Results 1 to 30 of 106

Thread: The Definition and Existence of God

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    Philologist Senior Member ajaxfetish's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    2,132

    Default Re: Theological Debate.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Celtic Viking View Post
    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

    "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

  2. #2
    Involuntary Gaesatae Member The Celtic Viking's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    In the heart of Hyperborea
    Posts
    2,962

    Default Re: Theological Debate.

    Quote Originally Posted by ajaxfetish View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by ajaxfetish View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by ajaxfetish View Post
    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.
    Last edited by The Celtic Viking; 09-09-2009 at 08:15.

  3. #3
    Senior Member Senior Member Beefy187's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Tokyo
    Posts
    6,383
    Blog Entries
    15

    Default Re: The Definition and Existence of God

    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.


    Quote Originally Posted by Beskar View Post
    Beefy, you are a silly moo moo at times, aren't you?

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO