The Definition and Existence of God

[Adrian II]

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?

The cheap way out would be to say ´yes, all believers are mad´.

However, I think the similarity points to something else. In a way, the fact that schizophrenia is so widespread makes it normal. That changes the whole equation. A folie à deux is manageable, a folie à millions becomes a fact of life.

I tend to think that such widespread attitudes have or have had evolutionary or cognitive advantages that should not be dismissed out of hand. Religion may have served us well at certain stages and may still serve us well in certain situations, even if the supreme being around which it revolves is a figment of the imagination.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

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.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

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.

Sorry? How is a physical quark related to a metaphysical, theological, and philosphical debate?

[Reenk Roink]

@ The Celtic Viking (thank you for responding - I also hate it when I many people reply to my posts and I feel somewhat compelled to reply )

See the thing is, I don't understand your concept of rationality that you apply to these definitions. Rationality in your mind (as I conjecture from your post) requires a kind of "proof" but you have not exactly defined what kind of proof. Is it empirical proof? Is it to show that the definition is a logical truth and must necessarily be true?

For example, a concept of God that I could purport would be: "God is the necessary, non-contingent being who is the uncaused cause of every contingent being (beings and events)"

As far as I can discern, I were to to formalize this definition, there would be no self-contradiction. Thus, given my previous definition of rational, this definition of God would completely satisfy the conditions and it would be fair to call it rational. However, you would probably object to its rationality by saying there is no "proof" of something or the other with the definition.

The position: The universe always existed and has no creator is one that there is also no proof of (well there are actually proofs for both this position and the opposite but as you have not actually defined proof...) and yet I cannot deny it is rational. I think it is wrong, but it is intelligible and consistent.

But the position: "The universe always existed and yet there is a creator" might be one that can be called irrational. The reason for this is that one may be able to argue that there is a contradiction is ascribing a creator to something that was not created.

To go on two other tangents:

I think the point people are bringing up here about definitions is that precise definitions are very difficult to express, at least in everyday life about everyday concepts (in math it is easier). There are many vague predicates, such as God, truth, rational, proof, and so on, that have people having different ideas about what they are, and even beyond that, are difficult to actually articulate completely.

I loathe psychiatry in some respects. Can you believe some idiots diagnose cases of demon possession as DID and try and treat it with drugs rather than sending the victim to an exorcist? Sorry for the off topic rant but that makes me mad... The field has shown itself to by quite malleable and guided by society however (look at its view of homosexuality throughout the years), so it seems that belief in God will never be considered a mental illness as it is too widespread and respected (thank God).

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Exorcism is a favourite topic of mine, becuase well, what sort of idiot, when faced with classic possesional charactoaristics would refuse to have his child exorcise. Let's face it, an exorcism can't possibly hurt more than it helps and it's really the only recourse is you are possesed.

Having said that, I don't believe demonic possesion is at all common and a number of people who claim to be possesed are probably merely hysterical.

[The Celtic Viking]

No I do not "define" Him as such. I signify him by the sign "Yahweh", this is litterally in Hebrew the statement, "I am".

Then I do not understand what reason you felt you had for bringing it up.

Ever the heard someone say, "You can't describe what love feels like, you just know when you feel it"?

Yes. Have you ever heard someone say that god doesn't exist?

Just wondering.

Stop being antagonistic, and stop acting like I'm trying to wind you up

Just answer my question, please.

God, like love, is manifest. Please see below.

Okay.

You will never adaquately define me, or yourself.

But I did.

You can describe observable attributes, imperfectly, or actions, but not the substance of being.

What do you mean by "substance of being"?

Yet, you have a name and you exist.

Yes, and we can say that I exist because we can define me, as I have done. We cannot say that "god" exist if we cannot define it, because if the word "god" doesn't have a definition, then the word "god" doesn't mean anything.

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 just did. I said out loud "god, if you exist, what are you?". I got no response. I can do it again. There. I agree that to expect an answer from something you don't believe exist would be insane, but then I do not expect an answer. This does, however, not make it impossible for me to ask, which I have done twice now just for you.

If he's not responding because I haven't acknowledged his existence, don't you think that's a little childish of him? I mean, if he answered, then I would acknowledge it. Why should I have to delude myself to believe he exist before he deems me worthy a response? Why should I have to believe before I can believe? That would be insane.

I still think it's way more likely that "he" doesn't answer because "he" doesn't exist, but if he really is so petty and insecure that he needs my validation, why don't you ask him for a 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.

Yes, I did say they fail, didn't I?

Anyway, why do you keep demanding this definition of this thing that doesn't exist.

When did I say it doesn't exist? I have all along said that I do not know what "it" is, so how could I say it doesn't? If you define "god" as "doors", then sure, I'll say that "god" exist.

The reason why I ask for a definition of the word "god", is that without one, we can't go any further. Speaking of anything concerning "god" is futile and pointless until we have a working definition.

See the thing is, I don't understand your concept of rationality that you apply to these definitions. Rationality in your mind (as I conjecture from your post) requires a kind of "proof" but you have not exactly defined what kind of proof. Is it empirical proof? Is it to show that the definition is a logical truth and must necessarily be true?

Yes, it needs to be logical, and it needs empirical evidence. Making things up can be fun and all that, but to pretend that it is actually true without any evidence would be irrational.

For example, a concept of God that I could purport would be: "God is the necessary, non-contingent being who is the uncaused cause of every contingent being (beings and events)"

This doesn't really say much at all, though. This doesn't really say much at all, though. All it seem to say is that "god" supposedly created the universe, all beings and every event, which are things that "god" supposedly did, but not what "god" actually is. It's a "being", okay, and that being must be uncaused. As for non-contingent, could you please explain what you mean by that?

Why is god "necessary", and what for?

The position: The universe always existed and has no creator is one that there is also no proof of (well there are actually proofs for both this position and the opposite but as you have not actually defined proof...) and yet I cannot deny it is rational. I think it is wrong, but it is intelligible and consistent.

Correct. This is where we use Occam's Razor, which states that the simplest of two or more competing theories is preferable, and just saying "the universe has always existed" is simpler because it doesn't needlessly introduce another step.

In any case, I do not claim that it is so, only that that is more probable, and there's no need to invent a creator. If you wish to do that, the burden of evidence is on you.

I think the point people are bringing up here about definitions is that precise definitions are very difficult to express, at least in everyday life about everyday concepts (in math it is easier). There are many vague predicates, such as God, truth, rational, proof, and so on, that have people having different ideas about what they are, and even beyond that, are difficult to actually articulate completely.

I know, but as I said to PVC earlier, I do not look for a perfect, all-encompassing definition, just the minimum requirement that something must achieve to be "god".

As for yours and PVC's discussion about demon possessions and exorcism, I apologize, but I must call a Poe on this. Are you being serious?

[Adrian II]

I loathe psychiatry in some respects. [..] The field has shown itself to by quite malleable and guided by society however (look at its view of homosexuality throughout the years) [..]

Psychiatry has allowed itself to be guided for too long by religion. Homosexuality is a good case in point. Religion abhorred it, so psychiatry regarded it as a mental disorder. These days many forms of religous mania are regarded as mental disorders, whereas homosexuality is not.

I don't believe demonic possesion is at all common and a number of people who claim to be possesed are probably merely hysterical.

Voila. Now extend this principle and you will come to understand my position.

I find it very hard to accept that adult, well educated people would subscribe to some of the fairytales and confused reasoning in the above posts, starting with, but not confined to, the Holy Trinity. It´s quite scary to think that milions of people believe that they have discovered a god and that they know all sorts of arcane things about it, and that their god is the real one as opposed to the myriad of other gods that other believers believe in.

Imagine that you live in a world where millions and millions of people believe that they are Napoleon Bonaparte, that they are the one and only real Bonaparte, and that this time round they are going to win at Waterloo.

[The Celtic Viking]

EDIT: Thou shalt not post hotlinked pictures. I cannot define this rule, it just is. BG

[ajaxfetish]

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.

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?

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.

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 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).

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: 

And on the other hand, the following contains numerous words with no definition, and yet many speakers of English, myself included, can understand what's going on, and sense the meanings of words by their context and similarity to other words, in spite of never having seen them before, let alone having them defined.

Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe;
All mimsy were the borogoves,
And the mome raths outgrabe.

"Beware the Jabberwock, my son!
The jaws that bite, the claws that catch!
Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun
The frumious Bandersnatch!"

He took his vorpal sword in hand:
Long time the manxome foe he sought—
So rested he by the Tumtum tree,
And stood awhile in thought.

And as in uffish thought he stood,
The Jabberwock, with eyes of flame,
Came whiffling through the tulgey wood,
And burbled as it came!

One, two! One, two! and through and through
The vorpal blade went snicker-snack!
He left it dead, and with its head
He went galumphing back.

"And hast thou slain the Jabberwock?
Come to my arms, my beamish boy!
O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!"
He chortled in his joy.

'Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe;
All mimsy were the borogoves,
And the mome raths outgrabe.

Lewis Carroll

Seeing ajaxfetish in here gave me an idea. Isn't it so ajax that the first principle of your gospel is to know the true nature of God? And the second, the true nature of Jesus Christ?
And wouldn't you say that your view of God or the triune Godhead is supposed to be the same view as that of the early Christians? As in pre-Nicea but not pre-Christianity?

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

[ajaxfetish]

Correct. This is where we use Occam's Razor, which states that the simplest of two or more competing theories is preferable,

Occam's razor does not state this. Saying 'God created it all, for his own mysterious purposes' is much simpler than the scientific explanations for the origin of the universe and the workings of all its parts. Occam's Razor states rather that 'entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity.' If the universe can be explained without the need to resort to an unobserved phenomenon, such as God, then Occam's razor tells us we don't need to postulate God, which is very different from saying simpler is better. Of course, while Occam's razor appeals to us for several reasons, it is a principle of academic inquiry, not by any means a universal or proven truth.

Ajax

[The Celtic Viking]

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"?

[ajaxfetish]

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

[The Celtic Viking]

Occam's razor does not state this. Saying 'God created it all, for his own mysterious purposes' is much simpler than the scientific explanations for the origin of the universe and the workings of all its parts. Occam's Razor states rather that 'entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity.' If the universe can be explained without the need to resort to an unobserved phenomenon, such as God, then Occam's razor tells us we don't need to postulate God, which is very different from saying simpler is better. Of course, while Occam's razor appeals to us for several reasons, it is a principle of academic inquiry, not by any means a universal or proven truth.

Ajax

Lets me walk you through the argument:

P1: Everything that exist must have a cause
P2: The universe exist
C: The universe had a cause, and we call that cause "god"

We then ask, if "god" exist, then what caused "god"?

The answer is that "god" was uncaused.

If "god" can be uncaused, then not everything needs a cause, and assuming that the universe is uncaused makes less assumptions than adding an unnecessary extra step of a universe-cause that is uncaused.

Therefore, not inventing a god is simpler than inventing one.

[ajaxfetish]

I agreed with you that Occam's razor is an effective argument against postulating the existence of God. I disagreed with your representation of Occam's razor.

Ajax

[The Celtic Viking]

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

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.

I agreed with you that Occam's razor is an effective argument against postulating the existence of God. I disagreed with your representation of Occam's razor.

Ajax

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".

[Reenk Roink]

Yes, it needs to be logical, and it needs empirical evidence. Making things up can be fun and all that, but to pretend that it is actually true without any evidence would be irrational.

You run into a huge problem when you try and smuggle in empirical evidence in any definition of rational. The assumptions that are necessary to posit any kind of mind-independent external world are probably less easy to posit than those required to prove a god (the principle of sufficient reason vs. the reliability of sensory perception).

It's merely a psychological habit that we even consider our sensory perceptions to be accurately representing reality. There is no empirical proof of it. By your own definition, such a meta-belief is irrational.

This doesn't really say much at all, though. This doesn't really say much at all, though. All it seem to say is that "god" supposedly created the universe, all beings and every event, which are things that "god" supposedly did, but not what "god" actually is. It's a "being", okay, and that being must be uncaused. As for non-contingent, could you please explain what you mean by that?

Why is god "necessary", and what for?

It may not say much, indeed, it is a highly impersonal basic definition of God (I thought we'd start with something simple).

As for contingent and non contingent/necessary, these are philosophical/theological terms used to contrast God from other things. I would explain it that a contingent being is one that is possibly existent (if nonexistent) and possibly nonexistent (if existent). The reason for God to be labeled a necessary non-contingent being is because it is held (by supporters of that definition) that every being cannot be a contingent being (these deal with the [alleged] impossibility of an actual infinite as well as the purporting of the principle of sufficient reason).

Again, this definition does not suffer from any logical inconsistency. I would deem it rational with my respective view of what that word means. If you require empirical evidence to be part of a definition of rational then any kind of metaphysical belief becomes irrational (including the metaphysical belief that beliefs are rational if they are based on empirical evidence ).

Correct. This is where we use Occam's Razor, which states that the simplest of two or more competing theories is preferable, and just saying "the universe has always existed" is simpler because it doesn't needlessly introduce another step.

In any case, I do not claim that it is so, only that that is more probable, and there's no need to invent a creator. If you wish to do that, the burden of evidence is on you.

See, there has never been an epistemic reason to favor Occam's razor than not to. Occam's Razor might have some pragmatic appeal (and that is debatable), but it does not at all grant any epistemic merit to the simpler theory.

I know, but as I said to PVC earlier, I do not look for a perfect, all-encompassing definition, just the minimum requirement that something must achieve to be "god".

The definition I gave tends to be one that is regarded as the basic "god".

As for yours and PVC's discussion about demon possessions and exorcism, I apologize, but I must call a Poe on this. Are you being serious?

No need to apologize, but yes, I am. Do you really believe in dissociative identity disorder as explicated in the DSM-IV?

[The Celtic Viking]

You run into a huge problem when you try and smuggle in empirical evidence in any definition of rational. The assumptions that are necessary to posit any kind of mind-independent external world are probably less easy to posit than those required to prove a god (the principle of sufficient reason vs. the reliability of sensory perception).

It's merely a psychological habit that we even consider our sensory perceptions to be accurately representing reality. There is no empirical proof of it. By your own definition, such a meta-belief is irrational.

Not really. It is true that, beyond my own existence as something, I need to make some assumptions. We all do. The fewer assumptions the better though, and the assumptions that science makes are enough, because it works. We know it does, because it yields all these results. If my senses are simply tricking me, then I could never know about it anyway, except through new sensory data, which I couldn't trust to be true.

Assuming magic is simply superfluous and unnecessary.

As for contingent and non contingent/necessary, these are philosophical/theological terms used to contrast God from other things. I would explain it that a contingent being is one that is possibly existent (if nonexistent) and possibly nonexistent (if existent). The reason for God to be labeled a necessary non-contingent being is because it is held (by supporters of that definition) that every being cannot be a contingent being (these deal with the [alleged] impossibility of an actual infinite as well as the purporting of the principle of sufficient reason).

Hmm. Keep in mind that, growing up in a community practically devoid of religion, and not caring about it until about 13-14 (when I wanted and tried to become a theist, and even then I wasn't interested organized religion), and then returning to not caring about it again until a few years ago (when I became an anti-theist* ), there are a lot of religious ideas that I have never heard of, and I'm not used to discussing it. Coupled with the fact that English is not my native language, it might be good to keep that in mind.

Anyway, let me see if I understood you correctly: does being non-contingent mean that it is not possible that it exists if it doesn't exist, and that it isn't possible that it doesn't exist if it does?

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

* It might be important to note that when I say I'm an anti-theist, I mean that I want religion to end, but I want religious people to stop being religious on their own accord. I do not want to force people to deconvert, and I respect your right to believe as long as you respect my right not to.

To put it simply, I am not against the theists, the people, but the theism, the belief.

[/U]Again, this definition does not suffer from any logical inconsistency. I would deem it rational with my respective view of what that word means. If you require empirical evidence to be part of a definition of rational then any kind of metaphysical belief becomes irrational (including the metaphysical belief that beliefs are rational if they are based on empirical evidence ).

Now comes "metaphysical" again. Believing in anything without sufficient evidence is irrational. If there is no evidence for something metaphysical, then it is irrational to believe that something metaphysical exist.

See, there has never been an epistemic reason to favor Occam's razor than not to. Occam's Razor might have some pragmatic appeal (and that is debatable), but it does not at all grant any epistemic merit to the simpler theory.

The less assumptions you make, the closer to the mark you are likely to come. It doesn't guarantee that it is right, but it is preferable because of probability. We can't deal with absolutes; only probability.

No need to apologize, but yes, I am. Do you really believe in dissociative identity disorder as explicated in the DSM-IV?

I accept science because that is the only reliable way to find out about the universe around us.

If you want me to take you seriously when you talk about demonic possessions or whatever, you must provide me with some evidence that devils exist, that they can possess humans, and that they in fact do it.

[The Celtic Viking]

It's fully logical, yes, but we can't claim to know that, because there's no evidence either way. It's just that it's more probable that the universe always existed than that the universe was created by something that always existed, because the former makes fewer assumptions.

[ajaxfetish]

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.

And here we're back to problems with definition. If all the words in a definition must also be clearly defined, then you either go from word to word ad infinitum or you end up with circular definition. The only way to define a word is by using other words, which in turn, according to you, need to be defined. It's almost like some of the old arguments for God, ironically. Going back, you'd eventually need a word you could understand without definition, in order to have a foundation on which to build all your definitions.

Also, I think you need to define what you mean by 'definition.' You pulled some from a few dictionaries awhile back, none of which specified that all words in the definition must also be clearly defined. What exactly do you expect? For that matter, I'm pretty sure you could find a definition for 'spiritual' in those same sources. Probably even 'God.'

I have to wonder if a definition is even what you're really looking for. Do you want a definition of God, or empirical evidence in support of God's existence? Your responses to those definitions that have been given seem to indicate the latter.

Ajax

[The Celtic Viking]

And here we're back to problems with definition. If all the words in a definition must also be clearly defined, then you either go from word to word ad infinitum or you end up with circular definition. The only way to define a word is by using other words, which in turn, according to you, need to be defined. It's almost like some of the old arguments for God, ironically. Going back, you'd eventually need a word you could understand without definition, in order to have a foundation on which to build all your definitions.

No, you do not understand. If we're not using properly defined terms in definitions, then all we get in effect is this:

"Klarstoft" means "to rackabokacho".

"Rackabokacho" means "to eforatonima in a koraskofka".

See what I mean? The definition is meaningless that way, because it doesn't tell you anything. It's just gibberish "explained" by more gibberish. This is why you need clearly defined terms to adequately define a word.

Your "problem" is not a problem because we pick up language before we learn to talk by listening to our parents and people around us. When we learn to speak, we learn the words and the definitions from its use.

Also, I think you need to define what you mean by 'definition.' You pulled some from a few dictionaries awhile back, none of which specified that all words in the definition must also be clearly defined. What exactly do you expect? For that matter, I'm pretty sure you could find a definition for 'spiritual' in those same sources. Probably even 'God.'

Yes, I got a definition of "spiritual", something like "which pertains to a "spirit". Since "spirit" is undefined, I must check up what that means. When I do that, it says things like "soul", "incorporeal", "angel or demon", etc. "Soul" is just another undefined word, "incorporeal" means "lacking form or substance, immaterial" which is a negative definition and doesn't mean anything. It's a useless term, because we don't have a universe of discourse.

"Angel" or "demon" is practically the same thing.

The problem is not that I've never heard a definition for "god", it's that none that I've heard has been coherent and rational.

I have to wonder if a definition is even what you're really looking for. Do you want a definition of God, or empirical evidence in support of God's existence? Your responses to those definitions that have been given seem to indicate the latter.

Ajax

I want both, but the definition must come first.

[Beefy187]

God is unquestionable.

As he is either perfect or doesn't exist to be questioned.
Humans are only humans because we have our faults and weaknesses. This opens up the option to be questioned and to be criticized in order to pull down to our level.

However, God, dead people, someone who we don't meet often or don't know much about can become God for someone.

Thus God is someone who cannot be questioned.

[Reenk Roink]

Not really. It is true that, beyond my own existence as something, I need to make some assumptions. We all do. The fewer assumptions the better though, and the assumptions that science makes are enough, because it works. We know it does, because it yields all these results. If my senses are simply tricking me, then I could never know about it anyway, except through new sensory data, which I couldn't trust to be true.

Assuming magic is simply superfluous and unnecessary.

I guess our paradigms are simply irreconcilable here. I for one cannot accept just a pragmatic explanation ("let's go with it cause it works") for things like science which I am just not endeared to. Religion, on the other hand, I find fascinating and am very endeared to (especially the Abrahamic tradition). Getting me to assume things about the former is hard. I'll point out the problems with inductive reasoning and definitely argue against any kind of scientific realism (I'm a good old fashioned instrumentalist )

Now comes "metaphysical" again. Believing in anything without sufficient evidence is irrational. If there is no evidence for something metaphysical, then it is irrational to believe that something metaphysical exist.

I think we are talking past each other here (probably my fault for not making it very clear). What I am trying to say is that the belief that "beliefs should be supported by empirical evidence" is itself a metaphysical belief that cannot be supported by empirical evidence. This is why I took issue with your definition of rationality.

I accept science because that is the only reliable way to find out about the universe around us.

If you want me to take you seriously when you talk about demonic possessions or whatever, you must provide me with some evidence that devils exist, that they can possess humans, and that they in fact do it.

I brought up demon possession and dissasociative identity disorder as a side remark to the little analogy about religious belief being some sort of mental illness; I'm not actually really too concerned with either. Of course, due to the nearly universal existence of religious experience it seems that religious beliefs will continue to be respected (labeled as neurosis perhaps, but not generally as delusion).

After all, what exactly distinguishes a delusion from what we call reality? Logically, both are very similar. The only difference being the majority of people experience what they think is reality, and a small group of people experience something else.

Simply put however, ignoring demon possesion for a moment, DID itself is a very controversial diagnosis in the psychology community (I learned this the hard way by doing a report and not mentioning the doubts about it's validity ).

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Psychiatry has allowed itself to be guided for too long by religion. Homosexuality is a good case in point. Religion abhorred it, so psychiatry regarded it as a mental disorder. These days many forms of religous mania are regarded as mental disorders, whereas homosexuality is not.Voila. Now extend this principle and you will come to understand my position.

I find it very hard to accept that adult, well educated people would subscribe to some of the fairytales and confused reasoning in the above posts, starting with, but not confined to, the Holy Trinity. It´s quite scary to think that milions of people believe that they have discovered a god and that they know all sorts of arcane things about it, and that their god is the real one as opposed to the myriad of other gods that other believers believe in.

Imagine that you live in a world where millions and millions of people believe that they are Napoleon Bonaparte, that they are the one and only real Bonaparte, and that this time round they are going to win at Waterloo.

I think possessions are unlikely because, within a Christian context, they are uncommon, as are Divine Visions. I still believe in both, I'm just not overly credulous.

I just did. I said out loud "god, if you exist, what are you?". I got no response. I can do it again. There. I agree that to expect an answer from something you don't believe exist would be insane, but then I do not expect an answer. This does, however, not make it impossible for me to ask, which I have done twice now just for you.

If he's not responding because I haven't acknowledged his existence, don't you think that's a little childish of him? I mean, if he answered, then I would acknowledge it. Why should I have to delude myself to believe he exist before he deems me worthy a response? Why should I have to believe before I can believe? That would be insane.

I still think it's way more likely that "he" doesn't answer because "he" doesn't exist, but if he really is so petty and insecure that he needs my validation, why don't you ask him for a definition?

Again, you don't get it. You are, to paraphrase a favourite spiritual director of mine, "confusing what is meant spiritually as bodily.

This brings me back to what I said before, you don't get it. You see nothing beyond the physical, hear nothing beyond the physical. How then, can you possibly see or hear an incorporeal God?

As for yours and PVC's discussion about demon possessions and exorcism, I apologize, but I must call a Poe on this. Are you being serious?

Yes, but I do believe DID is also real. Not withstanding, there is no reason to avoid exorcism and doing so is as arrogant as avoiding cancer treatment.

[AlexanderSextus]

god is a thing that exists outside of this dimension which i have theorized to be the catalyst behind the big bang, i.e. it caused two membrane universes to collide producing a third membrane which is our universe.

other than that, i dont think it does much. maybe it caused that first single celled organism to form on earth, maybe it threw that big rock that killed the dinosaurs, but thats about it. Basically it's like a kid with an ant farm.

"Cool! Look What they did today!" That basically sums it up.

[Aemilius Paulus]

After all the time I talked to TCV in the EB Tavern, I had learned not to touch the topic of religion. Backroomers would do well to learn the same. It is the very definitive of pointless to debate with TCV on religion. No offense or personal attack here, just an observation. We all have things we are not good at debating about, and religion is TCV's. No matter what you say, TCV will always disagree with you on religion, and he will never admit to sharing anything with your arguments. TCV is not looking for a debate, but simply to refute every point thrown at him, no matter the validity of that point.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Psychiatry has allowed itself to be guided for too long by religion. Homosexuality is a good case in point. Religion abhorred it, so psychiatry regarded it as a mental disorder. These days many forms of religous mania are regarded as mental disorders, whereas homosexuality is not.Voila. Now extend this principle and you will come to understand my position.

I find it very hard to accept that adult, well educated people would subscribe to some of the fairytales and confused reasoning in the above posts, starting with, but not confined to, the Holy Trinity. It´s quite scary to think that milions of people believe that they have discovered a god and that they know all sorts of arcane things about it, and that their god is the real one as opposed to the myriad of other gods that other believers believe in.

Imagine that you live in a world where millions and millions of people believe that they are Napoleon Bonaparte, that they are the one and only real Bonaparte, and that this time round they are going to win at Waterloo.

I AM NOT INSANE I AM NAPOLÉON

[Banquo's Ghost]

I AM NOT INSANE I AM NAPOLÉON

I am reminded of the wonderfully moving scene in the film "The Emperor's New Clothes":

The drop-your-popcorn moment in Ian Holm's new film occurs when the Emperor Napoleon stumbles, dethroned and demoralised, into the grounds of a lunatic asylum on the outskirts of Paris. This modest green space is dotted with fruit trees and rose bushes - and between them, a dozen men in cockaded hats, each groping inside his jacket as though he were wishing he'd not had the crevettes. Although Holm's Napoleon is the genuine article - escaped from St Helena, living incognito in France and nursing an ambition to regain the Emperorship - he will never be able to resume his old identity. The world believes that he is dead. The moment he announces himself, he'll be just another five-foot-nothing madman with delusions of grandeur.

Independent

Anyway, we digress.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Which begs for more digressing. Into a real story though.

Diego Maradona went to a Cuban clinic for addicts/mentally ill. At first, he locked himself in his room, for days on end. Too ashamed to get out. The other patients were wondering about him, getting ever more inquisitive. Then one particularly hot day, Diego ventured outside, to the garden. He stumbled upon some other patients, and meekly said, his eyes cast downwards: 'Good afternoon. I am Maradona and...', and was interrupted by another patient: 'Yes, we were wondering about that indeed. Would this one be Maradona or Napoleon?'

[Xiahou]

Someone find Pindar.... or dredge up one of the old threads where he discussed the existence and nature of god.

[Adrian II]

No matter what you say, TCV will always disagree with you on religion, and he will never admit to sharing anything with your arguments. TCV is not looking for a debate, but simply to refute every point thrown at him, no matter the validity of that point.

That is not my impression at all. I have found Philipvs to be a good prize-fighter who gave me a run for my money every time. I enjoy this sort of thing and so does he.

It's just that once in a while I have to draw a line in the sand.

One can not, I repeat can not, profess in one thread to know nothing about God's substance, yet in another thread discuss Gods triple substance and even pretend to know where he sits, i.e. on God's right hand side.

Or was that Christ's left hand side? And where's the Holy Ghost in all this - is it doing the driving? For crying out loud. And to think that millions believe this blatant nonsense.

Enough for today. I need a drink.