I'd say the biggest hangup is whether god exists or not....and if you are able to get past that (you should share your findings) the next question would be which god.....people seem to take easy leaps there.....I'd consider those before attempting the list of attributes.

This also makes me think about our static notion of perfection. I.E. because God is all these things, God is perfect. I believe we tend to hold perfection as a static idea, God is perfect because God is the same all the time.

Recognizing the aforementioned inadequacies of language, what if we begin to think of God as perfect... period. There is that old saying, "The right tool for the job."

Consider these two statements:
A hammer is the perfect tool for pounding a nail, but not so much for cutting a 2x4.
God is perfect all the time, for every situation.

Hmmmm

Well, what if the definition of a perfect god entails that that god would give you everything that you asked for? But, then someone else says that a perfect God is one that eliminates free-will and your desire to want anything? You're forced to define perfection again. Why can't God just be God? It could go something like, "God is God all the time, for every situation."

I believe Jesus demonstrated the power and goodness of God in His miracles, and we accept that God is all knowing, but we don't always understand why things happen the way they do. So perhaps any hang-ups are a result of humanity NOT being all good, all powerful, or all-knowing.

How often do you give thanks for the things which you cannot see? I believe God intervenes in our lives every day, and we cannot fathom the full extent of God's goodness, power, or knowledge.

"All I know, it that I don't know nuthin'"

Wisdom is knowing that one knows nothing. Well said.

the problem is that inherent in any adjective is a sphere of meaning that has limits (in application; sometimes one adjective is mutually exclusive with another, like in this example). So when you apply them to God, who has no limits, you are attempting to put God in a 'definition box'. The cache of words at our disposal doesn't have a word that fully describes anything of God. I like how Barth explained God as being "wholly other" and 'un-tame-able.' It seeks less to apply a limiting definition and more to give God room to be God. I also like how God described himself to Job, too.

I agree with Justin. While it is important that we recognize that we will always lack the language to describe God, that shouldn't stop us from trying. If you are in love, let's say, you probably lack the words to describe all the reasons why you love that person, but that doesn't mean you don't try. I think that we have to be careful using things like this because they can quickly become cop-outs. Cheap answers to difficult questions.

Yeah, no doubt we should try our hardest. I just worry when people think they have "arrived" at a definition of God. All at once they've been insanely arrogant and have turned God into an object for study instead of a subject for worship (and loving). No, cheap answers are silly. so is needing an answer for everything. I don't need faith to believe in something I'm 100% sure of.

Two Dawkins quotes spring to mind here....“Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence. Faith is belief in spite of, even perhaps because of, the lack of evidence.”
and...
"There may be fairies at the bottom of the garden. There is no evidence for it, but you can't prove that there aren't any, so shouldn't we be agnostic with respect to fairies?"

Those are very Dawkins-esque quotes, for sure. Harris, Hitchens, and Dennett say the same thing in their discussions on faith.

Faith as a cop-out or as a means of evading thought and evidence evaluation is a kind of an arrogant thing to say, don't you think? If the Enlightenment has taught us anything, it has taught us that pure epistemological certianty is impossible. There is nothing that we count as knowledge that cannot be doubted. Descartes (Hume) and his buddies taught us that. But, why should we stop there? why be stuck at "i think therefore i am"? I'm not OK with that, and in my search to make meaning of the universe and reality as i experience it, the God that i encounter in Scripture makes more sense than any other system of meaning making--especially those put forth by Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, and Dennett.