause itself would mean it is no longer a necessary being but a contingent being which relies upon an even greater necessary being to exist.  God would then cease in being God as something greater than God would exist.

Indeed, I assume there was a beginning which would be the case if God exists (or at the very least the universe would require God for it's existence). My basic argument is thus, if God is a necessary being then nothing created him, he always was and requires no beginning.

mindstorm

By what you say couldn't we say that indeed god exists but may be nothing like we imagine Him, or nothing like the scripture allows us to know him as?

When I say "nothing like" though, I do not mean his qualities as a "charcter" but his nature and the "confines" to which we define him as.

[QUOTE="mindstorm"]

If God is real then he is a necessary being.  In other words, he is either necessary or impossible.  Everything else, aka the creation, is contingent/unnecessary.  The contingent relies upon the necessary to exist.  The necessary is the "first cause."  Without this first cause, nothing exists.  To say the first cause must have a cause itself would mean it is no longer a necessary being but a contingent being which relies upon an even greater necessary being to exist.  God would then cease in being God as something greater than God would exist.

Indeed, I assume there was a beginning which would be the case if God exists (or at the very least the universe would require God for it's existence). My basic argument is thus, if God is a necessary being then nothing created him, he always was and requires no beginning.

Teenaged

By what you say couldn't we say that indeed god exists but may be nothing like we imagine Him, or nothing like the scripture allows us to know him as?

When I say "nothing like" though, I do not mean his qualities as a "charcter" but his nature and the "confines" to which we define him as.

Indeed my argument argues the case for theism or even deism.  However, the God of this viewpoint would be infinite in every attribute (knowledge, power, time, morality, etc.).  None of this would contradict Christianity however, which would be a plus for the possiblity of Christianity being true (but Islam as well).

If God exists and has is a moral being then he is a personal God.  If he is a personal God then he would make himself known unlike a deistic God.  If he is a personal God then he would make himself known.  Which is then to be chosen?  Christianity? Islam? Judaism? Zoroastrianism?

If God is an infinite God then he would be perfect, thus morally perfect (for how could you argue him to be wrong?).   Being morally perfect he would not "trick" us.  The result would be his revelation being consistent and noncontradictory making some of the views about he wrong.  

btw, my response is in part assumptions and in part simple deduction.  Arguments can thus be found in taking apart the assumptions. (not to mention I'm only halfway paying attention to what I'm stating as I'm eating between classes :P)

[QUOTE="Teenaged"][QUOTE="mindstorm"]

If God is real then he is a necessary being.  In other words, he is either necessary or impossible.  Everything else, aka the creation, is contingent/unnecessary.  The contingent relies upon the necessary to exist.  The necessary is the "first cause."  Without this first cause, nothing exists.  To say the first cause must have a cause itself would mean it is no longer a necessary being but a contingent being which relies upon an even greater necessary being to exist.  God would then cease in being God as something greater than God would exist.

Indeed, I assume there was a beginning which would be the case if God exists (or at the very least the universe would require God for it's existence). My basic argument is thus, if God is a necessary being then nothing created him, he always was and requires no beginning.

mindstorm

By what you say couldn't we say that indeed god exists but may be nothing like we imagine Him, or nothing like the scripture allows us to know him as?

When I say "nothing like" though, I do not mean his qualities as a "charcter" but his nature and the "confines" to which we define him as.

Indeed my argument argues the case for theism or even deism.  However, the God of this viewpoint would be infinite in every attribute (knowledge, power, time, morality, etc.).  None of this would contradict Christianity however, which would be a plus for the possiblity of Christianity being true (but Islam as well).

If God exists and has is a moral being then he is a personal God.  If he is a personal God then he would make himself known unlike a deistic God.  If he is a personal God then he would make himself known.  Which is then to be chosen?  Christianity? Islam? Judaism? Zoroastrianism?

If God is an infinite God then he would be perfect, thus morally perfect (for how could you argue him to be wrong?).   Being morally perfect he would not "trick" us.  The result would be his revelation being consistent and noncontradictory making some of the views about he wrong.  

btw, my response is in part assumptions and in part simple deduction.  Arguments can thus be found in taking apart the assumptions. (not to mention I'm only halfway paying attention to what I'm stating as I'm eating between classes :P)

But you mostly answer to me in regards to his "character" and very general things like if he is finite or infinite. Surely he will be infinite and perfect, but what if he has no human qualities? I mean we are told that we are made in such a way so as to resemble god. What if this is not true, and god is not something to which we can attribute human qualities and the deification of humans which we are longing does not make us like god, but just "higher" humans, but nonetheless far from even close to god (not in presence but in resemblance and in qualities), because god may be something undefinable with human qualities. Maybe through his revelation he appears to be with human qualities purposefully so that we might understand, but what if he is nothing like that "in person"?Teenaged

In the assumption that we narrow down the theistic God to the Christian God then that argument is partially but not totally true.  Hopefully you won't mind me using Scripture a little. :P

As an infinite God it is impossible for us as finite beings to understand God in his entirety BUT he lets himself be known through his revelation.  Revelation can either been given by direct means (scripture being the biggest example) and indirect means (a.k.a. natural revelation/nature).  According to many places within the Bible, knowledge about God can be gained through examining the world around us.  Romans 1:19 actually states that this is reason enough to believe in God.  If this statement is true then we can actually learn about God through examining nature, there would be evidence.

Given that God uses this evidence to give knowledge of himself to us, we must assume that it is true given the previous discussion.  Indeed, God being the infinite God that he is, it is not possible to understand him completely.  Even Scripture acknowledges this incomplete knowledge.  In fact, Isaiah 40:28b even states his understanding to not even be fathomable.  What we know of him is what he tells us.  Deuteronomy 29:29 even says, "The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but the things revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may follow all the words of this law."

Okay, we've now clarified we can only know what God tells us and what he tells us through his various forms of revelation must be true due to his nature.  What is his personal nature?  Some argue the attributes of God that Scripture gives us is merely something greater but only personified so that we can understand him.  I agree with this idea to an extent but believe it can be taken too far as with any theological or philosophical position. 

In regards to understanding who he is "in person" as you say, I think that answer would be found through Jesus Christ.  Again, assuming Scripture to be true (as I do assume :P), Jesus has some limited attributes.  He is a finite being in regards to his physical presense (not omnipresent and has a physical form), intellect (he might have even gotten a math problem wrong as a child! :shock: ), etc.  Indeed those attributes might be better than a typical human, and indeed some attributes he maintains from his divine nature such as his inability to do what is morally unjust.  He is very much like the "higher human" of which you speak while God remains to still be the unfathomable in understanding him in his entirity.

First, let me clarify that my questions do not aim to disprove of a certain god or the Bible. It's not trick question that is to lure you to a conclusion out of which you can't get out. :P

My arguments evolve around the nature of god, not what he might have preached, or the validity of scripture.

In the assumption that we narrow down the theistic God to the Christian God then that argument is partially but not totally true.  Hopefully you won't mind me using Scripture a little. :P mindstorm

As an infinite God it is impossible for us as finite beings to understand God in his entirety BUT he lets himself be known through his revelation.  Revelation can either been given by direct means (scripture being the biggest example) and indirect means (a.k.a. natural revelation/nature).  According to many places within the Bible, knowledge about God can be gained through examining the world around us.  Romans 1:19 actually states that this is reason enough to believe in God.  If this statement is true then we can actually learn about God through examining nature, there would be evidence. mindstorm

That would render scripture to be nothing more than a minuscule window towards the sight of a huge image. But we can't see that image. We can only see the expressions this image allows us to see. Thus, concenring only the nature of god and not the teachings and their validity, we mayknow virtually NOTHING. We can only imagine him (it).

Given that God uses this evidence to give knowledge of himself to us, we must assume that it is true given the previous discussion.  Indeed, God being the infinite God that he is, it is not possible to understand him completely.  Even Scripture acknowledges this incomplete knowledge.  In fact, Isaiah 40:28b even states his understanding to not even be fathomable.  What we know of him is what he tells us.  Deuteronomy 29:29 even says, "The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but the things revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may follow all the words of this law." mindstorm

So his nature comes heavily filtered through his revelations. Notice I am not referring to what he told us (if that was my goal I would actually try to show that the Bible is corrupted but that's not my goal here) but his image. In fact the word says it all. We have but an image of it. We do not have him. As Plato said, paintings are lesser copies of the objects themsleves. The same here: all we have is a two dimensional copy of the image of god. We can never know his "3rd dimension". We can never learn his true identity.

Okay, we've now clarified we can only know what God tells us and what he tells us through his various forms of revelation must be true due to his nature.  What is his personal nature?  Some argue the attributes of God that Scripture gives us is merely something greater but only personified so that we can understand him.  I agree with this idea to an extent but believe it can be taken too far as with any theological or philosophical position. mindstorm

In regards to understanding who he is "in person" as you say, I think that answer would be found through Jesus Christ.  Again, assuming Scripture to be true (as I do assume :P), Jesus has some limited attributes.  He is a finite being in regards to his physical presense (not omnipresent and has a physical form), intellect (he might have even gotten a math problem wrong as a child! :shock: ), etc.  Indeed those attributes might be better than a typical human, and indeed some attributes he maintains from his divine nature such as his inability to do what is morally unjust.  He is very much like the "higher human" of which you speak while God remains to still be the unfathomable in understanding him in his entirity.

mindstorm

First, let me clarify that my questions do not aim to disprove of a certain god or the Bible. It's not trick question that is to lure you to a conclusion out of which you can't get out. :P

My arguments evolve around the nature of god, not what he might have preached, or the validity of scripture.

[QUOTE="mindstorm"]

In the assumption that we narrow down the theistic God to the Christian God then that argument is partially but not totally true.  Hopefully you won't mind me using Scripture a little. :P Teenaged

As an infinite God it is impossible for us as finite beings to understand God in his entirety BUT he lets himself be known through his revelation.  Revelation can either been given by direct means (scripture being the biggest example) and indirect means (a.k.a. natural revelation/nature).  According to many places within the Bible, knowledge about God can be gained through examining the world around us.  Romans 1:19 actually states that this is reason enough to believe in God.  If this statement is true then we can actually learn about God through examining nature, there would be evidence. mindstorm

That would render scripture to be nothing more than a minuscule window towards the sight of a huge image. But we can't see that image. We can only see the expressions this image allows us to see. Thus, concenring only the nature of god and not the teachings and their validity, we mayknow virtually NOTHING. We can only imagine him (it).

Given that God uses this evidence to give knowledge of himself to us, we must assume that it is true given the previous discussion.  Indeed, God being the infinite God that he is, it is not possible to understand him completely.  Even Scripture acknowledges this incomplete knowledge.  In fact, Isaiah 40:28b even states his understanding to not even be fathomable.  What we know of him is what he tells us.  Deuteronomy 29:29 even says, "The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but the things revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may follow all the words of this law." mindstorm

So his nature comes heavily filtered through his revelations. Notice I am not referring to what he told us (if that was my goal I would actually try to show that the Bible is corrupted but that's not my goal here) but his image. In fact the word says it all. We have but an image of it. We do not have him. As Plato said, paintings are lesser copies of the objects themsleves. The same here: all we have is a two dimensional copy of the image of god. We can never know his "3rd dimension". We can never learn his true identity.

Okay, we've now clarified we can only know what God tells us and what he tells us through his various forms of revelation must be true due to his nature.  What is his personal nature?  Some argue the attributes of God that Scripture gives us is merely something greater but only personified so that we can understand him.  I agree with this idea to an extent but believe it can be taken too far as with any theological or philosophical position. mindstorm

In regards to understanding who he is "in person" as you say, I think that answer would be found through Jesus Christ.  Again, assuming Scripture to be true (as I do assume :P), Jesus has some limited attributes.  He is a finite being in regards to his physical presense (not omnipresent and has a physical form), intellect (he might have even gotten a math problem wrong as a child! :shock: ), etc.  Indeed those attributes might be better than a typical human, and indeed some attributes he maintains from his divine nature such as his inability to do what is morally unjust.  He is very much like the "higher human" of which you speak while God remains to still be the unfathomable in understanding him in his entirity.

mindstorm

You have got some interesting thoughts and I do not disagree with your premises, just your conclusion.  Whereas you believe God's unfathomable nature means he cannot be understood, I believe his revelation is indeed not able to teach us everything but enough. 

As a poor illustration imagine a couple who decides to get married.  The soon-to-be husband does not know everything about the female but knows enough.  Through marriage the two will get to know each other on a more intimate level that would not be known otherwise (assuming the traditional/biblical view of marriage).  In just the same way, we cannot know everything about God, but we are able to learn enough.  Enough that we are able to enter into a relationship with him and continue to learn about him forever.

With the assumption that he teaches us enough, which may very well be just 10% as you say or less (I'd think an infinite God would be less :P), that amount which is enough is going to be true.  This truthfulness is indeed a further assumption in his morality, but that has already been established as being perfect.

Regardless of whether we understand him in his entirety, little objection can be risen in regards of whether or not he is worthy of worship given all of this information.  Through worship and relationship we are through eternity going to continually learn more about him (assuming we do or have those things).   If he is worthy and if he indeed exists then we should worship him regardless of whether we fathom his depths of character and being.

You have got some interesting thoughts and I do not disagree with your premises, just your conclusion.  Whereas you believe God's unfathomable nature means he cannot be understood, I believe his revelation is indeed not able to teach us everything but enough. mindstorm

As a poor illustration imagine a couple who decides to get married.  The soon-to-be husband does not know everything about the female but knows enough.  Through marriage the two will get to know each other on a more intimate level that would not be known otherwise (assuming the traditional/biblical view of marriage).  In just the same way, we cannot know everything about God, but we are able to learn enough.  Enough that we are able to enter into a relationship with him and continue to learn about him forever.mindstorm

With the assumption that he teaches us enough, which may very well be just 10% as you say or less (I'd think an infinite God would be less :P), that amount which is enough is going to be true.  This truthfulness is indeed a further assumption in his morality, but that has already been established as being perfect.mindstorm

Again the "quantity" does not affect "quality", I agree.

Regardless of whether we understand him in his entirety, little objection can be risen in regards of whether or not he is worthy of worship given all of this information.  Through worship and relationship we are through eternity going to continually learn more about him (assuming we do or have those things).   If he is worthy and if he indeed exists then we should worship him regardless of whether we fathom his depths of character and being.

mindstorm

The scripture

a) does not provide answers to everything in regards to god. If it is the inerrant word of god, still it is what he wants us to know. Again not implying that he is malevolent and tricks us. I am implying that it is an inevitability that he cannot tell us all.

b) by definition ought to be allegorical to a certain degree even without detectable means or an allegory like no other allegory we know of. Think of it that way: let's say that god comes to all of us and gathers us in the central square of the town and talks to us about him. What he will give us will not be something literal by definition because as we already said god will try to communicate by "reprogramming" his message. It can't be done otherwise. That's what allegory is: a reprogrammed literal description into a symbolical, easily digestible one.

But as I said I didn't start asking you questions to conclude anywhere, this came "by the way". :P

So my main concern which I want to express.

If we are not sure of god's nature then we cannot know how we will communicate with him afterwards. So even in heaven where some people will go the possibilities are these: either we will never experience him and we will only experience him through another mask, maybe a "thinner" one surely, but never without it, or in order to communicate with him our human nature will be totally abandoned and we will turn into him, metaphoricaly. We will share his nature (without that making us gods of course) and then the only verb we can use is "experience" as any other form of senses will be abandoned. So what will that experience be? An experience of mere existance with god, will it lead to a deletion of what we know as life and enter a completely unfathomable state of perception. Will we actually "see", "feel" or "hear"? Will we "be" as we "are" now. Will there be time?

Oh, too many crazy questions I know. :|

Now I am not asking to get answers because if only anyone knew those answers! :P Just for discussion's sake.

So my main concern which I want to express.

If we are not sure of god's nature then we cannot know how we will communicate with him afterwards. So even in heaven where some people will go the possibilities are these: either we will never experience him and we will only experience him through another mask, maybe a "thinner" one surely, but never without it, or in order to communicate with him our human nature will be totally abandoned and we will turn into him, metaphoricaly. We will share his nature (without that making us gods of course) and then the only verb we can use is "experience" as any other form of senses will be abandoned. So what will that experience be? An experience of mere existance with god, will it lead to a deletion of what we know as life and enter a completely unfathomable state of perception. Will we actually "see", "feel" or "hear"? Will we "be" as we "are" now. Will there be time?

Oh, too many crazy questions I know. :|

Now I am not asking to get answers because if only anyone knew those answers! :P Just for discussion's sake.

Teenaged

I think my only legitimate response can be as followed:

Our ability to perceive him would be progressively greater throughout eternity but never reach all of his being. :shock:

*jumps up and down in anticipation*

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

So my main concern which I want to express.

If we are not sure of god's nature then we cannot know how we will communicate with him afterwards. So even in heaven where some people will go the possibilities are these: either we will never experience him and we will only experience him through another mask, maybe a "thinner" one surely, but never without it, or in order to communicate with him our human nature will be totally abandoned and we will turn into him, metaphoricaly. We will share his nature (without that making us gods of course) and then the only verb we can use is "experience" as any other form of senses will be abandoned. So what will that experience be? An experience of mere existance with god, will it lead to a deletion of what we know as life and enter a completely unfathomable state of perception. Will we actually "see", "feel" or "hear"? Will we "be" as we "are" now. Will there be time?

Oh, too many crazy questions I know. :|

Now I am not asking to get answers because if only anyone knew those answers! :P Just for discussion's sake.

mindstorm

I think my only legitimate response can be as followed:

Our ability to perceive him would be progressively greater throughout eternity but never reach all of his being. :shock:

*jumps up and down in anticipation*

Btw just a clarification: what does the bible specifically says about what will happen in heaven?

Will we stil have our human bodies but they will be purified? Will we just be our souls?

I have a "gap" there. :P

:P Not interested just in "legitimate answers". Any thought is welcome. :)

Btw just a clarification: what does the bible specifically says about what will happen in heaven?

Will we stil have our human bodies but they will be purified? Will we just be our souls?

I have a "gap" there. :P

Teenaged

*Scripture overload!* :P

First off, I highly recommend reading 1 Corinthians 15 as it deals with Christ's resurrection, the resurrection of the dead, and the resurrection body. 

2 Corinthians 5:1-10 states, "Now we know that if the earthly tent we live in is destroyed, we have a building from God, an eternal house in heaven, not built by human hands. Meanwhile we groan, longing to be clothed with our heavenly dwelling, because when we are clothed, we will not be found naked. For while we are in this tent, we groan and are burdened, because we do not wish to be unclothed but to be clothed with our heavenly dwelling, so that what is mortal may be swallowed up by life. Now it is God who has made us for this very purpose and has given us the Spirit as a deposit, guaranteeing what is to come. Therefore we are always confident and know that as long as we are at home in the body we are away from the Lord. We live by faith, not by sight. We are confident, I say, and would prefer to be away from the body and at home with the Lord. So we make it our goal to please him, whether we are at home in the body or away from it. For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that each one may receive what is due him for the things done while in the body, whether good or bad."

1 John 3:2-3 states, "Dear friends, now we are children of God, and what we will be has not yet been made known. But we know that when he appears, we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is. Everyone who has this hope in him purifies himself, just as he is pure."  There is also A LOT more dealing with us becoming more like Jesus after the Christians' own resurrection so I won't be including it all. :P

Philippians 3:20-21 states, Jesus "who, by the power that enables him to bring everything under his control, will transform our lowly bodies so that they will be like his glorious body."

Isaiah 35:3-5 states, "Strengthen the feeble hands, steady the knees that give way; say to those with fearful hearts,  "Be strong, do not fear; your God will come, he will come with vengeance; with divine retribution he will come to save you." Then will the eyes of the blind be opened and the ears of the deaf unstopped."

As far as heaven itself goes, many have an odd view of heaven.  According to many places in scripture heaven itself will come to earth.  This is the New Creation and New Jerusalem.  Revelation 21 talks about this place (be aware this is apocalyptic literature and thus shouldn't always be taken literally). Isaiah 65:20-25 as well.

Isaiah 6 is my favorite discription of heaven and one of my favorite passages of scripture.   Here is something I wrote about Isaiah 6:1-8.

I'd send you more but I've run out of time. :P