Re Yocheved Lindenbaum's comment: She notes, correctly, that some children (and many adults!) are not capable of tackling the infinite. This presupposes that our experience of G-d always derives from an experience or conception of the infinite (or something like it). Of course doctrine of G-d includes a variety of metaphysical perfections, which is what I suppose she is getting at.
Nonetheless, much of our conception of G-d derives from His intervention in history. This path to G-d is no less legitimate than a conversation beginning with metaphysical concepts. This is the well-known starting point of the Kuzari.
If I were to put this point in the language of contemporary philosophy, we can speak of G-d descriptively or as a proper name. If as a description, we need a definition. We can define G-d, as Anselm did, as the most perfect being. This implies that we have some of beings that are more or less perfect and G-d satisfies the description. Or we can think of G-d as a proper noun and then ask what we know and believe about Him. Instead of offering a definition, we would say G-d is "the One who took us out of Egypt" etc.
By analogy I could define Barak Obama as "the man born in Hawaii who became president of US." In effect I would go through all the people born in Hawaii and all the presidents and conclude that there was only one such person and that his name is Obama. Or I could start by pointing at the person Obama and then learn all kinds of important facts about him.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/07/2016 07:29AM by mlb.
