The Definition and Existence of God

[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?

[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]

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

[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.

[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.

[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.