Board index ‹ God

[Scape211]

I recently got into a discussion with someone who was listening to Alan Watts and his approach to defining God. He basically said we can use 2 methods for defining God; what he IS and what he IS NOT.

Like - God IS 'XYZ', but you completely forget about 'A,B,C,D....'

vs

God IS NOT '1,2,3' and that leaves the rest of infinity for him to be.

The idea is that if we define God by what He IS we are excluding anything we literally cant think of based on the limits of human intelligence.

The person I was discussing this with sides more with the idea of defining what God IS NOT clearly. He feels it leaves a lot of commonality within the context of world religions and beliefs. I get it, but isn't that leaving things a bit too nebulous? How are define anything about God when I cant even conceive anything about him? How do I even live my life with just a bunch of unknowns? Its like instead of having a list of DOs and DONTs, you just get DONTs. Also even if world religions could agree on said DONTs, they still leaves things way too open ended. Plus, given the fact that we don't know everything about God, we might even be doing some of the DONTs right now due to lack of human intellect.

I guess I'm just not sure the best way to talk to this person about it.

[jimwalton]

The weakness in your friend's approach is neglecting to see that "defining God by what He is not and leaving the rest of infinity for him to be" is also prone to the same forgetful exclusion as the first choice (defining him by what he is). I think it's fair to say that any definition of God, whether focusing on the positives or negatives, runs the risk of forgetting something and thereby creating a loophole. But the point of defining is not to capture everything, but rather to give us enough to go by to have an understanding. In that sense, I believe that the first choice gives us a better picture than the second choice. To describe or explain what I am not still doesn't help me to understand what I am.

Let me try to explain. Here, for an example, I will try to describe something negatively and you see if you can guess what I'm describing. It's not a car or boat, it's not the universe, it's not yellow or blue or red or green (generally), it's not something you eat or wear, it's not anywhere in outer space (that we know of), it's not used for any transportation...

OK, you're getting the idea. I really could go on forever. What I'm hoping you'll see that I'm trying to define is a spoon. Well, how in the world would you ever get THAT from a virtually endless list of negatives? But if, instead, I said, "It's a small bowl with a handle, made of a hard substance that we use to eat food." There. Isn't that good enough? Now, of course there are loopholes, but you get the idea. It's a much more efficient way of creating a sense of definition.

It's so surprise that someone who follows Alan Watts wants an open-ended loophole so god can be all-inclusive of any knuckle-headed idea about divinity. But that's not the point of truth. Truth, by definition, is always quite narrow. Of all the colors of the spectrum, only one is pure red. Of all the possible numbers, 2 + 2 = 4 and only 4. There is only 1 middle C on the piano.

I could make a list of an infinite quantity of numbers, and leave you bewildered trying to figure out that 4 is the only one I didn't mention. It's an inefficient and ineffective way to define things. Imagine a dictionary where every category explained all the words and concepts that didn't define the word at hand. Pure nonsense, and you'd have a completely unusable book.

In the same sense, we can arrive at a closer understanding if we define God positively: God is a non-embodied personal spirit who exists as omnipresent, omnipotent, and omniscient, and necessarily so. He cannot not be these attributes. His essence is an eternal essence. He is self-existent and the personal ground of being. He has reason, intentions, and free will (perfectly free). He is perfectly moral and good (His moral judgments have truth value). He is completely rational (he is subject to no non-rational influences); He always has a just, moral, and rational reason for His actions). He has capacities that are as great as they logically can be. He is the terminus of complete explanation. No greater being can be conceived.

Sure there are loopholes, but we get it.

But now let's define God by what he's not: he's not an eating utensil, not a means of transportation, not a color, not an indigenous tribal group, not a commercial on TV...

By the way, where is this nonsense getting us in understanding God? No-where.