I have given much thought to God in my life. One of the questions that seems perhaps insurmountable in such speculations as testing, is how does one define God? It seems entirely likely that any force that has power beyond our limited understanding could appear (or even claim) to be God, regardless on the truth of that appearance. I question much more, but not here to argue as much as hoping you might consider that in your future posts.
"His Word," which, in evangelical Christian circles is a reference to The Bible. While I believe The Bible is the infallible, inerrant Word of God in its original language as it was written by God's instruments of communication, it would be terribly short-sighted and obtuse to claim that is the only way to study God. Therefore, I'll argue that a proper study of God requires studying Him everywhere He can be found.
Also wanted to suggest that despite your desire for objectivity, references to He/Him and
Believing that God exists
The study of God where God exists
Alignment with God's purpose
Checking for results
Originally, I had envisioned the argument going this way:
Believe that He exists
Study His Word to learn what He says about Himself
Obey has commands
Check for results
suggests that you are limiting your analyses/testing based on the limited scope of your beliefs. I'm curious if such testing can be done suspending those beliefs as you ask of the agnostic and athiest?
Looking forward to what you present.
In philosophy, and metaphysics, if one is to explore complex topics, one must make certain assumptions. They may or may not be true, but if you're going to discuss the existence of multiple pre-existent universes, for instance, you must assume that 1) multiple universes is possible; and 2) that they don't necessarily have to exist simultaneously. I am assuming the definition of God to be the Judeo-Christian understanding of a montheistic God, and specifically, the Trinitarian God of Christianity.
On your second statement, any force beyond our limited understanding claiming to be God, should be tested. Why take its word for it?
I'm not trying to be objective. I'm trying to be reasonable. Language itself is a limitation. He/Him is simply a useful reference to indicate the personal nature of a God within the limitations of our language. Historic references use it, therefore shall I.
I'm using the same linguistic and thought tactics philosophers have always used. Some of your questions will be answered in forthcoming posts. For instance, the next one in line deals with why it's important to believe in God before you test Him. I hope you'll find that it makes sense.
Suspending belief in God in order to test Him would be a philosophical absurdity. How would you test what you don't believe in? More importantly, why would you? Again, I'll deal with this in the next segment.
Thanks for the comment.