The Definition and Existence of God

[The Celtic Viking]

Here's a challenge for all theists: define "god". I have yet to come across a rational, coherent definition of that word, so I was wondering if someone could fill in that blank for me.

[Sheogorath]

Everything written in the bible is the literal truth.

https://i28.tinypic.com/30xbpzb.jpg

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Here's a challenge for all theists: define "god". I have yet to come across a rational, coherent definition of that word, so I was wondering if someone could fill in that blank for me.

Definition of God: Is.

Alternate Definition (Incorrect): Ineffable.

No one has ever tried to define the Christian God as "rational" or "coherent", such a definition would require accurate and comprehensive information about Him.

[The Celtic Viking]

Definition of God: Is.

What? "Is"? I'm afraid I don't quite understand. What is "is"? Do you mean "is" as I just used it? If so, that doesn't seem to make sense. Explain.


Alternate Definition (Incorrect): Ineffable.

What? Are you saying that "god", whatever it is, is ineffable? Then that's not a definition. That's an excuse for not giving a definition.


No one has ever tried to define the Christian God as "rational" or "coherent", such a definition would require accurate and comprehensive information about Him.

I meant that the definition should be rational and coherent, not that the "god" (whatever it is) must be.

Simply put, I want to know what you mean when you say "god". If there is no definition for it, then the word means absolutely nothing.

[Lemur]

What? "Is"? I'm afraid I don't quite understand. What is "is"? Do you mean "is" as I just used it? If so, that doesn't seem to make sense. Explain.
As both Popeye and the Burning Bush said, "I am what I am and that's all whats I am."

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

What? "Is"? I'm afraid I don't quite understand. What is "is"? Do you mean "is" as I just used it? If so, that doesn't seem to make sense. Explain.

What? Are you saying that "god", whatever it is, is ineffable? Then that's not a definition. That's an excuse for not giving a definition.

I meant that the definition should be rational and coherent, not that the "god" (whatever it is) must be.

Simply put, I want to know what you mean when you say "god". If there is no definition for it, then the word means absolutely nothing.

Well, He IS, any human definition would be inaccurate, so there's no point. "rational" and "coherent" are two human concepts, to constrain God within them is therefore pointless.

It's rather like asking a painting to define its painter, except it really isn't. It's not like asking a child to define its parent, either.

[The Celtic Viking]

As both Popeye and the Burning Bush said, "I am what I am and that's all whats I am."

... but that still doesn't explain what "I" am. If I said that "Xrathla" exist, and you ask me what that is, and I respond that "it is what it is and that's all that it is", would that really make you any wiser?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

... but that still doesn't explain what "I" am. If I said that "Xrathla" exist, and you ask me what that is, and I respond that "it is what it is and that's all that it is", would that really make you any wiser?

Yep, you've got it exactly.

[The Celtic Viking]

So you have no definition of "god", then? So why, nay, how can you believe in it?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

So you have no definition of "god", then? So why, nay, how can you believe in it?

Well, I have no adaquate definition. I could sketch you an image of where he is Not or what he Does, but not of God himself.

Anyway, I challenge you to define me accurately, or even yourself.

[The Celtic Viking]

Well, I have no adaquate definition. I could sketch you an image of where he is Not or what he Does, but not of God himself.

If you don't have an adequate definition of "god", how can you believe it to exist?

You also seem to be saying that you don't know what "it" is, yet consistently refer to it as a "him". Why is that? How can you feel confident enough to say that something you don't know what it is is of the male gender? This, by the way, seem to say that you do have some definition of "god" in which being a "male" is a part of. Why don't you share that definition with me?


Anyway, I challenge you to define me accurately, or even yourself.

Red herring. The discussion is about finding a definition for the word "god", so either answer that or just admit that you can't.

[Lemur]

So you have no definition of "god", then? So why, nay, how can you believe in it?
Definitions are overrated, and much abused. How many philosophy students does it take to screw in a lightbulb? Well, first you have to define your terms ...

To quote my mother's brand of Christianity, in which I was raised but subsequently abandoned for a more traditional church: "All is infinite mind and its infinite manifestation, for God is all-in-all."

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

If you don't have an adequate definition of "god", how can you believe it to exist?

You also seem to be saying that you don't know what "it" is, yet consistently refer to it as a "him". Why is that? How can you feel confident enough to say that something you don't know what it is is of the male gender? This, by the way, seem to say that you do have some definition of "god" in which being a "male" is a part of. Why don't you share that definition with me?

Well, He, tells me He is called "He", though He is also called "I am".


Red herring. The discussion is about finding a definition for the word "god", so either answer that or just admit that you can't.

But I've already admitted I can't, and it's not a red herring.

[The Celtic Viking]

Definitions are overrated, and much abused.

I do not see how you can make this claim. If we didn't use definitions for our words, how would communication work? If I don't define my words, then you can't understand what I'm saying. It would be as if I just randomly pressed the buttons on my keyboard: it wouldn't mean anything, and the whole post would be pointless.


How many philosophy students does it take to screw in a lightbulb? Well, first you have to define your terms ...

To quote my mother's brand of Christianity, in which I was raised but subsequently abandoned for a more traditional church: "All is infinite mind and its infinite manifestation, for God is all-in-all."

So "god" is everything, a.k.a. the universe? So... why not say "the universe" instead? Is that really too conformist? ~;)


Well, He, tells me He is called "He", though He is also called "I am".

...

You'll have to speak more clearly, because I do not seem able to understand you at all. Are you trying to define "god" as "existence"? If so, I refer you to the last answer I gave to Lemur.


But I've already admitted I can't, and it's not a red herring.

Then I would like you to answer the question I've been asking you many times over: how can you believe something exist if you don't even know what that something is?

As for defining "you", I am referring to the intelligence which I am at that point talking to, whether it is human or not. As for defining you, Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla, I can only define you as some intelligence controlling a member by that alias here on these forums. I could only do better if I knew you better, which I don't.

As for a definition of myself, I do not wish to give out too much personal information, but suffice it to say that I am a human being, I've got blue eyes, medium length blonde hair, I am ~180 cm short, 21 years old, weigh ~75 kg, I have scars on the back of my head, my chin, my left eyebrow, my left pinky and my left knee. One of my front teeth is broken in half (but otherwise I have no holes), I have a permanent mark on my right knee and I am fond of most kinds of music and though my favourite genre usually shifts, for an unusual amount of time I've been focusing on punk rock. I am at this precise moment (approximated to about 01:11 GMT+1, 8th September 2009) in Stockholm, Sweden (no more precise positioning will be given, due to this being the internets), and... well, do you really need more?

No, I shouldn't think so, as this is a workable definition. Not perfect or complete, but that's not necessary, and in case you're wondering, no, I do not expect anyone to give a perfect or complete definition of god either. I'm just hoping to get one that works, i.e. one that is both rational and coherent.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Then I would like you to answer the question I've been asking you many times over: how can you believe something exist if you don't even know what that something is?

Yahweh means "I am", when Moses asks "Who are you?" that is God's answer, but it is also used as his name, since he never gives us an actual name.


As for defining "you", I am referring to the intelligence which I am at that point talking to, whether it is human or not. As for defining you, Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla, I can only define you as some intelligence controlling a member by that alias here on these forums. I could only do better if I knew you better, which I don't.

Ok, you don't get it. That's fine.

[Adrian II]

Definitions are overrated, god just IS, I just KNOW he is, fathers are simultaneously below, above and inside their sons...

Most religious beliefs do not differ from psychiatric disorders. And if it weren´t for our traditional tolerance of them, they would be classified as such and treated with medication and psychotherapy.

[The Celtic Viking]

Yahweh means "I am", when Moses asks "Who are you?" that is God's answer, but it is also used as his name, since he never gives us an actual name.

What is the relevance of this? I did not ask what "Yahweh" translates into, I asked for a definition of "god". Telling me that Yahweh means "I am" does not tell me what "god" is. That is what I want to know.

You have said that you don't know, but I am still puzzled as to how you then can believe in it. It would seem to me that to believe X exist, you must first know what X is. To bring it up again, do you believe that "Xrathla" exist?


Ok, you don't get it. That's fine.

No, it isn't. I am not fine with remaining ignorant, so if you see something that I do not understand, I expect you to fill me in. If you refuse to do this, I can only conclude that you are either lying, wrong, or an intellectual elitist, and I do not appreciate the first or the last.

You can at least try, you know.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

What is the relevance of this? I did not ask what "Yahweh" translates into, I asked for a definition of "god". Telling me that Yahweh means "I am" does not tell me what "god" is. That is what I want to know.

I was clarifying the point you queried, "I am" is the only thing even approaching a name I have for Him. He, Lord, God, these are just titles.


You have said that you don't know, but I am still puzzled as to how you then can believe in it. It would seem to me that to believe X exist, you must first know what X is. To bring it up again, do you believe that "Xrathla" exist?

I also believe Love exists (Adrian is free to classify this as a psychiatric disorder as well, I won't dissagree :beam:), I also can't define "love"

I'm fine with that, too.


No, it isn't. I am not fine with remaining ignorant, so if you see something that I do not understand, I expect you to fill me in. If you refuse to do this, I can only conclude that you are either lying, wrong, or an intellectual elitist, and I do not appreciate the first or the last.

You can at least try, you know.

None of the above. You are asking me to do something I am unable to, that is why I am refusing. I'm not lying I can't explain it, and it's not a matter of intellectual knowledge, so I'm not an elitist.

You already believe I'm wrong anyway, because you don't believe God exists. If you did, you'd go ask him.

[Reenk Roink]

Here's a challenge for all theists: define "god". I have yet to come across a rational, coherent definition of that word, so I was wondering if someone could fill in that blank for me.

There are so many conceptions ("definitions" if you wish) of God that it is hard to begin. However, before purporting one, I have a challenge for your challenge:

What conception(s) did you stumble across that were not rational nor coherent? (bonus points for naming a certain group that holds this concept of God) In what way did they fail to meet these criteria?

I am talking the definition of "rational" here and constricting it to mean simply following the rules of (traditional/classical) deductive logic (as expressed earlier, definitions are tricky things - defining rational is hard enough).

[Adrian II]

I also believe Love exists (Adrian is free to classify this as a psychiatric disorder as well, I won't dissagree :beam:), I also can't define "love"

I can. Love is a feeling of profound affection and solicitude toward a person.

Now, where were we?

Ah yes. We were talking about my backyard. I have a ghost in my backyard, you see. It lives among the trees. I have never seen or heard it, nor has anyone else that I know of, but I just know it is there. And it wants us humans to do things. My neighbour told me to seek professional help, but I think I am going to file for a tax exemption instead, for a couple of clauses in our constititution that protect my ghost and me from insults and harassment, and start a school to teach kids about my ghost and what it wants from us.

You´ll be hearing from me, though I could not say as yet in which section of your newspaper. Lifestyle. Amusement. Crime. Science maybe. I am keeping my options open.

[ajaxfetish]

You also seem to be saying that you don't know what "it" is, yet consistently refer to it as a "him". Why is that? How can you feel confident enough to say that something you don't know what it is is of the male gender?
For what it's worth, gender is a linguistic concept not necessarily related to sex (though they've become all but inseparable in modern English). You could say the word 'god' is a masculine word, as the word 'goddess' is a feminine word. Then, if discussing 'god,' it is only natural to say 'him.'


Definitions are overrated, and much abused.

I do not see how you can make this claim. If we didn't use definitions for our words, how would communication work? If I don't define my words, then you can't understand what I'm saying. It would be as if I just randomly pressed the buttons on my keyboard: it wouldn't mean anything, and the whole post would be pointless.

Do you learn definitions for words before using them? Were you taught to speak your native language from a dictionary? People were communicating effectively in countless languages before anyone thought to start defining their terms. As far as I know, the first English dictionary that was more than a phrase book for foreigners was created in the 18th century. Is this when communication in English began?

Ajax

[ajaxfetish]

I can. Love is a feeling of profound affection and solicitude toward a person.

I love cheese.
I love to sleep.
I love music.
I love how difficult it is to define things.

Ajax

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I can. Love is a feeling of profound affection and solicitude toward a person.

No, I think it's much more than that, I would die for those I truly love in the way I would die for my principles, I cannot simple asign that to "affection", now can I explicate the feeling of peace which I have only in their presence as "solicitude".


Now, where were we?

Ah yes. We were talking about my backyard. I have a ghost in my backyard, you see. It lives among the trees. I have never seen or heard it, nor has anyone else that I know of, but I just know it is there. And it wants us humans to do things. My neighbour told me to seek professional help, but I think I am going to file for a tax exemption instead, for a couple of clauses in our constititution that protect my ghost and me from insults and harassment, and start a school to teach kids about my ghost and what it wants from us.

You´ll be hearing from me, though I could not say as yet in which section of your newspaper. Lifestyle. Amusement. Crime. Science maybe. I am keeping my options open.

Ok, but all the ghosts I've ever heard of at least talk to you, so does my God.

[The Celtic Viking]

Augh, I hate answering many posts in the same one. It's so tedious. :sweatdrop:


I was clarifying the point you queried, "I am" is the only thing even approaching a name I have for Him. He, Lord, God, these are just titles.

If you want to define "god" as "Yahweh" (or in other words, a name), then if I renamed myself "Yahweh", then I would be "god". I don't think you'd agree with this.

If "god" is a title, what does that title imply? You keep saying things that require having some sort of definition for it, but you still insist you have none. You're not being consistent.


I also believe Love exists (Adrian is free to classify this as a psychiatric disorder as well, I won't dissagree ), I also can't define "love"

I'm fine with that, too.

Love is a feeling, and those who have felt it can describe it - they can define it. Is "god" a feeling, too? Theists usually deny that.

I will repeat my question: do you believe "Xrathla" exist? The reason I ask this is because "god" doesn't mean anything more to me than "Xrathla" means to you. From what you're saying, it doesn't mean anything more to you, either.


None of the above. You are asking me to do something I am unable to, that is why I am refusing. I'm not lying I can't explain it, and it's not a matter of intellectual knowledge, so I'm not an elitist.

I was referring to the quote I supplied, when you said I "didn't understand". I interpreted it to mean that I did not understand what you meant when you challenged me to define you. If my reply to that didn't answer the question, which I still think it did, I want you to show me how.


You already believe I'm wrong anyway, because you don't believe God exists. If you did, you'd go ask him.

... you think no atheist have done this already? You're wrong. Utterly wrong. I have humoured this request many times myself, and I did so now again, but I got no response what so ever. It seems that you have a better response rate than it does.


There are so many conceptions ("definitions" if you wish) of God that it is hard to begin. However, before purporting one, I have a challenge for your challenge:

What conception(s) did you stumble across that were not rational nor coherent? (bonus points for naming a certain group that holds this concept of God) In what way did they fail to meet these criteria?

I don't remember all attempts that have been made, but two general attempts I would be something like:

"An intelligent creator"

If that's all it takes to be "god", then I'm god, because I created a shotgun made of lego when I was a kid. If by "created" it is meant "created out of nothing", then it hasn't been shown how that's possible, so it's not rational.

"The creator of the universe"

This fails mostly because it explains what this "god" thing supposedly did, not what it is, but also on the rational level, because it hasn't been shown that the universe was ever created.

You will excuse me for not recalling too much, because there are far more important things in life I worry about and it was a while since I asked this question. This shouldn't be a problem anyway if you or someone else does have a rational and coherent definition.


Do you learn definitions for words before using them?

Yes, I must have some definition of a word before I use it, or else I wouldn't understand what I was saying. Duh.


Were you taught to speak your native language from a dictionary?

No, but a dictionary is not the only place to get definitions from.


People were communicating effectively in countless languages before anyone thought to start defining their terms.

Aijsdisj fodjfidjg oakdoaskdos okg oss kgfj idjfjd.

Do you understand that? No? That's because these words have no definition: they don't mean anything.

It's absolutely absurd to propose that communication is possible without definitions, let alone that it happened "effectively in countless languages" without any. Hell, even if you have definitions, you must also share these definitions with the ones you try to communicate with before it is possible! If you define "communicate" as "kissing asses", and I define it as "a cloud shaped like Mickey Mouse", then we will just talk beside each other when we talk of "communication". Imagine if that was the same with every word...


As far as I know, the first English dictionary that was more than a phrase book for foreigners was created in the 18th century. Is this when communication in English began?

All through your post you seem to mistake "definition" for "dictionary", which obviously isn't correct. Two different words with two different definitions. Kind of proves my point how important definitions are, doesn't it?

[Adrian II]

No, I think it's much more than that, I would die for those I truly love in the way I would die for my principles, I cannot simple asign that to "affection", now can I explicate the feeling of peace which I have only in their presence as "solicitude".

Here you describe what love means to you or what effect love has on you or how important it is to you, like 'makes me want to dance' or 'is the only thing that makes my life worthwhile'. What love does for you, money may do for others. Yet nobody would define money as 'something I would die for, makes me want to dance, something that puts me at rest when I possess it'.

On the one hand you profess a inability to define the thing you are talking about, on the other you profess to know all sorts of things about this definiendum: it is one, yet is has two natures, and it sits at its own right hand side. Such statements literally mean nothing. If a psychiatrist encounters them in a patient, he will regard them as 'word salad', a notorious symptom of schizophrenia.

The parallels are striking. There is primary and secondary gain in religion, just as there is in psychiatric disorders. And there is similar resistance to treatment. Many a patient is dismayed, shocked or even insulted if a psychiatrist tells them, however diplomatically, that they are stark raving mad and should get treatment lest they harm themselves and others. They have usually 'invested' a lot in their illness, their whole life may have come to revolve around it, so they are very reluctant to accept their disorder.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Adrian, what happened to you man? You used to be cool. :no:

Remember you said I should go with my beliefs regardless of what people think? But now I'm mentally ill and just need to see a psychiatrist?

[Banquo's Ghost]

Yet nobody would define money as 'something I would die for, makes me want to dance, something that puts me at rest when I possess it'.

I'll thank you to speak for yourself, Mr Communism. :wink:

[Adrian II]

Remember you said I should go with my beliefs regardless of what people think? No. I said you should read and study whatever you felt was important, regardless of whether other people subscribed to that. I never promised a free pass for religion.

The fact that I encouraged you to stand up for your beliefs whilst disagreeing with them makes me extremely cool. :yes:

[Adrian II]

I'll thank you to speak for yourself, Mr Communism. :wink:Speaking of which, I was just thinking what a definition of ´quark´ in the manner of Philipvs would look like...


Quark: subatomic particle that made Mr Murray Gell-Mann a rich man, and oh, it was actually discovered by James Joyce but I don´t like him.

[Sigurd]

:laugh4: Adrian,

You do make a witty point in the comparison between religious experience and schizophrenia.
But do you really believe that every claimed religious experience is schizophrenic or a result of a mental disorder? That every religious person on this planet suffers from schizophrenia?

[Adrian II]

:laugh4: Adrian,

You do make a witty point in the comparison between religious experience and schizophrenia.
But do you really believe that every claimed religious experience is schizophrenic or a result of a mental disorder? That every religious person on this planet suffers from schizophrenia?The cheap way out would be to say ´yes, all believers are mad´.

However, I think the similarity points to something else. In a way, the fact that schizophrenia is so widespread makes it normal. That changes the whole equation. A folie à deux is manageable, a folie à millions becomes a fact of life.

I tend to think that such widespread attitudes have or have had evolutionary or cognitive advantages that should not be dismissed out of hand. Religion may have served us well at certain stages and may still serve us well in certain situations, even if the supreme being around which it revolves is a figment of the imagination.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

If you want to define "god" as "Yahweh" (or in other words, a name), then if I renamed myself "Yahweh", then I would be "god". I don't think you'd agree with this.

If "god" is a title, what does that title imply? You keep saying things that require having some sort of definition for it, but you still insist you have none. You're not being consistent.

No I do not "define" Him as such. I signify him by the sign "Yahweh", this is litterally in Hebrew the statement, "I am".


Love is a feeling, and those who have felt it can describe it - they can define it. Is "god" a feeling, too? Theists usually deny that.

Ever the heard someone say, "You can't describe what love feels like, you just know when you feel it"?


I will repeat my question: do you believe "Xrathla" exist? The reason I ask this is because "god" doesn't mean anything more to me than "Xrathla" means to you. From what you're saying, it doesn't mean anything more to you, either.

Stop being antagonistic, and stop acting like I'm trying to wind you up

God, like love, is manifest. Please see below.


I was referring to the quote I supplied, when you said I "didn't understand". I interpreted it to mean that I did not understand what you meant when you challenged me to define you. If my reply to that didn't answer the question, which I still think it did, I want you to show me how.

You will never adaquately define me, or yourself. You can describe observable attributes, imperfectly, or actions, but not the substance of being. Yet, you have a name and you exist.


... you think no atheist have done this already? You're wrong. Utterly wrong. I have humoured this request many times myself, and I did so now again, but I got no response what so ever. It seems that you have a better response rate than it does.

No, no atheist has done this. That would be the ultimate definition of insanity, to talk to someone you believe doesn't exist. You cannot talk to God because you have not acknowledged his existence, and therefore he will not reply.


I don't remember all attempts that have been made, but two general attempts I would be something like:

"An intelligent creator"

If that's all it takes to be "god", then I'm god, because I created a shotgun made of lego when I was a kid. If by "created" it is meant "created out of nothing", then it hasn't been shown how that's possible, so it's not rational.

"The creator of the universe"

This fails mostly because it explains what this "god" thing supposedly did, not what it is, but also on the rational level, because it hasn't been shown that the universe was ever created.

You will excuse me for not recalling too much, because there are far more important things in life I worry about and it was a while since I asked this question. This shouldn't be a problem anyway if you or someone else does have a rational and coherent definition.

Both those definitions merely describe actions or roles, "one who creates with intelligence", or "One who created the universe". They say nothing much at all about such a creator.

Anyway, why do you keep demanding this definition of this thing that doesn't exist.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Speaking of which, I was just thinking what a definition of ´quark´ in the manner of Philipvs would look like...

Quark: subatomic particle that made Mr Murray Gell-Mann a rich man, and oh, it was actually discovered by James Joyce but I don´t like him.


Sorry? How is a physical quark related to a metaphysical, theological, and philosphical debate?

[Reenk Roink]

@ The Celtic Viking (thank you for responding - I also hate it when I many people reply to my posts and I feel somewhat compelled to reply :laugh:)

See the thing is, I don't understand your concept of rationality that you apply to these definitions. Rationality in your mind (as I conjecture from your post) requires a kind of "proof" but you have not exactly defined what kind of proof. Is it empirical proof? Is it to show that the definition is a logical truth and must necessarily be true?

For example, a concept of God that I could purport would be: "God is the necessary, non-contingent being who is the uncaused cause of every contingent being (beings and events)"

As far as I can discern, I were to to formalize this definition, there would be no self-contradiction. Thus, given my previous definition of rational, this definition of God would completely satisfy the conditions and it would be fair to call it rational. However, you would probably object to its rationality by saying there is no "proof" of something or the other with the definition.

The position: The universe always existed and has no creator is one that there is also no proof of (well there are actually proofs for both this position and the opposite but as you have not actually defined proof...) and yet I cannot deny it is rational. I think it is wrong, but it is intelligible and consistent.

But the position: "The universe always existed and yet there is a creator" might be one that can be called irrational. The reason for this is that one may be able to argue that there is a contradiction is ascribing a creator to something that was not created.

To go on two other tangents:

I think the point people are bringing up here about definitions is that precise definitions are very difficult to express, at least in everyday life about everyday concepts (in math it is easier). There are many vague predicates, such as God, truth, rational, proof, and so on, that have people having different ideas about what they are, and even beyond that, are difficult to actually articulate completely.

I loathe psychiatry in some respects. Can you believe some idiots diagnose cases of demon possession as DID and try and treat it with drugs rather than sending the victim to an exorcist? :rolleyes: Sorry for the off topic rant but that makes me mad... The field has shown itself to by quite malleable and guided by society however (look at its view of homosexuality throughout the years), so it seems that belief in God will never be considered a mental illness as it is too widespread and respected (thank God).

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Exorcism is a favourite topic of mine, becuase well, what sort of idiot, when faced with classic possesional charactoaristics would refuse to have his child exorcise. Let's face it, an exorcism can't possibly hurt more than it helps and it's really the only recourse is you are possesed.

Having said that, I don't believe demonic possesion is at all common and a number of people who claim to be possesed are probably merely hysterical.

[The Celtic Viking]

No I do not "define" Him as such. I signify him by the sign "Yahweh", this is litterally in Hebrew the statement, "I am".

Then I do not understand what reason you felt you had for bringing it up.


Ever the heard someone say, "You can't describe what love feels like, you just know when you feel it"?

Yes. Have you ever heard someone say that god doesn't exist?

Just wondering.


Stop being antagonistic, and stop acting like I'm trying to wind you up

Just answer my question, please.


God, like love, is manifest. Please see below.

Okay.


You will never adaquately define me, or yourself.

But I did.


You can describe observable attributes, imperfectly, or actions, but not the substance of being.

What do you mean by "substance of being"?


Yet, you have a name and you exist.

Yes, and we can say that I exist because we can define me, as I have done. We cannot say that "god" exist if we cannot define it, because if the word "god" doesn't have a definition, then the word "god" doesn't mean anything.


No, no atheist has done this. That would be the ultimate definition of insanity, to talk to someone you believe doesn't exist. You cannot talk to God because you have not acknowledged his existence, and therefore he will not reply.

:laugh4:

I just did. I said out loud "god, if you exist, what are you?". I got no response. I can do it again. There. I agree that to expect an answer from something you don't believe exist would be insane, but then I do not expect an answer. This does, however, not make it impossible for me to ask, which I have done twice now just for you.

If he's not responding because I haven't acknowledged his existence, don't you think that's a little childish of him? I mean, if he answered, then I would acknowledge it. Why should I have to delude myself to believe he exist before he deems me worthy a response? Why should I have to believe before I can believe? That would be insane.

I still think it's way more likely that "he" doesn't answer because "he" doesn't exist, but if he really is so petty and insecure that he needs my validation, why don't you ask him for a definition?


Both those definitions merely describe actions or roles, "one who creates with intelligence", or "One who created the universe". They say nothing much at all about such a creator.

Yes, I did say they fail, didn't I?


Anyway, why do you keep demanding this definition of this thing that doesn't exist.

When did I say it doesn't exist? I have all along said that I do not know what "it" is, so how could I say it doesn't? If you define "god" as "doors", then sure, I'll say that "god" exist.

The reason why I ask for a definition of the word "god", is that without one, we can't go any further. Speaking of anything concerning "god" is futile and pointless until we have a working definition.


See the thing is, I don't understand your concept of rationality that you apply to these definitions. Rationality in your mind (as I conjecture from your post) requires a kind of "proof" but you have not exactly defined what kind of proof. Is it empirical proof? Is it to show that the definition is a logical truth and must necessarily be true?

Yes, it needs to be logical, and it needs empirical evidence. Making things up can be fun and all that, but to pretend that it is actually true without any evidence would be irrational.


For example, a concept of God that I could purport would be: "God is the necessary, non-contingent being who is the uncaused cause of every contingent being (beings and events)"

This doesn't really say much at all, though. This doesn't really say much at all, though. All it seem to say is that "god" supposedly created the universe, all beings and every event, which are things that "god" supposedly did, but not what "god" actually is. It's a "being", okay, and that being must be uncaused. As for non-contingent, could you please explain what you mean by that?

Why is god "necessary", and what for?


The position: The universe always existed and has no creator is one that there is also no proof of (well there are actually proofs for both this position and the opposite but as you have not actually defined proof...) and yet I cannot deny it is rational. I think it is wrong, but it is intelligible and consistent.

Correct. This is where we use Occam's Razor, which states that the simplest of two or more competing theories is preferable, and just saying "the universe has always existed" is simpler because it doesn't needlessly introduce another step.

In any case, I do not claim that it is so, only that that is more probable, and there's no need to invent a creator. If you wish to do that, the burden of evidence is on you.


I think the point people are bringing up here about definitions is that precise definitions are very difficult to express, at least in everyday life about everyday concepts (in math it is easier). There are many vague predicates, such as God, truth, rational, proof, and so on, that have people having different ideas about what they are, and even beyond that, are difficult to actually articulate completely.

I know, but as I said to PVC earlier, I do not look for a perfect, all-encompassing definition, just the minimum requirement that something must achieve to be "god".

As for yours and PVC's discussion about demon possessions and exorcism, I apologize, but I must call a Poe on this. Are you being serious?

[Adrian II]

I loathe psychiatry in some respects. [..] The field has shown itself to by quite malleable and guided by society however (look at its view of homosexuality throughout the years) [..]Psychiatry has allowed itself to be guided for too long by religion. Homosexuality is a good case in point. Religion abhorred it, so psychiatry regarded it as a mental disorder. These days many forms of religous mania are regarded as mental disorders, whereas homosexuality is not.
I don't believe demonic possesion is at all common and a number of people who claim to be possesed are probably merely hysterical.Voila. Now extend this principle and you will come to understand my position.

I find it very hard to accept that adult, well educated people would subscribe to some of the fairytales and confused reasoning in the above posts, starting with, but not confined to, the Holy Trinity. It´s quite scary to think that milions of people believe that they have discovered a god and that they know all sorts of arcane things about it, and that their god is the real one as opposed to the myriad of other gods that other believers believe in.

Imagine that you live in a world where millions and millions of people believe that they are Napoleon Bonaparte, that they are the one and only real Bonaparte, and that this time round they are going to win at Waterloo.
:oops:

[The Celtic Viking]

EDIT: Thou shalt not post hotlinked pictures. I cannot define this rule, it just is. BG

[ajaxfetish]

Yes, I must have some definition of a word before I use it, or else I wouldn't understand what I was saying. Duh.

No, but a dictionary is not the only place to get definitions from.

All through your post you seem to mistake "definition" for "dictionary", which obviously isn't correct. Two different words with two different definitions. Kind of proves my point how important definitions are, doesn't it?

And you seem to be mistaking the word 'definition' for meaning. Definition is a much more limited and technical term, explicitly laying out the limits of meaning a term can have. Our use of language is intuitive and subconscious, not logical and ordered as you seem to be implying. Definitions are for philosophy and debate, not for speaking to each other.



Aijsdisj fodjfidjg oakdoaskdos okg oss kgfj idjfjd.

Do you understand that? No? That's because these words have no definition: they don't mean anything.

It is not because those words have no definition that I don't understand them. If you'd written a string of words in Arabic, each having a definition, I would not have understood them, either. The reason I do not understand what you typed is that it is not in a language I know (or any language, for that matter).

On the other hand, I do understand the rest of your quote, though I doubt I could adequately define any of the following: Do; you; that; no; that's; these; have; no; they; don't; mean; anything. I'd feel a little safer trying to define more substantive words like understand, because, and definition, but even there I'd not be surprised to see someone perforate any definition attempt of mine with ease. I'd like to see you define them in a way I could accept without consulting sources beyond your own experiences of these words. I don't know definitions for any of these words, but I can use them and understand them, nonetheless.

edit: And on the other hand, the following contains numerous words with no definition, and yet many speakers of English, myself included, can understand what's going on, and sense the meanings of words by their context and similarity to other words, in spite of never having seen them before, let alone having them defined.

Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe;
All mimsy were the borogoves,
And the mome raths outgrabe.

"Beware the Jabberwock, my son!
The jaws that bite, the claws that catch!
Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun
The frumious Bandersnatch!"

He took his vorpal sword in hand:
Long time the manxome foe he sought—
So rested he by the Tumtum tree,
And stood awhile in thought.

And as in uffish thought he stood,
The Jabberwock, with eyes of flame,
Came whiffling through the tulgey wood,
And burbled as it came!

One, two! One, two! and through and through
The vorpal blade went snicker-snack!
He left it dead, and with its head
He went galumphing back.

"And hast thou slain the Jabberwock?
Come to my arms, my beamish boy!
O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!"
He chortled in his joy.

'Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe;
All mimsy were the borogoves,
And the mome raths outgrabe.

Lewis Carroll



Seeing ajaxfetish in here gave me an idea. Isn't it so ajax that the first principle of your gospel is to know the true nature of God? And the second, the true nature of Jesus Christ?
And wouldn't you say that your view of God or the triune Godhead is supposed to be the same view as that of the early Christians? As in pre-Nicea but not pre-Christianity?
Yes, Sigurd, I think you could say the first principle of my church is to know the true nature of God, and that our formulation of God's nature is different from most trinitarian formulations, distinguishing between three distinct persons, united as one in purpose and so acting as one God. And we would indeed claim that this view is supposed to be the same as that of early Christians. Of course, this and other tenets place us in a weird position between monotheism and polytheism, and early church writings sometimes suggest that Joseph Smith started within the trinitarian framework and only later moved outside of it.

Ajax

[ajaxfetish]

Correct. This is where we use Occam's Razor, which states that the simplest of two or more competing theories is preferable,

Occam's razor does not state this. Saying 'God created it all, for his own mysterious purposes' is much simpler than the scientific explanations for the origin of the universe and the workings of all its parts. Occam's Razor states rather that 'entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity.' If the universe can be explained without the need to resort to an unobserved phenomenon, such as God, then Occam's razor tells us we don't need to postulate God, which is very different from saying simpler is better. Of course, while Occam's razor appeals to us for several reasons, it is a principle of academic inquiry, not by any means a universal or proven truth.

Ajax

[The Celtic Viking]

We have a highly developed brain that allows us to make use of a very sophisticated language. We learn what words mean from our parents and people around us. This does in no way mean we don't have definitions of the words, because we do. We must. I am using the word "definition" to mean "meaning", because that's a valid use of the word "definition". I can show you what some dictionaries say to prove my point.

(From www.thefreedictionary.com)
def·i·ni·tion (df-nshn)
n.
1.
a. A statement conveying fundamental character.
b. A statement of the meaning of a word, phrase, or term, as in a dictionary entry.
2. The act or process of stating a precise meaning or significance; formulation of a meaning.
3.
a. The act of making clear and distinct: a definition of one's intentions.
b. The state of being closely outlined or determined: "With the drizzle, the trees in the little clearing had lost definition" (Anthony Hyde).
c. A determination of outline, extent, or limits: the definition of a President's authority.
4.
a. The clarity of detail in an optically produced image, such as a photograph, effected by a combination of resolution and contrast.
b. The degree of clarity with which a televised image or broadcast signal is received.

(From the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary)
* Main Entry: def·i·ni·tion
(...)

1 : an act of determining; specifically : the formal proclamation of a Roman Catholic dogma
2 a : a statement expressing the essential nature of something b : a statement of the meaning of a word or word group or a sign or symbol <dictionary definitions> c : a product of defining
3 : the action or process of defining
4 a : the action or the power of describing, explaining, or making definite and clear <the definition of a telescope> <her comic genius is beyond definition> b (1) : clarity of visual presentation : distinctness of outline or detail <improve the definition of an image> (2) : clarity especially of musical sound in reproduction c : sharp demarcation of outlines or limits <a jacket with distinct waist definition>

(From dictionary.reference.com)

def⋅i⋅ni⋅tion
  /ˌdɛfəˈnɪʃən/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [def-uh-nish-uhn] Show IPA
–noun
1. the act of defining or making definite, distinct, or clear.
2. the formal statement of the meaning or significance of a word, phrase, etc.
3. the condition of being definite, distinct, or clearly outlined.
4. Optics. sharpness of the image formed by an optical system.
5. Radio and Television. the accuracy of sound or picture reproduction.

That's three dictionaries supporting my use of the word "definition" as "meaning".

Because I'm a nice guy though (hah!), and I want to return to my challenge, I can reformulate myself just for you, in hopes that you will answer it:

What is the meaning that you use for the word "god"?

[ajaxfetish]

I would say, God is the metaphysical and spiritual father of all human beings and the creator and originator of the observable universe.

Of course, you're welcome to say that believing in such a thing is irrational, or that the concept of metaphysics itself is silly, or whatever you like, but that's what I mean when I say God.

Ajax

[The Celtic Viking]

Occam's razor does not state this. Saying 'God created it all, for his own mysterious purposes' is much simpler than the scientific explanations for the origin of the universe and the workings of all its parts. Occam's Razor states rather that 'entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity.' If the universe can be explained without the need to resort to an unobserved phenomenon, such as God, then Occam's razor tells us we don't need to postulate God, which is very different from saying simpler is better. Of course, while Occam's razor appeals to us for several reasons, it is a principle of academic inquiry, not by any means a universal or proven truth.

Ajax

Lets me walk you through the argument:

P1: Everything that exist must have a cause
P2: The universe exist
C: The universe had a cause, and we call that cause "god"

We then ask, if "god" exist, then what caused "god"?

The answer is that "god" was uncaused.

If "god" can be uncaused, then not everything needs a cause, and assuming that the universe is uncaused makes less assumptions than adding an unnecessary extra step of a universe-cause that is uncaused.

Therefore, not inventing a god is simpler than inventing one.

[ajaxfetish]

I agreed with you that Occam's razor is an effective argument against postulating the existence of God. I disagreed with your representation of Occam's razor.

Ajax

[The Celtic Viking]

I would say, God is the metaphysical and spiritual father of all human beings and the creator and originator of the observable universe.

Of course, you're welcome to say that believing in such a thing is irrational, or that the concept of metaphysics itself is silly, or whatever you like, but that's what I mean when I say God.

Ajax

Yup, it's irrational. When you define one word, all the words in the definition must also be clearly defined. I'm afraid the word "spiritual" is not.

Moreover, I want to know what you mean by "father of all human beings", and point out that there's no evidence suggesting that the universe ever began to exist, let alone that it was created, so there's no reason to posit a creator.

To be honest, I haven't heard much of metaphysics before other than in fleeting notions, so I don't really know what that means either. I must find that out first before I can make a position on it, but if you think I would find it silly, then chances are that you might be right about that.


I agreed with you that Occam's razor is an effective argument against postulating the existence of God. I disagreed with your representation of Occam's razor.

Ajax

Ah, good, then I misunderstood your post. Sorry about that. The representation I gave is the most common representation of it, though, and it works, as long as you understand that "simpler" means "less assumptions".

[Reenk Roink]

Yes, it needs to be logical, and it needs empirical evidence. Making things up can be fun and all that, but to pretend that it is actually true without any evidence would be irrational.

You run into a huge problem when you try and smuggle in empirical evidence in any definition of rational. The assumptions that are necessary to posit any kind of mind-independent external world are probably less easy to posit than those required to prove a god (the principle of sufficient reason vs. the reliability of sensory perception).

It's merely a psychological habit that we even consider our sensory perceptions to be accurately representing reality. There is no empirical proof of it. By your own definition, such a meta-belief is irrational.


This doesn't really say much at all, though. This doesn't really say much at all, though. All it seem to say is that "god" supposedly created the universe, all beings and every event, which are things that "god" supposedly did, but not what "god" actually is. It's a "being", okay, and that being must be uncaused. As for non-contingent, could you please explain what you mean by that?

Why is god "necessary", and what for?

It may not say much, indeed, it is a highly impersonal basic definition of God (I thought we'd start with something simple).

As for contingent and non contingent/necessary, these are philosophical/theological terms used to contrast God from other things. I would explain it that a contingent being is one that is possibly existent (if nonexistent) and possibly nonexistent (if existent). The reason for God to be labeled a necessary non-contingent being is because it is held (by supporters of that definition) that every being cannot be a contingent being (these deal with the [alleged] impossibility of an actual infinite as well as the purporting of the principle of sufficient reason).

Again, this definition does not suffer from any logical inconsistency. I would deem it rational with my respective view of what that word means. If you require empirical evidence to be part of a definition of rational then any kind of metaphysical belief becomes irrational (including the metaphysical belief that beliefs are rational if they are based on empirical evidence :beam:).


Correct. This is where we use Occam's Razor, which states that the simplest of two or more competing theories is preferable, and just saying "the universe has always existed" is simpler because it doesn't needlessly introduce another step.

In any case, I do not claim that it is so, only that that is more probable, and there's no need to invent a creator. If you wish to do that, the burden of evidence is on you.

See, there has never been an epistemic reason to favor Occam's razor than not to. Occam's Razor might have some pragmatic appeal (and that is debatable), but it does not at all grant any epistemic merit to the simpler theory.


I know, but as I said to PVC earlier, I do not look for a perfect, all-encompassing definition, just the minimum requirement that something must achieve to be "god".

The definition I gave tends to be one that is regarded as the basic "god".


As for yours and PVC's discussion about demon possessions and exorcism, I apologize, but I must call a Poe on this. Are you being serious?

No need to apologize, but yes, I am. Do you really believe in dissociative identity disorder as explicated in the DSM-IV?

[The Celtic Viking]

You run into a huge problem when you try and smuggle in empirical evidence in any definition of rational. The assumptions that are necessary to posit any kind of mind-independent external world are probably less easy to posit than those required to prove a god (the principle of sufficient reason vs. the reliability of sensory perception).

It's merely a psychological habit that we even consider our sensory perceptions to be accurately representing reality. There is no empirical proof of it. By your own definition, such a meta-belief is irrational.

Not really. It is true that, beyond my own existence as something, I need to make some assumptions. We all do. The fewer assumptions the better though, and the assumptions that science makes are enough, because it works. We know it does, because it yields all these results. If my senses are simply tricking me, then I could never know about it anyway, except through new sensory data, which I couldn't trust to be true.

Assuming magic is simply superfluous and unnecessary.


As for contingent and non contingent/necessary, these are philosophical/theological terms used to contrast God from other things. I would explain it that a contingent being is one that is possibly existent (if nonexistent) and possibly nonexistent (if existent). The reason for God to be labeled a necessary non-contingent being is because it is held (by supporters of that definition) that every being cannot be a contingent being (these deal with the [alleged] impossibility of an actual infinite as well as the purporting of the principle of sufficient reason).

Hmm. Keep in mind that, growing up in a community practically devoid of religion, and not caring about it until about 13-14 (when I wanted and tried to become a theist, and even then I wasn't interested organized religion), and then returning to not caring about it again until a few years ago (when I became an anti-theist* :laugh4:), there are a lot of religious ideas that I have never heard of, and I'm not used to discussing it. Coupled with the fact that English is not my native language, it might be good to keep that in mind.

Anyway, let me see if I understood you correctly: does being non-contingent mean that it is not possible that it exists if it doesn't exist, and that it isn't possible that it doesn't exist if it does?

* It might be important to note that when I say I'm an anti-theist, I mean that I want religion to end, but I want religious people to stop being religious on their own accord. I do not want to force people to deconvert, and I respect your right to believe as long as you respect my right not to.

To put it simply, I am not against the theists, the people, but the theism, the belief.


[/U]Again, this definition does not suffer from any logical inconsistency. I would deem it rational with my respective view of what that word means. If you require empirical evidence to be part of a definition of rational then any kind of metaphysical belief becomes irrational (including the metaphysical belief that beliefs are rational if they are based on empirical evidence :beam:).

Now comes "metaphysical" again. Believing in anything without sufficient evidence is irrational. If there is no evidence for something metaphysical, then it is irrational to believe that something metaphysical exist.


See, there has never been an epistemic reason to favor Occam's razor than not to. Occam's Razor might have some pragmatic appeal (and that is debatable), but it does not at all grant any epistemic merit to the simpler theory.

The less assumptions you make, the closer to the mark you are likely to come. It doesn't guarantee that it is right, but it is preferable because of probability. We can't deal with absolutes; only probability.


No need to apologize, but yes, I am. Do you really believe in dissociative identity disorder as explicated in the DSM-IV?

I accept science because that is the only reliable way to find out about the universe around us.

If you want me to take you seriously when you talk about demonic possessions or whatever, you must provide me with some evidence that devils exist, that they can possess humans, and that they in fact do it.

[The Celtic Viking]

It's fully logical, yes, but we can't claim to know that, because there's no evidence either way. It's just that it's more probable that the universe always existed than that the universe was created by something that always existed, because the former makes fewer assumptions.

[ajaxfetish]

Yup, it's irrational. When you define one word, all the words in the definition must also be clearly defined. I'm afraid the word "spiritual" is not.

And here we're back to problems with definition. If all the words in a definition must also be clearly defined, then you either go from word to word ad infinitum or you end up with circular definition. The only way to define a word is by using other words, which in turn, according to you, need to be defined. It's almost like some of the old arguments for God, ironically. Going back, you'd eventually need a word you could understand without definition, in order to have a foundation on which to build all your definitions.

Also, I think you need to define what you mean by 'definition.' You pulled some from a few dictionaries awhile back, none of which specified that all words in the definition must also be clearly defined. What exactly do you expect? For that matter, I'm pretty sure you could find a definition for 'spiritual' in those same sources. Probably even 'God.'

I have to wonder if a definition is even what you're really looking for. Do you want a definition of God, or empirical evidence in support of God's existence? Your responses to those definitions that have been given seem to indicate the latter.

Ajax

[The Celtic Viking]

And here we're back to problems with definition. If all the words in a definition must also be clearly defined, then you either go from word to word ad infinitum or you end up with circular definition. The only way to define a word is by using other words, which in turn, according to you, need to be defined. It's almost like some of the old arguments for God, ironically. Going back, you'd eventually need a word you could understand without definition, in order to have a foundation on which to build all your definitions.

No, you do not understand. If we're not using properly defined terms in definitions, then all we get in effect is this:

"Klarstoft" means "to rackabokacho".

"Rackabokacho" means "to eforatonima in a koraskofka".

See what I mean? The definition is meaningless that way, because it doesn't tell you anything. It's just gibberish "explained" by more gibberish. This is why you need clearly defined terms to adequately define a word.

Your "problem" is not a problem because we pick up language before we learn to talk by listening to our parents and people around us. When we learn to speak, we learn the words and the definitions from its use.


Also, I think you need to define what you mean by 'definition.' You pulled some from a few dictionaries awhile back, none of which specified that all words in the definition must also be clearly defined. What exactly do you expect? For that matter, I'm pretty sure you could find a definition for 'spiritual' in those same sources. Probably even 'God.'

Yes, I got a definition of "spiritual", something like "which pertains to a "spirit". Since "spirit" is undefined, I must check up what that means. When I do that, it says things like "soul", "incorporeal", "angel or demon", etc. "Soul" is just another undefined word, "incorporeal" means "lacking form or substance, immaterial" which is a negative definition and doesn't mean anything. It's a useless term, because we don't have a universe of discourse.

"Angel" or "demon" is practically the same thing.

The problem is not that I've never heard a definition for "god", it's that none that I've heard has been coherent and rational.


I have to wonder if a definition is even what you're really looking for. Do you want a definition of God, or empirical evidence in support of God's existence? Your responses to those definitions that have been given seem to indicate the latter.

Ajax

I want both, but the definition must come first.

[Beefy187]

God is unquestionable.

As he is either perfect or doesn't exist to be questioned.
Humans are only humans because we have our faults and weaknesses. This opens up the option to be questioned and to be criticized in order to pull down to our level.

However, God, dead people, someone who we don't meet often or don't know much about can become God for someone.

Thus God is someone who cannot be questioned.

[Reenk Roink]

Not really. It is true that, beyond my own existence as something, I need to make some assumptions. We all do. The fewer assumptions the better though, and the assumptions that science makes are enough, because it works. We know it does, because it yields all these results. If my senses are simply tricking me, then I could never know about it anyway, except through new sensory data, which I couldn't trust to be true.

Assuming magic is simply superfluous and unnecessary.

I guess our paradigms are simply irreconcilable here. I for one cannot accept just a pragmatic explanation ("let's go with it cause it works") for things like science which I am just not endeared to. Religion, on the other hand, I find fascinating and am very endeared to (especially the Abrahamic tradition). Getting me to assume things about the former is hard. I'll point out the problems with inductive reasoning and definitely argue against any kind of scientific realism (I'm a good old fashioned instrumentalist :laugh4:)


Now comes "metaphysical" again. Believing in anything without sufficient evidence is irrational. If there is no evidence for something metaphysical, then it is irrational to believe that something metaphysical exist.

I think we are talking past each other here (probably my fault for not making it very clear). What I am trying to say is that the belief that "beliefs should be supported by empirical evidence" is itself a metaphysical belief that cannot be supported by empirical evidence. This is why I took issue with your definition of rationality.


I accept science because that is the only reliable way to find out about the universe around us.

If you want me to take you seriously when you talk about demonic possessions or whatever, you must provide me with some evidence that devils exist, that they can possess humans, and that they in fact do it.

I brought up demon possession and dissasociative identity disorder as a side remark to the little analogy about religious belief being some sort of mental illness; I'm not actually really too concerned with either. Of course, due to the nearly universal existence of religious experience it seems that religious beliefs will continue to be respected (labeled as neurosis perhaps, but not generally as delusion).

After all, what exactly distinguishes a delusion from what we call reality? Logically, both are very similar. The only difference being the majority of people experience what they think is reality, and a small group of people experience something else.

Simply put however, ignoring demon possesion for a moment, DID itself is a very controversial diagnosis in the psychology community (I learned this the hard way by doing a report and not mentioning the doubts about it's validity :beam:).

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Psychiatry has allowed itself to be guided for too long by religion. Homosexuality is a good case in point. Religion abhorred it, so psychiatry regarded it as a mental disorder. These days many forms of religous mania are regarded as mental disorders, whereas homosexuality is not.Voila. Now extend this principle and you will come to understand my position.

I find it very hard to accept that adult, well educated people would subscribe to some of the fairytales and confused reasoning in the above posts, starting with, but not confined to, the Holy Trinity. It´s quite scary to think that milions of people believe that they have discovered a god and that they know all sorts of arcane things about it, and that their god is the real one as opposed to the myriad of other gods that other believers believe in.

Imagine that you live in a world where millions and millions of people believe that they are Napoleon Bonaparte, that they are the one and only real Bonaparte, and that this time round they are going to win at Waterloo.
:oops:

I think possessions are unlikely because, within a Christian context, they are uncommon, as are Divine Visions. I still believe in both, I'm just not overly credulous.


:laugh4:

I just did. I said out loud "god, if you exist, what are you?". I got no response. I can do it again. There. I agree that to expect an answer from something you don't believe exist would be insane, but then I do not expect an answer. This does, however, not make it impossible for me to ask, which I have done twice now just for you.

If he's not responding because I haven't acknowledged his existence, don't you think that's a little childish of him? I mean, if he answered, then I would acknowledge it. Why should I have to delude myself to believe he exist before he deems me worthy a response? Why should I have to believe before I can believe? That would be insane.

I still think it's way more likely that "he" doesn't answer because "he" doesn't exist, but if he really is so petty and insecure that he needs my validation, why don't you ask him for a definition?

Again, you don't get it. You are, to paraphrase a favourite spiritual director of mine, "confusing what is meant spiritually as bodily.

This brings me back to what I said before, you don't get it. You see nothing beyond the physical, hear nothing beyond the physical. How then, can you possibly see or hear an incorporeal God?


As for yours and PVC's discussion about demon possessions and exorcism, I apologize, but I must call a Poe on this. Are you being serious?

Yes, but I do believe DID is also real. Not withstanding, there is no reason to avoid exorcism and doing so is as arrogant as avoiding cancer treatment.

[AlexanderSextus]

god is a thing that exists outside of this dimension which i have theorized to be the catalyst behind the big bang, i.e. it caused two membrane universes to collide producing a third membrane which is our universe.

other than that, i dont think it does much. maybe it caused that first single celled organism to form on earth, maybe it threw that big rock that killed the dinosaurs, but thats about it. Basically it's like a kid with an ant farm.

"Cool! Look What they did today!" That basically sums it up.

[Aemilius Paulus]

After all the time I talked to TCV in the EB Tavern, I had learned not to touch the topic of religion. Backroomers would do well to learn the same. It is the very definitive of pointless to debate with TCV on religion. No offense or personal attack here, just an observation. We all have things we are not good at debating about, and religion is TCV's. No matter what you say, TCV will always disagree with you on religion, and he will never admit to sharing anything with your arguments. TCV is not looking for a debate, but simply to refute every point thrown at him, no matter the validity of that point.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Psychiatry has allowed itself to be guided for too long by religion. Homosexuality is a good case in point. Religion abhorred it, so psychiatry regarded it as a mental disorder. These days many forms of religous mania are regarded as mental disorders, whereas homosexuality is not.Voila. Now extend this principle and you will come to understand my position.

I find it very hard to accept that adult, well educated people would subscribe to some of the fairytales and confused reasoning in the above posts, starting with, but not confined to, the Holy Trinity. It´s quite scary to think that milions of people believe that they have discovered a god and that they know all sorts of arcane things about it, and that their god is the real one as opposed to the myriad of other gods that other believers believe in.

Imagine that you live in a world where millions and millions of people believe that they are Napoleon Bonaparte, that they are the one and only real Bonaparte, and that this time round they are going to win at Waterloo.
:oops:I AM NOT INSANE I AM NAPOLÉON


:furious3::furious3::furious3:

[Banquo's Ghost]

I AM NOT INSANE I AM NAPOLÉON


:furious3::furious3::furious3:

I am reminded of the wonderfully moving scene in the film "The Emperor's New Clothes (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0282768/)":


The drop-your-popcorn moment in Ian Holm's new film occurs when the Emperor Napoleon stumbles, dethroned and demoralised, into the grounds of a lunatic asylum on the outskirts of Paris. This modest green space is dotted with fruit trees and rose bushes - and between them, a dozen men in cockaded hats, each groping inside his jacket as though he were wishing he'd not had the crevettes. Although Holm's Napoleon is the genuine article - escaped from St Helena, living incognito in France and nursing an ambition to regain the Emperorship - he will never be able to resume his old identity. The world believes that he is dead. The moment he announces himself, he'll be just another five-foot-nothing madman with delusions of grandeur.

Independent (http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/films/features/ian-holm-napoleon-complex-573270.html)

Anyway, we digress. :embarassed:

[Louis VI the Fat]

Which begs for more digressing. Into a real story though.

Diego Maradona went to a Cuban clinic for addicts/mentally ill. At first, he locked himself in his room, for days on end. Too ashamed to get out. The other patients were wondering about him, getting ever more inquisitive. Then one particularly hot day, Diego ventured outside, to the garden. He stumbled upon some other patients, and meekly said, his eyes cast downwards: 'Good afternoon. I am Maradona and...', and was interrupted by another patient: 'Yes, we were wondering about that indeed. Would this one be Maradona or Napoleon?'

[Xiahou]

Someone find Pindar.... or dredge up one of the old threads where he discussed the existence and nature of god.

[Adrian II]

No matter what you say, TCV will always disagree with you on religion, and he will never admit to sharing anything with your arguments. TCV is not looking for a debate, but simply to refute every point thrown at him, no matter the validity of that point.That is not my impression at all. I have found Philipvs to be a good prize-fighter who gave me a run for my money every time. I enjoy this sort of thing and so does he.

It's just that once in a while I have to draw a line in the sand. :angry:

One can not, I repeat can not, profess in one thread to know nothing about God's substance, yet in another thread discuss Gods triple substance and even pretend to know where he sits, i.e. on God's right hand side.

Or was that Christ's left hand side? And where's the Holy Ghost in all this - is it doing the driving? For crying out loud. And to think that millions believe this blatant nonsense.

Enough for today. I need a drink.

[Hax]

God is a name given to the unexplainable, both inward and outward.

"God" represents nothing more than our conscience and power of will. That there is an omniscient creature watching/controlling all our moves is incorrect.

All above statements are my opinion and might very well not be the truth. After all, there is no such thing as "The" truth. Truth is a relative concept which differs between people.

[Jolt]

Another question. "Why capitalize while you are speaking about God? Its something so absurd, as if such a God as the Christian Church proposes he exists would enjoy such a vain idolatration.

EDIT: As for the definition I agree with the most for god is "God is a State of Mind"

[Beskar]

Here's a challenge for all theists: define "god". I have yet to come across a rational, coherent definition of that word, so I was wondering if someone could fill in that blank for me.

Ah, a fellow ignostic? :beam:

[Aemilius Paulus]

That is not my impression at all. I have found Philipvs to be a good prize-fighter who gave me a run for my money every time. I enjoy this sort of thing and so does he.

Whoah, whoa! I never said PVC was lacking. No, he and Sarmatian are my role-models and idols here:beam:. No, I was speaking of TCV. I never said anything bad about Phillipvs. Read my post more carefully one more time :yes:.

Or, it may be that I misunderstood you, as for some reason, your post was not very clear to me.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Another question. "Why capitalize while you are speaking about God? Its something so absurd, as if such a God as the Christian Church proposes he exists would enjoy such a vain idolatration.

I'm not sure, but I heard it's one of the quirks of the English language. Back in more superstitious times it was supposed to reverence God by referring to "Him" rather than "him", and so even when people became less religious it was still the correct use of the language to do so. At least that's what some people say, I'm not sure if that's correct. I find it's helpful anyway, since if you're writing a long sentence about God and another person, you can say "Him" and they'll know you are referring to God without having to mention His name again. :shrug:

[Beskar]

Because you capitalise a name. That is why it is capitalised. Since the name "God" came applied to their god.. it becomes a name, therefore capitalised.

[Jolt]

Because you capitalise a name. That is why it is capitalised. Since the name "God" came applied to their god.. it becomes a name, therefore capitalised.

Sure you capitalize a name. You don't capitalize a "whatever its called in English".

Here's an example.

"There's Obama! I love >>him<<."
"There's God! I love >>Him<<."

Unless God's Full name is "God He Him His You Yourself Your". Of course, if that's the case, then all those Him's are just one of his many names, and that would make sense.

[Hax]

God is mostly used to denote the Judeo-Christian/Islamic God, as opposed to other gods.

[Jolt]

No I didn't mean the capitalization of "God" but of regular words like "Him" instead of "him".

[Aemilius Paulus]

God is mostly used to denote the Judeo-Christian/Islamic God, as opposed to other gods.
Yet more accurately, it is capitalised when you believe in what you are capitalising :laugh4:. If one does not believe in the deity they are writing about, then one would normally leave out the uppercase letter. Although some will do it out of respect, if they have it.

Ideally though, we are all (Jews, Christians, Muslims) supposed to believe in one, same god, as that is how it was (we all worship the same deity). Now certain people may argue otherwise, although just as many will insist the god is shared.

[Hax]

No I didn't mean the capitalization of "God" but of regular words like "Him" instead of "him".[/QUOTE

I don't do this either.

[QUOTE]Yet more accurately, it is capitalised when you believe in what you are capitalising :laugh4:. If one does not believe in the deity they are writing about, then one would normally leave out the uppercase letter. Although some will do it out of respect, if they have it.

The thing is, we don't have another word to describe the omniscient Judeo-Christian entity.

[Adrian II]

The thing is, we don't have another word to describe the omniscient Judeo-Christian entity.Oh yes we do. :mellow:

[Aemilius Paulus]

The thing is, we don't have another word to describe the omniscient Judeo-Christian entity.
Jehovah or Yahweh?

[Rhyfelwyr]

Hmm giving a definition of God? I'll quote from a Rangers FC-related video I just saw on youtube:

We do not choose, we are chosen
Those that don't understand don't matter
Those who understand need no explanation!
WE ARE THE PEOPLE!

I bet most Rangers fans don't even know what Calvinism is, but it must still be in the mindset. :laugh4:

[Beskar]

What is funny though, when they say "Don't take the Lord's name in vain" when you something like "god damnit".

[Adrian II]

Jehovah or Yahweh?I think Richard Dawkins gives a far better description of him:


[..] a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.And he is mincing his words there. :laugh3:

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

That is not my impression at all. I have found Philipvs to be a good prize-fighter who gave me a run for my money every time. I enjoy this sort of thing and so does he.

It's just that once in a while I have to draw a line in the sand. :angry:

One can not, I repeat can not, profess in one thread to know nothing about God's substance, yet in another thread discuss Gods triple substance and even pretend to know where he sits, i.e. on God's right hand side.

Or was that Christ's left hand side? And where's the Holy Ghost in all this - is it doing the driving? For crying out loud. And to think that millions believe this blatant nonsense.

Enough for today. I need a drink.

Two Billion, nearly, more than are atheists.

Anyway, you're misrepresenting my position. You surely know I consider myself fallable, and that I believe in free will. Maybe you should ask why I support the Trinity in the other thread.


God is a name given to the unexplainable, both inward and outward.

"God" represents nothing more than our conscience and power of will. That there is an omniscient creature watching/controlling all our moves is incorrect.

All above statements are my opinion and might very well not be the truth. After all, there is no such thing as "The" truth. Truth is a relative concept which differs between people.

Unless we are talking about Truth, as in the ideal form. This is a given in Christian philosophy and theology, and the consequence is that "real" Truth is approachable but not attainable.


Jehovah or Yahweh?

Well, neither are actual names, nor is "God" or "god".


I think Richard Dawkins gives a far better description of him:

[..] a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.
And he is mincing his words there. :laugh3:

That's a biased description based on accounts written down by men. It conflicts with the other half of the Bible as well, which, of course, you know.

[Adrian II]

Two Billion, nearly, more than are atheists.Lol, look at the trend. Religion is retreating everywere. In some western countries the critical mass is reached and half the population does not believe in a god, let alone in yours.
That's a biased description based on accounts written down by men. It conflicts with the other half of the Bible as well, which, of course, you know.There we go again. It's religion a la carte, eh? The bible is said to be god's word, but hey, not all of it. Half of it (which you pick) is god's word and the other half of it is, well, a big mistake really.

Oh, but you make it even better by saying the bible is 'biased's it was written down by men. Oh noes! Was Matthew a Democrat? Did John have an 'agenda?
:laugh3:

[Strike For The South]

There we go again. It's religion a la carte, eh? The bible is said to be god's word, but hey, not all of it. Half of it (which you pick) is god's word and the other half of it is, well, a big mistake really.

Oh, but you make it even better by saying the bible is 'biased's it was written down by men. Oh noes! Was Matthew a Democrat? Did John have an 'agenda?
:laugh3:

This is probably the biggest problem I have. I was raised to beilive that the bible was the word of God. Which means I can't wear cotton and polyester mix and I have to look up what cloven means.

Alas I'm not smug or self-serving enough to be an atheist and all the cute girls belive in Jesus. I make up for it by not tything and sleeping in.

I remembered when I gave 1$ of my 10$ allowance to the church. Such simpler times.

[Adrian II]

Alas I'm not smug or self-serving enough to be an atheist and all the cute girls belive in Jesus.Just regard the bible and other religious text as literature, just like Homer or Herodotus. As such they can be a great source of inspiration to anyone, without the hocus pocus about a guy in the sky. Many of these old texts dating from roughly 500 BC tot 500 AD are a sort of exploration of the human condition. They try to establish what it all means that we live, die, love, hate, possess, lose or covet, what power is and how it works, what war, family or the natural seasons are all about, in short: what makes man tick. The Gilgamesj Epic, Homer, Confucius, Buddha, the Old Testament, the Gospel writers all talk about those basic issues. That's why they are still hot today.

[Strike For The South]

Just regard the bible and other religious text as literature, just like Homer or Herodotus. As such they can be a great source of inspiration to anyone, without the hocus pocus about a guy in the sky. Many of these old texts dating from roughly 500 BC tot 500 AD are a sort of exploration of the human condition. They try to establish what it all means that we live, die, love, hate, possess, lose or covet, what power is and how it works, what war, family or the natural seasons are all about, in short: what makes man tick. The Gilgamesj Epic, Homer, Confucius, Buddha, the Old Testament, the Gospel writers all talk about those basic issues. That's why they are still hot today.

So does the backroom:egypt:

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Lol, look at the trend. Religion is retreating everywere. In some western countries the critical mass is reached and half the population does not believe in a god, let alone in yours.There we go again. It's religion a la carte, eh? The bible is said to be god's word, but hey, not all of it. Half of it (which you pick) is god's word and the other half of it is, well, a big mistake really.

Nope, you know I don't regard the Bible as the Word of God, merely that written down by men, devout Men, but still men.

Straw Man.

[Aemilius Paulus]

I think Richard Dawkins gives a far better description of him:

[..] a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.And he is mincing his words there. :laugh3:
Eh? A fellow atheist? Good to see that, very few people here seem to be pure atheists.

[Adrian II]

Eh? A fellow atheist? Good to see that, very few people here seem to be pure atheists.Most atheists don't care for this sort of discussion, unless things become political and believers want to impose their nonsense on others in the name of Jesus or Mohammed or whatever. In my country where only a minority goes to church anymore, there is practically no debate on the principal issue, only on the question of how to deal with the excesses such as rabid imams who want to kill gays or some isolated Christian parents who refuse to have their children vaccinated against poliomyelitis or something.

Don't worry, we're mopping them up as I speak. :yes:

[Azathoth]

"All I say is that I think it is damned unlikely that anything like a central cosmic will, a spirit world, or an eternal survival of personality exist. They are the most preposterous and unjustified of all the guesses which can be made about the universe, and I am not enough of a hair-splitter to pretend that I don't regard them as arrant and negligible moonshine."

[Louis VI the Fat]

Eh? A fellow atheist? Good to see that, very few people here seem to be pure atheists.I don't even not believe in god enough to consider myself an atheist.


I am just not in a war mode right now - it's been ages since I read Richard Dawkins.

Unlike Adrian, who (re-?)read him recently.

[LittleGrizzly]

I get easily scared away by words such as 'metaphysical'... ~;)

My position is on the matter is fairly basic, I see an all powerful creature that is all knowing and exsists in both the past and the present and can do anything with just a thought as completely unrealistic...

I see anything less as an extremely advanced creature...

So by my own logic there is no God, this argument isn't very convincing though so I don't go around boring people with it...

[Rhyfelwyr]

[..] a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.And he is mincing his words there. :laugh3:

A part from the first and last bits, that's all quite true.

But who says we deserve better? Strangely you mention all these temporal sufferings and not hell, yet these are only a shadow of what we deserve. Throughout the OT, such things are generally given as a display of God's attributes for the good of Israel, or the sad but necessary means of bringing a people to the promised land in a fallen world.

Dawkins obviously regards himself as a good, moral guy. Well, I disagree - for Dakwins, myself, and the rest of humanity. I think he will find his own standards lacking when put to more thorough observation.

[LittleGrizzly]

But who says we deserve better?

We don't cause pain to 'lower' beings than ourselves*, we use them practically to our benefit but we do not cause them unnessecary pain. Even if a dog has killed a little girl or something horrific if we are able to do so we will take down the dog in a non lethal manner.

So collectively we think animals deserve better, and we are much more moral than the animals**

So humans are more merciful and forgiving than God, by the sounds of it yes we deserve better...

*Im thinking collectively and legally...

** In that we will fight our natural instincts if its the wrong thing to do (steal food from a baby) whereas an animal would mostly (if not... other stuff ~;))

[Azathoth]

We don't "deserve" anything. It's simply a matter of preference.

[Jolt]

But what is God in the true sense of the word for people? What defines it?

IMO, God is a State of Mind. An opinion, a preference, an option. A moral code.

[Adrian II]

But who says we deserve better?I do. Maybe I don't deserve better, maybe Dawkins is not a good man (I dont know him personally like you apparently do).

But my children deserve to live in a world without your petty, vindictive, pestilential paper god.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I do. Maybe I don't deserve better, maybe Dawkins is not a good man (I dont know him personally like you apparently do).

But my children deserve to live in a world without your petty, vindictive, pestilential paper god.

To be honest, I don't think even Rhy actually likes his God, Adrian.

What about my infinitely merciful, benevolant, loving and compassionate God. Are your children better off without His as well?

[Adrian II]

What about my infinitely merciful, benevolant, loving and compassionate God. Are your children better off without His as well?As long as he keeps his hands to himself.

But it is not the god of the bible you are talking about here. It is a god of your own choice and your own making. You make him up as you go really. In one post you state that a person can not know another person's substance, let alone god's substance. Yet in another post you discuss god's 'threefold substance' as if he had been your bowling partner for the last 25 years.

Arghh, millions of Napoleons :wall:

[Rhyfelwyr]

To be honest, I don't think even Rhy actually likes his God, Adrian.

What about my infinitely merciful, benevolant, loving and compassionate God. Are your children better off without His as well?

Nah he's a great guy. All I am saying is that temporal sufferings should not be used as an argument for God being nasty, when in fact all the harsh things throughout the OT are in some respect done for the good of the church. I'm not just talking about the slaying of the reprobate either. Even for those in covenant with God, look at their lives. Abraham, David, Moses, and most obviously Job; none of these guys had it easy, and yet their wordly sufferings were all in some way for their spiritual good.

As for your God being merficul, you don't even believe he died on the cross for our sins! You believe he only let Christ's human nature suffer in that respect.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

As long as he keeps his hands to himself.

But it is not the god of the bible you are talking about here. It is a god of your own choice and your own making. You make him up as you go really. In one post you state that a person can not know another person's substance, let alone god's substance. Yet in another post you discuss god's 'threefold substance' as if he had been your bowling partner for the last 25 years.

Arghh, millions of Napoleons :wall:

You still haven't asked why I support Trinitarian doctrine.

The "God of the Bible" is a complete non-entity, you have to sift the books to see the shape God leaves begind. I sift the Gospels, Rhy sifts the Prophets etc.


As for your God being merficul, you don't even believe he died on the cross for our sins! You believe he only let Christ's human nature suffer in that respect.

What I believe is that we are saved through His infinite mercy, as exemplified by His sacrifice, and that the message of forgiveness and repentance can only be conveyed through the suffering of a God and King for His people.

As I said, I don't seperate Christ's natures, but I make the distinction between how the should be percieved, and how He can be percieved in different contexts. Such as whether he speaks primarily as a Man or a God. This is exactly the same distinction as I make about myself, depending on whether I am speaking as a Clerk or a Christian.

[Rhyfelwyr]

In one post you state that a person can not know another person's substance, let alone god's substance. Yet in another post you discuss god's 'threefold substance' as if he had been your bowling partner for the last 25 years.

Knowledge of the particular manifestations of God are a different matter entirely from knowledge of what God actually is. For example, we can claim that the Godhead is present in Christ, without comprehending the substance of the Godhead any more than if it was not.


What I believe is that we are saved through His infinite mercy, as exemplified by His sacrifice, and that the message of forgiveness and repentance can only be conveyed through the suffering of a God and King for His people.

Ah, the substitutionary atonement debate. Well, most of Christendom is with me on this one at least. :wink:

[Hax]

I've seen the concept of suffering come up several times in this thread. If you suffer, why not try to end it?

[Adrian II]

For example, we can claim that the Godhead is present in Christ, without comprehending the substance of the Godhead any more than if it was not.I refer the honourable member to the ghost in my backyard.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I refer the honourable member to the ghost in my backyard.

Is this Ghost only in your backyard? If he is, how are we supposed to check if he exists or not.

[Banquo's Ghost]

Is this Ghost only in your backyard? If he is, how are we supposed to check if he exists or not.

I infract, therefore I am.

:evilgrin:

[Aemilius Paulus]

I've seen the concept of suffering come up several times in this thread. If you suffer, why not try to end it?
Hehe, Buddhism and you... This is not the time to recite the Four Noble Truths about Duhka, Hax. We are on the topic of Judeo-Christianity and Islam.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I've seen the concept of suffering come up several times in this thread. If you suffer, why not try to end it?

Someone has to suffer, I'd rather it was me than anyone else. I am ashamed to say there are some people I am much more willing to suffer for than others.


I infract, therefore I am.

:evilgrin:

I thought you had your own, rather large, backyard?

[Hax]

Hehe, Buddhism and you... This is not the time to recite the Four Noble Truths about Duhka, Hax. We are on the topic of Judeo-Christianity and Islam.

IF AN ARROW STICKS FROM YOUR SIDE, DO NOT WORRY WHO MADE IT BUT SIMPLY PULL IT OUT

In any case, I thought about it. I think the big issue with Christianity that most people have is the fact that there is no room for anything else. People dislikes absolutism. Most need it, but they dislike it still.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

IF AN ARROW STICKS FROM YOUR SIDE, DO NOT WORRY WHO MADE IT BUT SIMPLY PULL IT OUT

In any case, I thought about it. I think the big issue with Christianity that most people have is the fact that there is no room for anything else. People dislikes absolutism. Most need it, but they dislike it still.

Well, that's why the Romans hated the Christians: Atheism, at the time I think it was unique to Judaism and Christianity.

[Furunculus]

we don't need to define god or decide the existence thereof, for the glorious EU is doing it for us:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/6179410/EU-spends-taxpayers-money-on-puppet-theatre-crocodile-zoo-and-defining-God.html

At the same time, Brussels bureaucrats have funded a whole range of questionable projects including £93,000 on a puppet theatre, £1.4 million on a programme to "define God", more than £87,000 on a fake silkworm-breeding business and £750,000 on a crocodile zoo.




the only upside to this horrific story is that Britains EU indoctrination budget is being underspent, thank god!

Meanwhile in the "citizenship" section, which is defined as "fostering European culture, identity and diversity" as well as "promoting health, consumer and civil protection" Britain's total of 27.1 million euros was well down on France (73.8 million) and Italy (75.6 million) and dwarfed by Germany (217.8 million).