The Definition and Existence of 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]

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".

[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.