Who is God?

For example, if you’re experimenting using lab mice, it’s recommended that a janitor or cleaning lady divide them into a test group and a control group you’re experimenting using lab mice; for example, it’s recommended that a janitor or cleaning lady divide them into a test group and a control. This is because it has been found that when you root for a hypothesis, you choose, even subconsciously, experimental mice that are more active and viable – and this can bias your results.
It means that the pursuit of objectivity at all costs is prevalent. Thanks to our penchant for analysis, we’ve also made it this far in science. When a researcher wants to know something about the structure of an atom or even smaller particles than an atom, he tries to bombard them with a cyclotron. A physicist jokingly compared these experiments to a car that you would like to know how it works but has no choice but to run it violently into a wall, wait to see what falls out, and then reverse-engineer the engine’s function from those parts.
In physics and chemistry, the analysis works; in biology, it starts to fail significantly. When I dissect an animal, I get a detailed view of its
of its internal organs, but I do not find out, for example, how it behaves in its natural environment, how it acquires its food, what its courtship rituals are, and so on. Just because I’m an excellent anatomist doesn’t mean that I understand animal life: the advent of ecology and ethology in the twentieth century completely overturned the Enlightenment ideal of the animal as a biomechanism. In medicine and the science of man, the analysis does not work at all – the fact that I can name all the blood vessels and muscles of the human body does not mean that I know who a person is. A person is more than the anatomy of a person.
In theology, then, this approach is utterly pernicious. The European scholar approaches the problem of “God ” as he is accustomed: to look at the subject of analysis from different sides, to try to cut or dissect the object of investigation as far as possible, to see what is inside, and to draw a conclusion. 2 3 Thus we arrive at the definition mentioned above. I believe it is correct, and who knows, perhaps it is helpful to philosophers in their science, but it is useless to us, who ask about God and make sense of things.
Jews look at the issue differently. I am sure you already know that the Jews have the word “God” they dare not utter out of reverence. God is not a philosophical issue for them, but it is above all the God of their history, the one who acts in their nation’s history. “God” is not an abstract God, but the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. In the Acts of the Apostles, when the deacon Stephen is asked by the Great Council what he believes, he mentions the history of Israel from Abraham to Christ in his speech. The Christian reader yawns in boredom – after all, we already know the stories. But a Jew cannot talk about God. As a philosophical problem, God is not hanging in a vacuum; it is the one that makes up the history of my nation. That’s why there are so many history books in the Old Testament. The books that touch in any way on the history of Israel are vastly outnumbered. Not because the believers have an automatic preference for an account, but the history of the Jews is the history of their relationship with God. The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.
For the Jew, the question about God is a question about the history of his relationship with God. I, the theological dictionary, am aware of this and devotes the last page to God as a mystery: God is “… the basis of any manifold antagonistic reality and a complete mystery”; and ends with the idea of a personal God: “… a free, living, personal God, who has made Himself known to man in the revelation of salvation through Jesus Christ in this very fullness and undiluted love”. Even if I were to hesitate, how does m according to this definition, for example, God conceive of Him and how love differs in meaning from untempered love, we learn information that is more useful for our purpose than in the introduction to the chapter. Thomas Aquinas preferred to write: We cannot understand what God is like, but only what he is not like, so there is a kind of negative definition of the concept of God.
But all these definitions lead us to something very fundamental: God is unimaginable, a mystery, and beyond our imagination. How incomprehensible are his judgments and inscrutable his ways! Writes St. Paul to the Christians in Rome. Who then is God? Let’s use an example from physics: when in 1913, Niels. God’s model of the atom was a model universally understood. It was a sphere that symbolized the nucleus, protons, and neutrons, and at different distances from the heart, other spheres represented electrons. Like different planets, the electrons circle the middle around the middle orbit of the sun. This model, by the way, m still used in high schools and colleges. But it’s not correct, and Niels Bohr knew it very well, but it is an illustrative model we still use successfully. Is that the right word? – electrons do not move in orderly circular orbits but whirl madly around the nucleus in a kind of endless dance. That’s why we define the so-called orbital as the place where we can find an electron with 95% probability. An electron can be elsewhere, for example, on the second Rom 11:33.
But it is less likely. An orbital is a piece of space. Sometimes it resembles a two-drop; other times, we know of stranger formations. But even with its electron, it is not so simple. We don’t know precisely what an electron is. You demonstrate when you build an experiment to prove that the electron is a material particle. When you set up an investigation to confirm that the electron is a wave, the electron will behave like a wave. But that’s not possible: either something is a material particle, or it’s a wave. Or we are very wrong somewhere. That’s why we talk about the dualistic nature of particles. But we still use Bohr’s atom model because we can imagine things using it. Imagine the right phenomena of quantum chemistry; nobody can, at least not yet. It is similar to several discoveries in twentieth-century physics.