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.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

[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 ), 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 ), 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.

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.

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.

[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.

[Adrian II]

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

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]

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?