As do we , my friend.

I said that "I Am" was the only quote that made sense in the bible ..but saying "I AM" can only prove the existence of yourself to youself and noone else

Ethereal is not a description of God but descibes that he isn't from Earth..also North and South America was discovered long before columbus and noone is disputing that the planets or the solar system exist

air isnt incomprehensible anymore. thats why its no longer in the realm of faith.

im not christian. i am generally against organized religion, but i still understand that faith is very important.

my ONLY definition of god(or whatever word you put to it) is that god is everything we cant know.

humans strive to understand everything, which is a goal that, by definition, can never be reached. the only way to embrace what we dont understand is faith.

people describe God all the time...I'm just asking you to describe God without sounding delusional

Like I said, there is no describing God. He is and that is the truth of it. And no description will be acceptable to you, because you already have your mind made up that any description of God is delusional. So There is no reason to continue to try to convince a heart or mind that wont be convinced.

One could also say if you don't recognize the legitimacy of evolution, one could be an idiot. Evolution doesn't always occur over thousands and millions of years, it can and does occur within periods of several years. Floridian cockroach study, etc. FYI, humans did not evolve from monkeys. If you study evolution, you will see that they are on totally different branches, from the same ancestral split. (I wish the church would stop dispensing bad propaganda.)

But evolution doesn't prove or disprove God. It's a system that exists regardless. Many philosophers, scientists, and people of faith throughout history, and I'm sure even today, have faith in God or a master architect or whatever you want to call it. Even believers in the big bang theory suggest that there is still something even before the big bang, they call it "The Initial Cause" but in layman's terms, we would call that cause God. But even this is an issue of faith for those who follow those theories, because none of us know for sure.

And see! That proves God is white and not black, for it says "I am who I am"... not "Is is who I is" (sorry had to tell that joke!)

This post is asking the wrong question. You are asking people to describe something that is largely conceptual. God and other things related to faith and spirituality are all conceptual. God is an idea and each person takes this idea and creates their own concept of what God is. In essence you have just asked a question for which there are at least 6.5 billion answers (roughly). You have delved into the same realm as love. Ask someone to describe what love is, you will get answers ranging from feelings, to chemical reactions in the brain. The intrinsic problems with conceptual questions like these (especially when you have your own view already firmly cemented in your mind, and really aren't going to be convinced by and argument) is that the concepts are so abstract that you can make any interpretation you want, and everyone's is going to differ slightly. My God, or creator, or faith (even if it's based on something similar to yours) is not going to EVER be the same. You ask people to describe God, while already harboring the opinion that anyone who is going to describe their god is delusional. By asking someone to describe something with no real form (only function) and believing that anything that can't be touched much be a delusion you are setting up a system that will only prove yourself more right (at least to yourself). If you really want to learn about God or anything else faith based you have to first free yourself of bias and open your mind to what people are saying and how people experience God. Because ultimately that's what God and faith and spirituality are, experiences, and experiences are impossible to impart to anyone else. You can't describe and experience, you can tell someone about what happened, but that experience, that feeling will always be unique to you.

well if you only "believe" there is a God means you have "doubts" of that existence ..to claim the existence as more of a factual one still carries the ring of doubt

My opinion:

It is difficult for adults to believe in, and base their lives on, fairy tales without coming across as delusional.

It is difficult for a supposedly-otherwise rational human being to live his/her life in such a manner so as to please a fictional character without seeming delusional.

Ethereal is a wonderful description of God. Spiritual, not having material substance? Hmm...

I think I didn't make myself clear though. N. and S. America and the solar system and all of those other examples didn't exist until they were discovered or more was known. I'm just simply saying the idea of believing in God is similar, i.e. does not make you sound delusional to believe that God exists and what that idea is to you within your description. Time will pass, and we will learn more.

to say that humans can never learn everything is an assumption and self defeating but to describe God as everything we can't know ...sounds delusional to me

Truly the oppsite. There is no doubt for me, just means I not only believe in God, but all the factual evidence around gives physical proof He is there.

well, science is pretty reserved to the fact that the universe is infinite. when you throw an infinite variable into the mix, it pretty much guarantees that we can never know EVERYTHING.

also, too look at it scientifically, name one period of time when we felt we had complete understanding over something and were right. :P

people are giving concepts of God ..I was asking for a description of God .. in other words how would you know it was God or would you follow the first entity that claimed to be God

I am what I am?...you only proved that God is popeye the sailor

There is a difference between the theory of "evelution" and a creatures ability "adapt" to its eviroment. Hence your cockroach study.

Just as humans have "adapted" (NOT evolved) to climates in areas they have moves throught the world. no exposure to sun makes for pale skin and with time, the body ADAPTS, NOT evolves to that climate, altering the bodies to that climate in future generations. that is NOT "eveolution".

So you may wish to get the definitions straight and then try to show some true form of "evolution"...because there are none.

Describe what's in your heart.