The Definition and Existence of 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?