I know it is semantics, but.....everything I know that exists, will at some point not exist. Threfore, God cannot exist. God says, "I am, that I am." God is eternal, and therefore cannot "exist". So......if God is man, man will at some point not exist. God cannot be a man. If God is everthing, just what is that? Everything is something, and something at some point will be nothing. Somebody tell what God is. I believe in God, and God cannot be nothing! So.....what is God?

'Exists' must be predicated analogically. Words cannot be predicated univocally of God and creation. More on this later. Your problem is no problem.

Sounds like you do not believe in absolutes.
Go gave us the Ten commandments, which are absolute. Why would He equivocate on His nature?

quote:

So.....what is God?

We cannot know what God is because His essence is beyond our reach. But we can know that God is because He has revealed Himself in history and through His Creation.
I think this is what the "I AM THAT I AM" statement signifies: God did not tell us what He is, but only that He is.
Now, as for the question of God's existence, I agree with the Cappadocians, Pseudo-Dionysius, and Maximus the Confessor that God does not 'exist'. Why? Our concept of existence is drawn from the spatio-temporal realm, so existence cannot be properly predicated of God. This is why Plato and other Church Fathers have said that God is 'beyond being': He is not a Supreme Being or one being among other beings but stands wholly outside the realm of being as we know it. You are right in a sense Lightship when you say that semantics is involved here because it depends on our definitions of 'being', 'existence', and other terms with broad meaning.
As a final point, I would say that there is also a problem with speaking of God analogically. Does the analogy of being extend to God's essence or only to His energies? Here we get into the crucial difference between the 'Western' churches and the Eastern Orthodox Church to which I belong. In the East, they make a difference between essence and energies, so that the essence remains wholly mysterious, while attributes like God's 'existence', God's 'goodness', and God's 'wisdom' are energies of God and cannot be predicated of His essence. So in the East, the analogy of being extends only to God's energies and not to His essence, as it does in Aquinas and other Western theologians.
I think I have made things even more confusing, but if we want to find the truth, we have to look at all sides of the issue.

Take care Lightship.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Aitor,

Aitor,nice reply. But....
Jesus was God, he came to us in a spacio-temporal manner, and he did not die. He is still alive. He is still capable of appearing to us in human form, and will at Armageddon. Still, God is "beyond" being, although He manifested Himself in Human form. The cunundrum is that if God is everything, He is us and we are Him. If not, He must be a more supreme being then us, or other than us.
You mention essence and energies. You make it sound if energies are independent of essence. How can this be? Goodness and wisdom are energies. What is the source? Who or what created these energies? Can new energies be created that we know nothing about? Taken away?You most likely will say that God is these energies, but did God create them? If not, from where did they arise? They are that they are.