The Definition and Existence of God

[Hax]

God is a name given to the unexplainable, both inward and outward.

"God" represents nothing more than our conscience and power of will. That there is an omniscient creature watching/controlling all our moves is incorrect.

All above statements are my opinion and might very well not be the truth. After all, there is no such thing as "The" truth. Truth is a relative concept which differs between people.

[Jolt]

Another question. "Why capitalize while you are speaking about God? Its something so absurd, as if such a God as the Christian Church proposes he exists would enjoy such a vain idolatration.

EDIT: As for the definition I agree with the most for god is "God is a State of Mind"

[Beskar]

Here's a challenge for all theists: define "god". I have yet to come across a rational, coherent definition of that word, so I was wondering if someone could fill in that blank for me.

Ah, a fellow ignostic?

[Aemilius Paulus]

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.

Whoah, whoa! I never said PVC was lacking. No, he and Sarmatian are my role-models and idols here. No, I was speaking of TCV. I never said anything bad about Phillipvs. Read my post more carefully one more time .

Or, it may be that I misunderstood you, as for some reason, your post was not very clear to me.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Another question. "Why capitalize while you are speaking about God? Its something so absurd, as if such a God as the Christian Church proposes he exists would enjoy such a vain idolatration.

I'm not sure, but I heard it's one of the quirks of the English language. Back in more superstitious times it was supposed to reverence God by referring to "Him" rather than "him", and so even when people became less religious it was still the correct use of the language to do so. At least that's what some people say, I'm not sure if that's correct. I find it's helpful anyway, since if you're writing a long sentence about God and another person, you can say "Him" and they'll know you are referring to God without having to mention His name again.

[Beskar]

Because you capitalise a name. That is why it is capitalised. Since the name "God" came applied to their god.. it becomes a name, therefore capitalised.

[Jolt]

Because you capitalise a name. That is why it is capitalised. Since the name "God" came applied to their god.. it becomes a name, therefore capitalised.

Sure you capitalize a name. You don't capitalize a "whatever its called in English".

Here's an example.

"There's Obama! I love >>him<<."
"There's God! I love >>Him<<."

Unless God's Full name is "God He Him His You Yourself Your". Of course, if that's the case, then all those Him's are just one of his many names, and that would make sense.

[Hax]

God is mostly used to denote the Judeo-Christian/Islamic God, as opposed to other gods.

[Jolt]

No I didn't mean the capitalization of "God" but of regular words like "Him" instead of "him".

[Aemilius Paulus]

God is mostly used to denote the Judeo-Christian/Islamic God, as opposed to other gods.

Yet more accurately, it is capitalised when you believe in what you are capitalising . If one does not believe in the deity they are writing about, then one would normally leave out the uppercase letter. Although some will do it out of respect, if they have it.

Ideally though, we are all (Jews, Christians, Muslims) supposed to believe in one, same god, as that is how it was (we all worship the same deity). Now certain people may argue otherwise, although just as many will insist the god is shared.

[Hax]

[QUOTE]
No I didn't mean the capitalization of "God" but of regular words like "Him" instead of "him".[/QUOTE

I don't do this either.

Yet more accurately, it is capitalised when you believe in what you are capitalising . If one does not believe in the deity they are writing about, then one would normally leave out the uppercase letter. Although some will do it out of respect, if they have it.

The thing is, we don't have another word to describe the omniscient Judeo-Christian entity.

[Adrian II]

The thing is, we don't have another word to describe the omniscient Judeo-Christian entity.

Oh yes we do.

[Aemilius Paulus]

The thing is, we don't have another word to describe the omniscient Judeo-Christian entity.

Jehovah or Yahweh?

[Rhyfelwyr]

Hmm giving a definition of God? I'll quote from a Rangers FC-related video I just saw on youtube:

We do not choose, we are chosen
Those that don't understand don't matter
Those who understand need no explanation!
WE ARE THE PEOPLE!

I bet most Rangers fans don't even know what Calvinism is, but it must still be in the mindset.

[Beskar]

What is funny though, when they say "Don't take the Lord's name in vain" when you something like "god damnit".

[Adrian II]

Jehovah or Yahweh?

I think Richard Dawkins gives a far better description of him:

[..] a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.

And he is mincing his words there.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

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.

Two Billion, nearly, more than are atheists.

Anyway, you're misrepresenting my position. You surely know I consider myself fallable, and that I believe in free will. Maybe you should ask why I support the Trinity in the other thread.

God is a name given to the unexplainable, both inward and outward.

"God" represents nothing more than our conscience and power of will. That there is an omniscient creature watching/controlling all our moves is incorrect.

All above statements are my opinion and might very well not be the truth. After all, there is no such thing as "The" truth. Truth is a relative concept which differs between people.

Unless we are talking about Truth, as in the ideal form. This is a given in Christian philosophy and theology, and the consequence is that "real" Truth is approachable but not attainable.

Jehovah or Yahweh?

Well, neither are actual names, nor is "God" or "god".

I think Richard Dawkins gives a far better description of him:

[..] a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.

And he is mincing his words there.

That's a biased description based on accounts written down by men. It conflicts with the other half of the Bible as well, which, of course, you know.

[Adrian II]

Two Billion, nearly, more than are atheists.

Lol, look at the trend. Religion is retreating everywere. In some western countries the critical mass is reached and half the population does not believe in a god, let alone in yours.

That's a biased description based on accounts written down by men. It conflicts with the other half of the Bible as well, which, of course, you know.

There we go again. It's religion a la carte, eh? The bible is said to be god's word, but hey, not all of it. Half of it (which you pick) is god's word and the other half of it is, well, a big mistake really.

Oh, but you make it even better by saying the bible is 'biased's it was written down by men. Oh noes! Was Matthew a Democrat? Did John have an 'agenda?

[Strike For The South]

There we go again. It's religion a la carte, eh? The bible is said to be god's word, but hey, not all of it. Half of it (which you pick) is god's word and the other half of it is, well, a big mistake really.

Oh, but you make it even better by saying the bible is 'biased's it was written down by men. Oh noes! Was Matthew a Democrat? Did John have an 'agenda?

This is probably the biggest problem I have. I was raised to beilive that the bible was the word of God. Which means I can't wear cotton and polyester mix and I have to look up what cloven means.

Alas I'm not smug or self-serving enough to be an atheist and all the cute girls belive in Jesus. I make up for it by not tything and sleeping in.

I remembered when I gave 1$ of my 10$ allowance to the church. Such simpler times.

[Adrian II]

Alas I'm not smug or self-serving enough to be an atheist and all the cute girls belive in Jesus.

Just regard the bible and other religious text as literature, just like Homer or Herodotus. As such they can be a great source of inspiration to anyone, without the hocus pocus about a guy in the sky. Many of these old texts dating from roughly 500 BC tot 500 AD are a sort of exploration of the human condition. They try to establish what it all means that we live, die, love, hate, possess, lose or covet, what power is and how it works, what war, family or the natural seasons are all about, in short: what makes man tick. The Gilgamesj Epic, Homer, Confucius, Buddha, the Old Testament, the Gospel writers all talk about those basic issues. That's why they are still hot today.

[Strike For The South]

Just regard the bible and other religious text as literature, just like Homer or Herodotus. As such they can be a great source of inspiration to anyone, without the hocus pocus about a guy in the sky. Many of these old texts dating from roughly 500 BC tot 500 AD are a sort of exploration of the human condition. They try to establish what it all means that we live, die, love, hate, possess, lose or covet, what power is and how it works, what war, family or the natural seasons are all about, in short: what makes man tick. The Gilgamesj Epic, Homer, Confucius, Buddha, the Old Testament, the Gospel writers all talk about those basic issues. That's why they are still hot today.

So does the backroom

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Lol, look at the trend. Religion is retreating everywere. In some western countries the critical mass is reached and half the population does not believe in a god, let alone in yours.There we go again. It's religion a la carte, eh? The bible is said to be god's word, but hey, not all of it. Half of it (which you pick) is god's word and the other half of it is, well, a big mistake really.

Nope, you know I don't regard the Bible as the Word of God, merely that written down by men, devout Men, but still men.

Straw Man.

[Aemilius Paulus]

I think Richard Dawkins gives a far better description of him:

[..] a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.

And he is mincing his words there.

Eh? A fellow atheist? Good to see that, very few people here seem to be pure atheists.

[Adrian II]

Eh? A fellow atheist? Good to see that, very few people here seem to be pure atheists.

Most atheists don't care for this sort of discussion, unless things become political and believers want to impose their nonsense on others in the name of Jesus or Mohammed or whatever. In my country where only a minority goes to church anymore, there is practically no debate on the principal issue, only on the question of how to deal with the excesses such as rabid imams who want to kill gays or some isolated Christian parents who refuse to have their children vaccinated against poliomyelitis or something.

Don't worry, we're mopping them up as I speak.

[Azathoth]

"All I say is that I think it is damned unlikely that anything like a central cosmic will, a spirit world, or an eternal survival of personality exist. They are the most preposterous and unjustified of all the guesses which can be made about the universe, and I am not enough of a hair-splitter to pretend that I don't regard them as arrant and negligible moonshine."

[Louis VI the Fat]

Eh? A fellow atheist? Good to see that, very few people here seem to be pure atheists.

I don't even not believe in god enough to consider myself an atheist.


I am just not in a war mode right now - it's been ages since I read Richard Dawkins.

Unlike Adrian, who (re-?)read him recently.

[LittleGrizzly]

I get easily scared away by words such as 'metaphysical'...

My position is on the matter is fairly basic, I see an all powerful creature that is all knowing and exsists in both the past and the present and can do anything with just a thought as completely unrealistic...

I see anything less as an extremely advanced creature...

So by my own logic there is no God, this argument isn't very convincing though so I don't go around boring people with it...

[Rhyfelwyr]

[..] a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.

And he is mincing his words there.

A part from the first and last bits, that's all quite true.

But who says we deserve better? Strangely you mention all these temporal sufferings and not hell, yet these are only a shadow of what we deserve. Throughout the OT, such things are generally given as a display of God's attributes for the good of Israel, or the sad but necessary means of bringing a people to the promised land in a fallen world.

Dawkins obviously regards himself as a good, moral guy. Well, I disagree - for Dakwins, myself, and the rest of humanity. I think he will find his own standards lacking when put to more thorough observation.

[LittleGrizzly]

But who says we deserve better?

We don't cause pain to 'lower' beings than ourselves*, we use them practically to our benefit but we do not cause them unnessecary pain. Even if a dog has killed a little girl or something horrific if we are able to do so we will take down the dog in a non lethal manner.

So collectively we think animals deserve better, and we are much more moral than the animals**

So humans are more merciful and forgiving than God, by the sounds of it yes we deserve better...

*Im thinking collectively and legally...

** In that we will fight our natural instincts if its the wrong thing to do (steal food from a baby) whereas an animal would mostly (if not... other stuff )

[Azathoth]

We don't "deserve" anything. It's simply a matter of preference.