Is God really the being which no greater can be conceived?

[Champagne]

I'm curious to hear from both theists and nontheists- if you had your druthers, what would a "being which no greater can be conceived" consist of? What type of attributes?

Is Yahweh as depicted in the Bible a being that you can't conceive any other entity being greater than?

The reason I ask this is I was thinking about the ontological argument of Anselm for the existence of God. Yes, I know there's problems with the argument- but is his assumption that God IS the being which no greater can be conceived wrong or right?

I see Christians in the Apologetics forum stating that I am not a traditional theist because I am not happy about who God is. In other words, it's only bc God does not live up to my expectations that I choose to not believe in him.

I don't think this is true at all - I think that we all have an idea in our minds about how an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent being should act. We arrive at this conclusion because we have innate ideas about what is wrong and right. We also can arrive at this conclusion by seeing what God himself, in the Bible, set down as moral standards that we should live by.

Now I myself see evidence in the Bible where God disregards his own standards. He also disregards the standards of my conscience, which I know theists don't care about. But I myself can conceive of God as being the highest, most powerful, all knowing, and perfect being that exists. This being would not need to ask for sacrifices like all the other tribal gods. This being would not exhibit traits of jealousy. This being would not wipe out entire cultures with no mercy for even the women and children. This being would interact with the world in a manner that leaves no doubt that he is alive and well and working towards our good.

So the God that I conceive of, the being which no greater can be conceived, in my mind, is not Yahweh.

Interested in any comments...

[mickiel]

There must be a God, I see no other alternitive. But this God, whoever he is, didnot want himself understood by this present reality we know as life. Because of this, it is not possible to clearly understand anything about him. We just see through a dark glass, and he put the glass there.

[shunyadragon]

I'm curious to hear from both theists and nontheists- if you had your druthers, what would a "being which no greater can be conceived" consist of? What type of attributes?

Is Yahweh as depicted in the Bible a being that you can't conceive any other entity being greater than?

The reason I ask this is I was thinking about the ontological argument of Anselm for the existence of God. Yes, I know there's problems with the argument- but is his assumption that God IS the being which no greater can be conceived wrong or right?

I see Christians in the Apologetics forum stating that I am not a traditional theist because I am not happy about who God is. In other words, it's only bc God does not live up to my expectations that I choose to not believe in him.

I don't think this is true at all - I think that we all have an idea in our minds about how an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent being should act. We arrive at this conclusion because we have innate ideas about what is wrong and right. We also can arrive at this conclusion by seeing what God himself, in the Bible, set down as moral standards that we should live by.

Now I myself see evidence in the Bible where God disregards his own standards. He also disregards the standards of my conscience, which I know theists don't care about. But I myself can conceive of God as being the highest, most powerful, all knowing, and perfect being that exists. This being would not need to ask for sacrifices like all the other tribal gods. This being would not exhibit traits of jealousy. This being would not wipe out entire cultures with no mercy for even the women and children. This being would interact with the world in a manner that leaves no doubt that he is alive and well and working towards our good.

So the God that I conceive of, the being which no greater can be conceived, in my mind, is not Yahweh.

Interested in any comments...

The God or Gods of the Bible is a very ancient human worldview of God and not God. The Baha'i Faith teaches of an ever evolving spiritual conciousness of the source we cal God, and puts the more ancient perspectives of God in a more real perspective of our relationship with existence over time and place.

Yes, the Baha'i Faith portrays an omnipotent, all-powerful, all-knowing 'Source' of existence that we know progrssively over time.

[Champagne]

I really know nothing about the Bahai religion - can you post a good link or something? Thanks.

[themuzicman]

The other half of this problem is what what "greatest" means is almost purely subjective. If you're into relationships, then God must be the greatest relational being possible, whereas if you're into authority, God must be the most sovereign and controlling being possible.

These two are simply incompatible.

So, while it sounds nice, it is simply far too subjective to apply in a manner that would be accepted universally.

Michael

[shunyadragon]

I really know nothing about the Bahai religion - can you post a good link or something? Thanks.

Local library probably has books.

Googling turned up many, search and pick. The official site is www.bahai.org

[shunyadragon]

The other half of this problem is what what "greatest" means is almost purely subjective. If you're into relationships, then God must be the greatest relational being possible, whereas if you're into authority, God must be the most sovereign and controlling being possible.

These two are simply incompatible.

So, while it sounds nice, it is simply far too subjective to apply in a manner that would be accepted universally.

Michael

True in a way, if people remain entrenched in their own traditional presuppositions concerning the nature of God. Our ability to percieve or comprehend God is most definitely 'subjective', and it would be great if more people realized this. It would definitely be a better world to live in.

The God that is omnipotent, all-powerful, greatest authority, or 'greatest relationship possible' would definitely be a God we could not put in words or on paper.

The solution is simple, but apparently the most difficult. We would simply have to accept a universal God.

[Skeptic]

There must be a God, I see no other alternitive.

That could just be a failure of imagination though . . .

Byron

[mentored1]

Interesting thought champagne - thanks for the brain food!

Keep in mind I don't pretend to know any answer for sure so the following is a confusing hodge-podge of opinions, rumors, and lore.

I'm curious to hear from both theists and nontheists- if you had your druthers, what would a "being which no greater can be conceived" consist of? What type of attributes?

None. A being, if I get your questions right, of such dimensions would have no attributes because attributes limit. When we describe something as "all-powerful" we need to know what limited power is and then expand upwards - but it's still working within some limitation. Any attribute, or description, of such a being would act to limit that being. And in the human mind labels of this type become prejudicial and dominant in our thinking...

So first of all no attributes... No possible way to describe character, power, existence, etc...

Is Yahweh as depicted in the Bible a being that you can't conceive any other entity being greater than?

The God of the Bible comes close for a few reasons: (1) When you look at what the Biblical texts try to describe God as and what God actually does in relation to his creation He is not his attributes or descriptions - he is something far vaster and more terrible than what they could possibly write down for us to read; (2) as Mickiel noted and as I mentioned thus far we don't know this God clearly - perhaps it is because we can only know things with limits and attributes? Regardless if the God of the Bible is THE God the notion of attributes or characteristics only serves to cloud our perception of how insanely indescribable He is; (3) The Bible holds some amazing clues to God's presence and how it works - whether it be literally true or not is another world of discussion - and we can see that God's power is not limited to morality or ethics in the sense we think it is - we just don't comprehend how such a being could work and our story of his work is all the more confusing.

The reason I ask this is I was thinking about the ontological argument of Anselm for the existence of God. Yes, I know there's problems with the argument- but is his assumption that God IS the being which no greater can be conceived wrong or right?

If you're talking about a literal God then wrong because we view such a literal God from a limited viewpoint and we cannot possibly conceive (at least in our present state) the highest form of being - we're just limited and trapped in a paradigm that handicaps our comprehension of it.

If you're talking figurative, symbolic then God is the essential concept, the idea, that represents the highest form of being. In that form, the symbolic, then I suppose the idea of an all-powerful being is the highest form, the strongest symbol, that we can fashion. If we must work with symbols, attributes, and limitations then something that represents the height of this representation is the highest being.

I see Christians in the Apologetics forum stating that I am not a traditional theist because I am not happy about who God is. In other words, it's only bc God does not live up to my expectations that I choose to not believe in him.

Indeed this occurs often - even in devout believers there is this level of disappointment at certain times in their life. I think, as I mentioned above, this has much to do with the fact we can't properly understand something that is beyond the reach of our symbols, expressions, limitations when we are trapped in those modes of expression and comprehension. I haven't a clue how to go beyond what I have to work with only how to tweak the machinery a bit to see things differently.

I don't think this is true at all - I think that we all have an idea in our minds about how an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent being should act. We arrive at this conclusion because we have innate ideas about what is wrong and right. We also can arrive at this conclusion by seeing what God himself, in the Bible, set down as moral standards that we should live by.

Your point here is well taken. We certainly must consider that we have innate concepts even before we decide to believe and follow a God. These are bound to conflict with a new set of standards to be adopted. And the glaring reality that God is well beyond moral codes and ethical rules is something hard to swallow. If God is not limited then such codes and rules are for us only - we can't be disappointed if a being beyond such trivialities doesn't seem to abide by them.

Now I myself see evidence in the Bible where God disregards his own standards. He also disregards the standards of my conscience, which I know theists don't care about. But I myself can conceive of God as being the highest, most powerful, all knowing, and perfect being that exists. This being would not need to ask for sacrifices like all the other tribal gods. This being would not exhibit traits of jealousy. This being would not wipe out entire cultures with no mercy for even the women and children. This being would interact with the world in a manner that leaves no doubt that he is alive and well and working towards our good.

You're frustrations are at the root of a lot of arguments there. There is something to consider, however: it is possible that God does indeed do all the positive things you mentioned above. It may be that all the negative and petty things you describe are not a result of God's actions but of man's interpretation of God's actions.

Keep in mind that any presence of the divine witnessed or experienced by mankind is interpreted and translated in expressions of language or oral history. There can be no doubt that man is a creature prone to exaggeration, distortion, deceit, and a host of other "creative" activities.

Perhaps he has been telling us he is alive and working for our good and we've been relaying the wrong information to each other?


Again thanks for the great topic! Take care

[mickiel]

That could just be a failure of imagination though . . .

Byron

It could be indeed. The thing I have learned is not to let the imagination of others mold my view of God. Neither Their interpitation of the bible. Neither sicence nor philosophic thought, nor astronomny. I conclude if a man is to know and understand God, it must be given by God himself, or its just going to be confusion.

[Champagne]

Hey Mentored1,

Thanks for your comments. I agree, the "being which no greater can be conceived" is amorphous and can't be described by symbols or language.

And that's why I think that the descriptions of God, particularly in the OT, leave something to be desired.

The writers of the OT described God as the being which no greater could THEY conceive. They saw him as having traits like jealousy, anger, favoritism, etc., b/c they thought those were desirable traits.

When you move to the NT, you see an evolved concept of God coming forth, in Jesus. Where now the being which no greater can be conceived actually LOVES his enemies, rather than annihilating them in a painful manner.

If the Bible is merely the stories of people who were attempting to capture God's greatness in words, then the Bible is fallible. Then our attempts to describe God today are just as valid as theirs. Then our experience of who God is is just as valid as theirs.

But this is not Christianity, the way it is taught in orthodox circles, anyway.

[roddmann]

"omnibenevolent?" where does that come from? is that akin to a benificent dictator?

[LGM]

"omnibenevolent?" where does that come from? is that akin to a benificent dictator?

If god eats a lot of chicken wings, beer, and chile, does he become omniflatulent?

[Champagne]

Omnibenevolent is a term commonly used to describe the Christian God. It means something more like "morally perfect." Not a beneficient dictator, although I think that Yahweh could be considered that by the way he acted in the OT...

But morally perfect doesn't mean "supernice"- it means that he is absolute goodness- he has no evil in him. He has no evil impulses or desires.

Let's see- if there were two beings we were describing- one who was omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent, and one who was omipotent, omniscient, but NOT morally perfect...which one is greater? Which one is more deserving of worship?

That's the question. If Yahweh is NOT the highest being, perhaps there is a different God who is greater than him. If that is so, then perhaps we should be worshiping that God.

[Ryokan]

If god eats a lot of chicken wings, beer, and chile, does he become omniflatulent?

No, he is also omniallergic. Omniflatulence comes in when he orders lobster.