Quote Originally Posted by The Celtic Viking View Post
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.