What would count as proof of God

[Politesse]

As soon as you can distinguish your concept from a description of something that doesn't exist, there's necessarily some testable description that we can compare against what we have observed of reality.

Yes. So what is a god?

 

[bilby]

As soon as you can distinguish your concept from a description of something that doesn't exist, there's necessarily some testable description that we can compare against what we have observed of reality.

Yes. So what is a god?

The most common definitions are:

1) A being that influences the lives of humans, determining who is successful and who is not

2) A being that can be lobbied to intervene in the lives of humans (as in 1, above) by acts of prayer

3) A being that manages the continuing existence of humans after the death of their physical bodies. Lobbying for the benefit of deceased relatives and friends may be possible (as in 2, above); This lobbying may or may not be offset by punishment or reward for things done while alive

4) A being that designed and/or created and/or sustains all of the reality we observe (and possibly some that we don't, such as the afterlife conditions applicable to 3, above)

5) A being that designed and/or created and/or sustains a small fraction of the reality we observe, and that intervenes to the benefit or detriment of people who interact with that small fraction of reality (eg local gods of specific locations such as springs, mountains, lakes, rivers, etc.; Gods of larger phenomena such as the oceans and seas, the weather, fire, etc.; And gods of specific activities such as patron gods of fishermen, smiths, gamblers, etc.)

In all of the above cases, the being is distinguishable from a natural phenomenon by the ability to exert its own will to influence something, so that that thing sometimes acts in a way that couldn't have been predicted solely by the application of universal physical principles.

I think that gods fitting these descriptions cover the claims of the vast majority of religions and of religious believers; And are demonstrably impossible. However this list is just thrown together off the top of my head, so if you think I have missed something important or widely believed, I would be grateful if you would let me know.

ETA: Reviewing my post, I wonder whether all of the above could be simply summarised by saying "a non-biological guiding intelligence".

 

[Elixir]

I don’t see those beings as distinguishable from natural phenomena as long as there’s the “works in mysterious ways” fallback.
Nor do I think they are “proven impossible” as much as they are “unprovable” - as in unfalsifiable.
But these are just semantic hairs to split over shades of the meaning of “useless”.

 

[Politesse]

As soon as you can distinguish your concept from a description of something that doesn't exist, there's necessarily some testable description that we can compare against what we have observed of reality.

Yes. So what is a god?

The most common definitions are:

1) A being that influences the lives of humans, determining who is successful and who is not

2) A being that can be lobbied to intervene in the lives of humans (as in 1, above) by acts of prayer

3) A being that manages the continuing existence of humans after the death of their physical bodies. Lobbying for the benefit of deceased relatives and friends may be possible (as in 2, above); This lobbying may or may not be offset by punishment or reward for things done while alive

4) A being that designed and/or created and/or sustains all of the reality we observe (and possibly some that we don't, such as the afterlife conditions applicable to 3, above)

5) A being that designed and/or created and/or sustains a small fraction of the reality we observe, and that intervenes to the benefit or detriment of people who interact with that small fraction of reality (eg local gods of specific locations such as springs, mountains, lakes, rivers, etc.; Gods of larger phenomena such as the oceans and seas, the weather, fire, etc.; And gods of specific activities such as patron gods of fishermen, smiths, gamblers, etc.)

In all of the above cases, the being is distinguishable from a natural phenomenon by the ability to exert its own will to influence something, so that that thing sometimes acts in a way that couldn't have been predicted solely by the application of universal physical principles.

I think that gods fitting these descriptions cover the claims of the vast majority of religions and of religious believers; And are demonstrably impossible. However this list is just thrown together off the top of my head, so if you think I have missed something important or widely believed, I would be grateful if you would let me know.

ETA: Reviewing my post, I wonder whether all of the above could be simply summarised by saying "a non-biological guiding intelligence".

What is the basis for these definitions?

 

[bilby]

I don’t see those beings as distinguishable from natural phenomena as long as there’s the “works in mysterious ways” fallback.

If 'natural phenomenon' + 'god' = 'natural phenomenon' then 'god' = 0

'Mysterious ways' is just another way of saying 'indistinguishable from non-existent'

Nor do I think they are “proven impossible” as much as they are “unprovable” - as in unfalsifiable.

They were theoretically impossible under the Standard Model of Particle Physics, until we built the LHC and demonstrated that no further unknown forces can exist at scales and energies relevant to human affairs. Now they are demonstrated to be impossible.

But these are just semantic hairs to split over shades of the meaning of “useless”.

Well, the first one is. The second is just an understandable ignorance of the state of the art in the fairly obscure realm of quantum physics. Nobody has both the time and the interest to keep up with every field of scientific study, so it's no shame to be unaware that this has been achieved, particularly as it's quite a counterintuitive result.

 

[bilby]

As soon as you can distinguish your concept from a description of something that doesn't exist, there's necessarily some testable description that we can compare against what we have observed of reality.

Yes. So what is a god?

The most common definitions are:

1) A being that influences the lives of humans, determining who is successful and who is not

2) A being that can be lobbied to intervene in the lives of humans (as in 1, above) by acts of prayer

3) A being that manages the continuing existence of humans after the death of their physical bodies. Lobbying for the benefit of deceased relatives and friends may be possible (as in 2, above); This lobbying may or may not be offset by punishment or reward for things done while alive

4) A being that designed and/or created and/or sustains all of the reality we observe (and possibly some that we don't, such as the afterlife conditions applicable to 3, above)

5) A being that designed and/or created and/or sustains a small fraction of the reality we observe, and that intervenes to the benefit or detriment of people who interact with that small fraction of reality (eg local gods of specific locations such as springs, mountains, lakes, rivers, etc.; Gods of larger phenomena such as the oceans and seas, the weather, fire, etc.; And gods of specific activities such as patron gods of fishermen, smiths, gamblers, etc.)

In all of the above cases, the being is distinguishable from a natural phenomenon by the ability to exert its own will to influence something, so that that thing sometimes acts in a way that couldn't have been predicted solely by the application of universal physical principles.

I think that gods fitting these descriptions cover the claims of the vast majority of religions and of religious believers; And are demonstrably impossible. However this list is just thrown together off the top of my head, so if you think I have missed something important or widely believed, I would be grateful if you would let me know.

ETA: Reviewing my post, I wonder whether all of the above could be simply summarised by saying "a non-biological guiding intelligence".

What is the basis for these definitions?

Observation of humans, including listening to and reading their comments about their religions and beliefs.

 

[Copernicus]

This is not exclusively a lexical trait of the word 'god'. Every word in a language is ambiguous to some degree and has vague semantic edges. Your demand for some clarification on the meaning of 'god' in a conversational context is reasonable, but it is also reasonable for other words. Meanings shift, grow appendages, split into new words, expand, and diminish.

I am more than aware of this, and I do not think that it contradicts my point. Indeed, I think it is funny that you are accusing another person of rhetorical dodging, while yourself engaging in a canard as ancient as "well, what does anything mean, really?..."

Straw man. The word 'god' carries plenty of meaning. Ambiguity and vagueness are well-recognized concepts in the field of lexicology. All I said was that word meanings are complex and that the word 'god' is particularly complex because of its ubiquitous usage across so many languages and cultures. Pointing that out is not a rhetorical dodge, and you know it. On the other hand, claiming that the meaning of 'god' is ineffable is a rhetorical dodge intended to allow the claimant to use the word without the responsibility of having to describe its usage.

Any thought, emotion, or feeling that we have can be named and discussed linguistically.

You are confused about effability if you think it means the ability to attach words to something at all. Of course one can attempt to describe a complex topic in words; the question is whether, say, the phrase "it's because of muons" fully captures the notion you're trying to get across. If the question is merely "can one describe something with a word", there is no such thing as an ineffable perception of God, as your very low bar is met the second one says "it is God".

It is my longstanding position that language does not fully capture the meaning it conveys. Any particular utterance is meaningless without shared experiences and a rhetorical context to provide clues to the meaning. IOW, "it's because of muons" only means something if you can imagine a context to render it meaningful. The words in the expression evoke memory of experiences that allow you to imagine different contexts in which it could be uniquely meaningful in those contexts. (See Michael J Reddy's  Conduit metaphor or George Lakoff's tour de force  Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things.) As I said in my last post, the concept of ineffability is legitimate and well-understood. That doesn't mean it actually plays any legitimate role in the description of the meaning of the commonly used word 'god'. Gods have well-understood attributes, but the ineffability defense only comes up when people are confronted with the implausible and contradictory aspects of those attributes. It is the get-out-of-jail-free card that almost all theists carry up their sleeves.

 

[Elixir]

If 'natural phenomenon' + 'god' = 'natural phenomenon' then 'god' = 0

The presumption is that the complete set of natural phenomena that exist is unknowable to us. The god of the gaps will live forever, because we can never measure the difference between natural phenomena and natural phenomena plus god.

Just going over some
Compartmentization 101 exercises.

 

[Jarhyn]

If 'natural phenomenon' + 'god' = 'natural phenomenon' then 'god' = 0

The presumption is that the complete set of natural phenomena that exist is unknowable to us. The god of the gaps will live forever, because we can never measure the difference between natural phenomena and natural phenomena plus god.

Just going over some
Compartmentization 101 exercises.

Indeed, which is why I think it's important to answer the "god of the gaps" with sensible responses. We can absolutely ascertain when and if new particles come and go.

I find it's much more valuable to be able to pick up the whole existence of the gaps, and hold up truths that are inconvenient for their "god" no matter which "gaps" they try to hide them in.

Such as the fact that they can be assholes.

As to proof that they could offer me that such a potential asshole actually exists, I've already discussed that: make some new massive particles appear; create some gravity waves from an empty point in nearby space; send a pigeon to do put a hit on Putin, and tell us all what it's going to do imminently before it happens; describe the complete theory of our universal operation in a testable manner.

 

[Politesse]

Gods have well-understood attributes

News to me, and as I respect your linguistic credentials, I hope you will consider how long I've been studying religious issues when I say: I would have to be convinced with fairly rigorous evidence that theists all mean the same set of things by "God" even within a particular tradition let alone across all of the theistic religions.

 

[steve_bank]

If not an exercise in rhetoric, what is debate on existence of a god?

 

[Politesse]

What is the basis for these definitions?

Observation of humans, including listening to and reading their comments about their religions and beliefs.

Ah. Anecdote.

 

[Politesse]

If not an exercise in rhetoric, what is debate on existence of a god?

Sound and fury signifying nothing?

 

[Copernicus]

Gods have well-understood attributes

News to me, and as I respect your linguistic credentials, I hope you will consider how long I've been studying religious issues when I say: I would have to be convinced with fairly rigorous evidence that theists all mean the same set of things by "God" even within a particular tradition let alone across all of the theistic religions.

I never said that they did all mean the same set of things. In fact, I said the opposite when I wrote this paragraph (with boldface emphasis added):

This is not exclusively a lexical trait of the word 'god'. Every word in a language is ambiguous to some degree and has vague semantic edges. Your demand for some clarification on the meaning of 'god' in a conversational context is reasonable, but it is also reasonable for other words. Meanings shift, grow appendages, split into new words, expand, and diminish. Theistic religions are ubiquitous, so the usage of words like 'god' and 'prayer' can vary considerably. However, it is a complete dodge to insist that meanings can't be agreed on or pinned down. There are commonalities to usage that can be expressed, and that is why every dictionary provides definitions of 'god' and encyclopedias provide rich descriptions of how various religious groups use the word. You can certainly use the ambiguity and vagueness inherent in words to obfuscate their meaning, but you don't get a pass for retreating into ineffability when it is obviously just a tactic to avoid admitting the obvious--that a concept is logically and empirically indefensible.

Meaning has an experiential basis, and we all have different experiences that we associate with words. Dictionaries create definitions to identify, record, and standardize the commonalities. That is true for all words, not just the common noun 'god' and the proper name 'God'.

 

[Jarhyn]

Gods have well-understood attributes

News to me, and as I respect your linguistic credentials, I hope you will consider how long I've been studying religious issues when I say: I would have to be convinced with fairly rigorous evidence that theists all mean the same set of things by "God" even within a particular tradition let alone across all of the theistic religions.

I never said that they did all mean the same set of things. In fact, I said the opposite when I wrote this paragraph (with boldface emphasis added):

This is not exclusively a lexical trait of the word 'god'. Every word in a language is ambiguous to some degree and has vague semantic edges. Your demand for some clarification on the meaning of 'god' in a conversational context is reasonable, but it is also reasonable for other words. Meanings shift, grow appendages, split into new words, expand, and diminish. Theistic religions are ubiquitous, so the usage of words like 'god' and 'prayer' can vary considerably. However, it is a complete dodge to insist that meanings can't be agreed on or pinned down. There are commonalities to usage that can be expressed, and that is why every dictionary provides definitions of 'god' and encyclopedias provide rich descriptions of how various religious groups use the word. You can certainly use the ambiguity and vagueness inherent in words to obfuscate their meaning, but you don't get a pass for retreating into ineffability when it is obviously just a tactic to avoid admitting the obvious--that a concept is logically and empirically indefensible.

Meaning has an experiential basis, and we all have different experiences that we associate with words. Dictionaries create definitions to identify, record, and standardize the commonalities. That is true for all words, not just the common noun 'god' and the proper name 'God'.

I'll note, some people have a tendency to use words not because of the common meaning but because in all of language, no other word happens to be closer than the one used to the idea intended, and they just kind of use it that way in the hopes others can figure it out.

It is more true for "god" and "religion" than any other words.

As a result, when you discuss such topics, you have to be specific about what it is you are assigning "truth values of properties" to.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

To be a god it would have to recognize itself as a god within the context of human experience. So it would wish to be worshipped and enjoy being worshipped by religious humans, therefore influencing human behavior. If it doesn't possess these attributes then it cannot be a god, even if it creates universes and does all manner of unexplainable things. It must possess a human connection.

Romans venerated the unknown god. How does that work?

 

[Jarhyn]

To be a god it would have to recognize itself as a god within the context of human experience. So it would wish to be worshipped and enjoy being worshipped by religious humans, therefore influencing human behavior. If it doesn't possess these attributes then it cannot be a god, even if it creates universes and does all manner of unexplainable things. It must possess a human connection.

Romans venerated the unknown god. How does that work?

Not necessarily. Observe: I recognize I am "god" within the context of dwarf experience yet I do not wish to be worshipped by religious dwarves, nor significantly impact Dwarven behavior. I do occasionally go on a tear moonlighting as a fortress administrator or as a specific individual, but they don't even know I exist.

Even so, I'm what we, among us, would generally consider the "god" of their universe, such as it is.

I think you are assigning a lot "possible" elements as "necessary" ones.

 

[bilby]

What is the basis for these definitions?

Observation of humans, including listening to and reading their comments about their religions and beliefs.

Ah. Anecdote.

Observation isn't anecdote.

People have told me that these are their definitions of gods; When studying what people believe, it's rather difficult to determine without both listening to their claims, and observing their actions.

But regardless of my basis for them, what (if anything) about my definitions do you disagree with, and why?

As I already said, I would also welcome any additions you have.

 

[Copernicus]

What is the basis for these definitions?

Observation of humans, including listening to and reading their comments about their religions and beliefs.

Ah. Anecdote.

Observation isn't anecdote.

People have told me that these are their definitions of gods; When studying what people believe, it's rather difficult to determine without both listening to their claims, and observing their actions.

But regardless of my basis for them, what (if anything) about my definitions do you disagree with, and why?

As I already said, I would also welcome any additions you have.

It is standard practice in lexicography for those who construct definitions to make extensive use of citations to back up their candidates for word meanings. When I worked as a consultant for Random House dictionary, we used standard forms for collecting citations, which were vetted and debated by the professional lexicographers that they employed. I and another linguistic consultant were supplied with a stack of these forms and asked to compile a list of linguistic terms and proposed definitions. We needed always to cite passages from published materials to qualify a term for inclusion in their database.

 

[bilby]

What is the basis for these definitions?

Observation of humans, including listening to and reading their comments about their religions and beliefs.

Ah. Anecdote.

Observation isn't anecdote.

People have told me that these are their definitions of gods; When studying what people believe, it's rather difficult to determine without both listening to their claims, and observing their actions.

But regardless of my basis for them, what (if anything) about my definitions do you disagree with, and why?

As I already said, I would also welcome any additions you have.

It is standard practice in lexicography for those who construct definitions to make extensive use of citations to back up their candidates for word meanings. When I worked as a consultant for Random House dictionary, we used standard forms for collecting citations, which were vetted and debated by the professional lexicographers that they employed. I and another linguistic consultant were supplied with a stack of these forms and asked to compile a list of linguistic terms and proposed definitions. We needed always to cite passages from published materials to qualify a term for inclusion in their database.

I shall remember that if I am ever asked to compile a dictionary, or embark upon a career in lexicography.

On Internet discussion boards, it is standard practice to discuss stuff. I was asked "So, what is a god?", and I responded with five definitions that I believe cover the most commonly held positions on that question.

I asked for any further definitions that anyone thinks I should have included; I have since asked for criticism of my definitions, which I would welcome as they are intended as a starting point for discussion.

I was asked for an opinion. I presented my opinion, and requested criticism and discussion of it.

But instead, all I am getting is questioning about my sources. Which might be appropriate if I were trying to declare my position to be unassailably correct, or if I was employed to compile definitions, or if I were a student in an English class; But is totally inappropriate as an alternative to the substantive discussion of these suggestions on a forum thread started for that purpose.

If anyone here thinks my definitions are incomplete, uncommon, or just plain wrong, then I want to know it, and I would like to know the reasons that they think that.

I am here to learn. I am here to have fun. I am not here to get grilled about how I came to understand the meanings of common words in a language I have been using (in a totally non-professional capacity) for half a century. I know them in the same way that most people know what words mean - from experience of hearing and reading them in a wide range of contexts, and from seeking clarification from other English speakers and/or reference works such as dictionaries.

The question "What is the basis for these definitions?" appears to me to be an attempt to avoid discussing their validity (or otherwise). What difference does it make whether they came from my life experience, or from the OED website, or from divine inspiration?

I am not paid for my time here; I don't need to meet any professional standard. And insisting that I should strikes me as a diversionary tactic.