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.
The Definition and Existence of God
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.
Last edited by The Celtic Viking; 09-07-2009 at 21:36. Reason: Changed my mind: this one question is enough.
Re: Theological Debate.
Everything written in the bible is the literal truth.
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Tallyho lads, rape the houses and burn the women! Leave not a single potted plant alive! Full speed ahead and damn the cheesemongers!
Re: Theological Debate.
Definition of God: Is.Originally Posted by The Celtic Viking
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.
"If it wears trousers generally I don't pay attention."
[IMG]https://img197.imageshack.us/img197/4917/logoromans23pd.jpg[/IMG]
Re: Theological Debate.
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.
Last edited by The Celtic Viking; 09-07-2009 at 22:03.
Re: Theological Debate.
As both Popeye and the Burning Bush said, "I am what I am and that's all whats I am."
Re: Theological Debate.
... 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?
Re: Theological Debate.
Yep, you've got it exactly.
"If it wears trousers generally I don't pay attention."
[IMG]https://img197.imageshack.us/img197/4917/logoromans23pd.jpg[/IMG]
Re: Theological Debate.
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.
"If it wears trousers generally I don't pay attention."
[IMG]https://img197.imageshack.us/img197/4917/logoromans23pd.jpg[/IMG]
Re: Theological Debate.
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).
Re: Theological Debate.
Augh, I hate answering many posts in the same one. It's so tedious.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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...
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?
Last edited by The Celtic Viking; 09-08-2009 at 09:12.
Re: Theological Debate.
No I do not "define" Him as such. I signify him by the sign "Yahweh", this is litterally in Hebrew the statement, "I am".
Ever the heard someone say, "You can't describe what love feels like, you just know when you feel it"?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.
Stop being antagonistic, and stop acting like I'm trying to wind you upI 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.
God, like love, is manifest. Please see below.
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.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.
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.... 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.
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.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.
Anyway, why do you keep demanding this definition of this thing that doesn't exist.
"If it wears trousers generally I don't pay attention."
[IMG]https://img197.imageshack.us/img197/4917/logoromans23pd.jpg[/IMG]
Re: Theological Debate.
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.
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).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.
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:Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
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
Last edited by ajaxfetish; 09-08-2009 at 21:00.
"I do not yet know how chivalry will fare in these calamitous times of ours." --- Don Quixote
"I have no words, my voice is in my sword." --- Shakespeare
"I can picture in my mind a world without war, a world without hate. And I can picture us attacking that world, because they'd never expect it." --- Jack Handey
Re: Theological Debate.
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"?
Re: Theological Debate.
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
"I do not yet know how chivalry will fare in these calamitous times of ours." --- Don Quixote
"I have no words, my voice is in my sword." --- Shakespeare
"I can picture in my mind a world without war, a world without hate. And I can picture us attacking that world, because they'd never expect it." --- Jack Handey
Re: Theological Debate.
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.
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".
Last edited by The Celtic Viking; 09-08-2009 at 21:56.
Re: The Definition and Existence of God
Ah, a fellow ignostic?
Days since the Apocalypse began
"We are living in space-age times but there's too many of us thinking with stone-age minds" | How to spot a Humanist
"Men of Quality do not fear Equality." | "Belief doesn't change facts. Facts, if you are reasonable, should change your beliefs."
Re: The Definition and Existence of God
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/worl...ining-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).
Last edited by Furunculus; 09-13-2009 at 11:28.
Furunculus Maneuver: Adopt a highly logical position on a controversial subject where you cannot disagree with the merits of the proposal, only disagree with an opinion based on fundamental values. - Beskar
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks