The Definition and Existence of God

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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

[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."