First, different religions believe in different Gods. The many languages in our world were effective in attracting billions of adherents to world religions. Below is a list from google.
2,420 Christianity
1,800 Islam
1,150 Hinduism
520 Buddhism
400 Folk religion
This adds up to 5.77 billion people out of 7.6 billion world population. That is a 76% success rate. Not bad!
In the Bible, we have some prophets saying other people what God said to them . So they speak in human language on behalf of God. Little is said about God , he is the creator. The Bible get his authority from God, the creator but is not so much about the Creator itself but about providing a moral sense. Christian religions encourage praying which is about getting in touch with God. It is not about getting a description of God. The words best describing God are: Creating, Love, Sacrifice, Life, Consciousness. There are pointing towards to this God's reality.
Human language is not adequate to describe God because it is sometimes limited to really express who God really. "And we do not know what we ought to say but the spirit interceed for us with groaning that words cannot express"
Dear Sir,
There is one God i.e "Allah". He exists every where. Every religion considered that GOD exists. Interestingly, in some parts of the world the civilizations/communities have GOD addiction and considering more than one GOD. It is a fact that every third individual has his/her own special kind of GOD. The spiritual power of man to understand and realize the true feeling of Allah, is also a blessing of Allah means GOD GIFTED trait of human.
Regards,
Jahangir Khan
The same words above as an artwork of Iraqi calligrapher Hisham Elbaghdadi.
It can't be enough because we are human, we can't describe enough with any any language. Our God is undescribable with any human language. We can just do little to show our appreciation for who He is.
Little to add, except to echo the arguments that human language is excluded from direct access to reality. The best all languages can accomplish is a representation of phenomena experienced in other ways, either directly or indirectly. My opinion, therefore, leans strongly towards no. To borrow from a text I often teach to first-years to broach this attribute of human language: " speaker/writer makes within the resources of that particular language construct a representation of the world, rather than simply reflecting a preexisting reality " (Goatly & Hiradhar, 2016: 45).
Humberto,
If God is a coded for a name among many human created to refer to the creating itself then God (the creating) and the creating in humans are entanglily creating each other.
Human language is imperfect. But God Himself wants that people use this language in prayers.
When we talk about God we often referent to holy books. It is believed that the expressions of the sacred text of each religion, and therefore the expressions that it introduces itself, belong to God. Each has many adjectives, concepts, and analogies that describe God. It can be assumed that God speaks within the language capacities that people use. Is it possible for one to transcend this language and define God better than God? It is also possible to predict how hard it will be to talk about God when it is difficult to make definitions about many concepts used in our daily lives. If the human mind grasps him and the tongue is enough to tell him, does he not contradict the idea of God?
The problem is that belief is a propositional attitude. You believe that such-and-such, where such-and-such is a proposition that is either true or false. If the "such-and-such" cannot even in principle be articulated, then how does the so-called belief have any content?
Description can be given for one that can be described, one that is known, one that is seen
God is a subtle feeling which is beyond descrption and expression
people may find ways of telling their own stories in their own language
but I believe that its unique feel which has to be only felt...
Human language is all we have. It is both transcendent and immanent and risks both extremes. however, nothing isn't human- even the idea that our language is anthropocentric and insufficient. Let's continue!
I believe the best we can do is *approximate* a description of God, using our imperfectly human language. Heck, human language is not even adequate to describe the love I have for my own children!
One cannot at the same time say he believe in God and say God is totally unconnected to us. IF we are connected to God, i.e. in some way part of some of our experiences, then we can express this , as some sacred book are a testimony. But some sacred book, such as those of Buddhism do not speak of God. Laozi spead of a principle , he called Tao , from which everything is created. But he never make the Tao speak, he does not anthropomorphize the Tao. Gautama was even less anthropomorphic than Laozi, he only talk about on one my end suffering and rising our level of consciousness for liberation. The ancient greek philosophers were like Laozi and Gautama, they were talking about how to improve ourself and our living in society. But before the prophets and philosopher, Zarathustra was both a philosopher prophet of Ahura Mazda.
In the Gathas, Zarathustra sees the human condition as the mental struggle between aša (truth) and druj (lie). Ahura Mazda (who is aša), creation (that is aša), existence (that is aša) and as the condition for free will.
While our language cannot describe God as God, it can give words to our beliefs in God(s) whatever God we believe in. And we need God-language in order to communicate with each other about those beliefs. As long as we understand that all God-language is analogical as Saša Batistič points out above. My biblical studies professor describe theology as effing the ineffable!
Research Gate! Please change your name to "Belief Gate"
Or please, unsubscribe me.
Human language is adequate to describe God, but human language cannot describe God adequately. There is a difference. God cannot be contained within human language, for that would mean that God is not God any more. God transcends everything human, including our language about God. But that does not mean we cannot describe God at all or that language is not a useful tool to describe God, e.g., in worship. Neither does it mean that human language about God cannot be true. But there certainly comes a point where we become aware of the limits of language, for human language is always confined to human experience, a limited human frame of reference and limited human knowledge. I think the most important thing is that we continually realize and acknowledge the limits of our language about God.
In his very fine text, "God Without Being", Jean-luc Marion makes the following statement: "Indeed, theological discourse offers its strange jubilation only to the strict extent that it permits and, dangerously, demands of its workman that he speak beyond his means, precisely because he does not speak of himself. Hence, the danger of a speech that, in a sense, speaks against the one who lends himself to it. One must obtain forgiveness for every essay in theology." Theos-Logos--"God-talk--is impossible. But we are languaged and languaging beings; we are conceptual and conceptualizing beings. We must speak of God, however inadequately--as long as we know that all language about God is inadequate. Theology is a discipline that attempts to language that which we cannot language, to name that which cannot be named, but dares to language it and name it. It requires forgiveness, but only after the audacity and boldness required to speak.
I agree with Sasa Batistic. And I will add two things. First: our language is not only made of words. Art conveys something that is above words and concepts, or is like an alternative way of undersanding the world and ourselves. This is a common experience. Second: analogy is not only a quality of the language, a way of suggesting/saying things beyond our poor words. Is something God chooses to use (at least in Hebraic and Christian traditions). So, is human language adequate to describe God? If "adequate" means that you can use it without falling allways in anthropomorfism or in fantasy, the answer is yes. Why? Because language has this capacity of meaning something great, above us, in a limitted way, but not false, without erasing the transcendence of God. In this context, words are like a bridge, like an arrow, pointing to Other than us.
We are only trying to describe God from human perspectives but human language cannot adequately describe God, the immortal and the invissible. As human beings are limited, so our languages in describing God.
Yes, human language is adequate to describe God. Why? Primarily because language finds its adequacy in the divine author and giver of language.
As God interacted with humanity throughout history he chose to speak to mankind in a clear, intelligible manner. As humans interact with each other we must do so in the same language he has given - the human language.
Although human language is adequate to describe God it will forever be limited because our ability to use the language is limited due to the limitations of our mental capabilities. Those who believe in the gospel of Jesus Christ will spend eternity learning about God and I'm sure that will include learning how to communicate more about him.
I like your answer, Andre Ballard. As believers in Jesus Christ, we are equipped with the necessary tools to make disciples of all nations. We have been equipped with the human language to be able to "adequately" describe the divine qualities of God, in order to share the gospel message to all who may hear.
Human language may not *perfectly* describe God, but it is *adequate* for our purpose here on earth. Thanks for the excellent answer, Mr. Ballard!
No language can equally describe God because he is the source of all these languages.
Human language is not adequate to describe God, because:
* Not all the existences (related to senses) in this world can be visible for human, i do believe that so many things hidden and need to search by human.
Moreover, although visible, human are still limited to describe it.
** There so many God's mysteries that could not be known by Human.
*** Human are always confused in determining the truth which means human can not definitely describe God.
**** The new inventions by human all the time in different fields that describe the so many things are still new and need to describe.
The word God is human-made, and, absolutely does not stand for the One that Causes.
Knowledge and the ability to comprehend is also a kind of lust, an arrogance, an intoxication, a meandering into that which lies beyond human comprehension.
Utterly foolish humans, some with added flippancy in this thread and out of it, who cannot see beyond Nature or Life and know nothing about Death wish to encompass the immanent and the transcendent, collapse the Real and the apparent, the birthless, the deathless, the endless, the source of darkness and light, the Field, the imperishable Existence beyond the manifest and the unmanifest, the womb of all beings and the cosmos and its dissolution...into some words in some language.
The umbilical cord of dissolution is never severed from birth. The dissolute can never, even in their wildest dreams, get to know even a nano-flicker of the magnificence of the Permanence, far less define the Pervasion.
orcid.org/0000-0002-6770-5916
El lenguaje para referirse a Dios es el silencio.
El lenguaje hablado, escrito, no verbal o de otro tipo refleja sentimientos, emociones, racionalidad, prejuicios, etcétera.
El silencio sin pensar es el lenguaje de la existencia.
No, because human language can only express what the mind experiences or experienced in the past. And since humans do not experience God directly or fully on earth, they best they can do is engage in anthropomorphism.
No, human language may be able to express something that the mind experiences. However, not totally, one can only experience what God is and as many seem to agree, experience is experience it cannot be totally expressed in words.. just like love cannot be expressed in words, but you can certainly experience love in various ways. Thus, language only plays a small part in its expression of God's experience.
Dear Paul,
''And since humans do not experience God directly or fully on earth, they best they can do is engage in anthropomorphism.''
God is at the core of our human experience and we are made at the image of God so our anthropmorphism are partially at the image of God. We were not thrown in the word clueless, totally separated from our creator. God is at the core of the human soul. It is not even possible to separate completly from God although we can do our best to lied to ourself and so doing destroy ourself. This is the downside of the gift of freedom from our creator. We are free to doom ourself if we choose to.
For all these reasons, the above-mentioned (all of them valid), theology of the Estern Orthodox Church claims that only apophatic language can express something about God. Apophatic theology (very briefly) says that everything we know about God can only be expressed in negative form. e.g.: we know that God can not be evil, can not be ugly, can not be ignorant, etc.
Thus, on the one hand we do not risk defining God with our own concepts (limited, as well as insufficient), on the other hand this is the only way we can crossover "the abyss of ignorance" (The Akathist Hymn), so that we can preserve the divine being untainted without dare to circumscribe the uncircumscribable.
Can human language describe something non existing? Of course it can.
Dear Vinod Kumar Gupta , god of Jews and Christians certainly have sex - Adam was created as a clone (or something like this ) of God. So, I think, more appropriate question is "does God have a wife?"
Is human language adequate to describe Harry Potter? :)
Of course, it is. Which other language can be used to describe the characters of fiction, written by humans for humans?
Which human language? Some things are currently more possible in some languages than others. I doubt that a pristine indigenous Amazonian rainforest language can do justice to Hamlet or to the difference between intentionality (with a t) and intensionality (with an s). But heck, English isn't even adequate for describing my wife. 🗣⛅️
No attributes of the creator, God, the Almighty can be described by any human language. Although, mankind tries to, mankind's language is insufficient to describe God.
We and a lot of things around us are subjected to changes and interactions all the time. That contributes greatly to the uncertainty and ambiguity we have to deal with. Human languages evolved to reflect that situation. There are many words in our languages, for which we could not get strict definitions or explanations. The word "God" is just one of many thousands of such terms.
No human languages that can describe God, because he is the creator of languages.
No. Only the language that comes out through the mouth is not adequate to describe God. God not only listens to that the language which is coming out through the mouth, but God also listens to that language that is coming out from the heart. Therefore which language you are talking about God does not matter, but it is a most important matter that what language saying in your heart.
Thank you...
Is human language adequate to describe God?
Picking apart the question.
Is points to the possibility of a particular relationship between the ideas referenced in a sentence, in this case adequacy.
Adequate refers to a performance attribute of language (enough or sufficient capacity ) in relation to a specific activity.
Human language may refer to the signs (sounds, marks and gestures) people use to communicate with one another.
Describe a process of enumerating the details of the attributes of an entity.
God, a synonym for a divine deity.
The context of the question is Indigenous Theology and one standard reference is the Bible. Other faith-based systems' texts, centered on a deity, may be consulted with confidence on the attributes of God.
See:
https://www.biblestudytools.com/bible-study/topical-studies/15-amazing-attributes-of-god-what-they-mean-and-why-they-matter.html
On the one hand it seems that human language users will stumble at understanding the first attribute of God as described in the referenced URL above.
Infinite: refers to an entity that is identified as being outside of the human capacity to comprehend for it refers to that which is limitless. The complexity of the concept of the infinite may become apparent when considered using the concepts of the highest human abstract of thought in mathematics. Strictly speaking infinity is so large it cannot be described by a number. On the other hand an infinity of numbers can be fitted between any other natural numbers. Understanding those assertions is in the very hard box for they imply levels of infinity. If an attribute of God is taken to be the infinite then like the concept of infinity itself the concept of God becomes outside of the capacity of humans to comprehend even in the most abstract language tools we have. There are at least 14 other attributes in the list (and I don't think an infinite deity is limited to just those 14 attributes ) in the URL.
On the other hand, language itself is indefinitely extensible (see Chomsky). We have God, the infinite, and an indefinitely extensible language. A question arises as to whether the 'indefinitely extensibility' of language is of the same type as that which exists between any two numbers or that which exists in the sense of greater than capacity of humans to comprehend. We might just adopt the pragmatic realisation that the issue of adequacy may not lie with potential capacity of human language but rather with all too limited capacities human language users.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Force