Define God Thread

[Speakpigeon]

A good use for medieval arguments for God would be to show how logic is a great pile of shit when it names indemonstrable things in the premises and yet still draws a conclusion. But I guess they seem impressive to certain sorts of mind -- the kind that will confuse language as a correlate of reality such that, if you're precise enough with it, it will work similarly to mathematics and so you may conjure up conceptions or "models" of shit that does not exist.

The reason mathematics gets pulled in, to draw analogies from, is to appear falsely to have cleared some of the obscurity because math gives people a superficial sense of definiteness. But whatever definiteness it has does not cross over from the "perfect [conceptual] realm" of mathematics to the word-based arguments for God. No one can conceive either a perfect being or a perfect circle. Even if anyone could (or if we allowed human limits are irrelevant), that doesn't make the named Nothing exist except as a mere conception. So the talk of "perfect" and "maximally great" is just noises.

We can conceive of a circle. That is, a perfect circle. What we seem unable to do it to imagine one.

You said it yourself, nothingness is a mere conception. So, we can conceive of it. What we cannot do is imagine it.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

Sure, were not perfect, I already admitted to that. We're not God.

I thought we were discussing my definition but clearly you prefer the route of the derail.

Can you or can you not fault this idea that a perfect God could provide us with the knowledge that he is the one and only perfect being?

You haven't denied that so I take it you concede the point.

It's a meaningless definition. You might as well say that God is the most flargiest of beings. It's gafloon is the sptoptfibliest in the galaxy. Just because you can find the word "perfect" in the dictionary doesn't mean it's applicable in this context.

Not, only is it meaningless, but self-contradictory. Which I showed.

The point of definitions is to help clarify what words mean. Saying that God is perfect adds no clarification.

A being, a little bit better than us could tell us they're perfect, and we'd be unable to judge whether they it was true or not.

Yes, we're not perfect, we already know that. Can we move on?

That's not what I said. I said that we have no way of knowing or evaluating if God is perfect. So why say that God is perfect? Why believe that God is perfect? Why describe something with a property nobody can know it has? Isn't that the definition of just talking shit?

Or to put it another way. Why do you describe God as perfect, even if you know that you could impossibly know this?

At best it would be a baseless assumption.

Apparently, you are still missing the point. And I have to say I suspected precisely that.
's all about the difference between knowledge and belief, which you seem to prefer to ignore. I said, if there is a perfect God, he could impart us with the knowledge that he is a perfect being. I didn't say he could impart us with the belief he is a perfect being. Knowledge is knowledge. It's not belief. If God provides us with knowledge then we have it. Or do we have now to go the route of the dictionary? So, not only your logic is lacking but your vocabulary is deficient.

Why believe something that is unknowable? A person who is able to believe things nobody can know is untrustworthy. We can ignore every thing that person says because we know that their criteria for belief is worthless.

We can also go the logical route. Perfection is something that changes depending on the needs of the person doing the judging. People's needs are different. That means that the perfect being needs to be at least two different types of perfection at once. Most likely a near infinite amount of perfections. Therefore it's a paradox. A perfect being cannot exist. So we know for a fact that God cannot be perfect.

What is not logical in your so-called logical route here is your assertion that perfection changes depending on people. You're free to believe this but, please, don't pretend it's somehow logical to assume so. And I certainly don't.

Ok, I guess it's clear to me you're not prepared to have anything like a logical argument about my definition.
EB
EB

Yes, perfection changes depending who is assessing... obviously. It's a subjective quality. What is your argument for that it doesn't?

As to your "answer". It's just smoke and mirrors. The problem is that theists have been doing this for thousands of years. They're old arguments and we've had plenty of time to give them thought. Theists keep repeating them. Doesn't make it smart answers.

Derail.

My definition is a proper reply to the OP.

I did not claim knowledge or usefulness.

I don't know why you insist on this irrelevant line of arguing.

You sense of logic seems faulty to me so there's no point arguing with you.

And I already provided an answer wherever an answer was called for.
EB

 

[DrZoidberg]

Derail.

My definition is a proper reply to the OP.

I did not claim knowledge or usefulness.

I don't know why you insist on this irrelevant line of arguing.

You sense of logic seems faulty to me so there's no point arguing with you.

And I already provided an answer wherever an answer was called for.
EB

I think the goal of a definition should be useful. If it doesn't elucidate the word it's defining then it's actually just making the word harder to understand. Which is the opposite of what a definition should be doing.

Or did you mean... "ha ha look at the stupid theists and their stupid definitions"? Which may be entertaining. But will hardly help us understand wtf theists are on about.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Derail.

My definition is a proper reply to the OP.

I did not claim knowledge or usefulness.

I don't know why you insist on this irrelevant line of arguing.

You sense of logic seems faulty to me so there's no point arguing with you.

And I already provided an answer wherever an answer was called for.
EB

I think the goal of a definition should be useful.

As I said before, you seem to have a very prescriptive orientation. A definition is "the statement of the meaning of a word".

So I would certainly agree that a definition can be clear or unclear, correct or incorrect, etc. As to usefulness, however, it's all in the definition of the word "definition". If a definition is clear and correct, you cannot reasonably complain that it is not useful unless you are prepared to offer a whole new principle to replace the principle of providing definitions in dictionaries.

So maybe you could try to argue that my definition is not correct or unclear but then you would have to suggest how to improve it, which it seems to me is not really what you mean to achieve.

You could also try to argue that my definition is circular or contradictory. However, it's easy to do that when the definition is indeed circular or contradictory and mine is clearly not circular or contradictory.

The last bit you can try to criticise is whether the terms used in the definition seem to refer to anything. This is one of the arguments used by various posters, specifically that the word "perfect" I used does not mean anything and could not refer to anything. I responded to this in my piece about the mathematical sense of perfection in reply to K.'s post about fractals. So, in effect, my argument is that a claim that perfection is a nonsensical notion would be a claim that the whole of mathematics is a nonsensical activity. So, while I'm open to the idea that perfection is somehow nonsensical, I have as yet to see any compelling argument to that effect.

If it doesn't elucidate the word it's defining then it's actually just making the word harder to understand. Which is the opposite of what a definition should be doing.

So you would have to show how my definition is faulty in this respect. Apparently, you think you already have but no, that's not the case.

Or did you mean... "ha ha look at the stupid theists and their stupid definitions"? Which may be entertaining. But will hardly help us understand wtf theists are on about.

I provided my best guess as to what the word 'God' really means. It's a somewhat tricky business because there are conflicted notions of God so I whittled it down to what is both essential and logically possible, and yet still reasonable. I think my definition is good in that it captures the essential meaning religious people put in the word 'God', at least in monotheistic religions obviously, and that it seems to me to be logically consistent.
EB

 

[DrZoidberg]

If it doesn't elucidate the word it's defining then it's actually just making the word harder to understand. Which is the opposite of what a definition should be doing.

So you would have to show how my definition is faulty in this respect. Apparently, you think you already have but no, that's not the case.

Yes, I do. So I think this is as far as we'll get.

Or did you mean... "ha ha look at the stupid theists and their stupid definitions"? Which may be entertaining. But will hardly help us understand wtf theists are on about.

I provided my best guess as to what the word 'God' really means. It's a somewhat tricky business because there are conflicted notions of God so I whittled it down to what is both essential and logically possible, and yet still reasonable. I think my definition is good in that it captures the essential meaning religious people put in the word 'God', at least in monotheistic religions obviously, and that it seems to me to be logically consistent.
EB

I'm sorry, but long strings of hyperbole isn't much of an explanation. Which is all "the most perfect", "the greatest" is. Theists often try to use long words to befuddle the listener. Doesn't make it a smart argument.

On the topic of reasonableness, self contradicting statements are not logically sound. Christian theology is full of broken logic.

 

[Speakpigeon]

So you would have to show how my definition is faulty in this respect. Apparently, you think you already have but no, that's not the case.

Yes, I do. So I think this is as far as we'll get.

Or did you mean... "ha ha look at the stupid theists and their stupid definitions"? Which may be entertaining. But will hardly help us understand wtf theists are on about.

I provided my best guess as to what the word 'God' really means. It's a somewhat tricky business because there are conflicted notions of God so I whittled it down to what is both essential and logically possible, and yet still reasonable. I think my definition is good in that it captures the essential meaning religious people put in the word 'God', at least in monotheistic religions obviously, and that it seems to me to be logically consistent.
EB

I'm sorry, but long strings of hyperbole isn't much of an explanation. Which is all "the most perfect", "the greatest" is. Theists often try to use long words to befuddle the listener. Doesn't make it a smart argument.

On the topic of reasonableness, self contradicting statements are not logically sound. Christian theology is full of broken logic.

Derail.
EB

 

[DrZoidberg]

Yes, I do. So I think this is as far as we'll get.

Or did you mean... "ha ha look at the stupid theists and their stupid definitions"? Which may be entertaining. But will hardly help us understand wtf theists are on about.

I provided my best guess as to what the word 'God' really means. It's a somewhat tricky business because there are conflicted notions of God so I whittled it down to what is both essential and logically possible, and yet still reasonable. I think my definition is good in that it captures the essential meaning religious people put in the word 'God', at least in monotheistic religions obviously, and that it seems to me to be logically consistent.
EB

I'm sorry, but long strings of hyperbole isn't much of an explanation. Which is all "the most perfect", "the greatest" is. Theists often try to use long words to befuddle the listener. Doesn't make it a smart argument.

On the topic of reasonableness, self contradicting statements are not logically sound. Christian theology is full of broken logic.

Derail.
EB

It's really not. This thread is about the definition of God. If your definition is just nonsense, then you're not defining God. Hence not doing what the OP is about.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Yes, I do. So I think this is as far as we'll get.

Or did you mean... "ha ha look at the stupid theists and their stupid definitions"? Which may be entertaining. But will hardly help us understand wtf theists are on about.

I provided my best guess as to what the word 'God' really means. It's a somewhat tricky business because there are conflicted notions of God so I whittled it down to what is both essential and logically possible, and yet still reasonable. I think my definition is good in that it captures the essential meaning religious people put in the word 'God', at least in monotheistic religions obviously, and that it seems to me to be logically consistent.
EB

I'm sorry, but long strings of hyperbole isn't much of an explanation. Which is all "the most perfect", "the greatest" is. Theists often try to use long words to befuddle the listener. Doesn't make it a smart argument.

On the topic of reasonableness, self contradicting statements are not logically sound. Christian theology is full of broken logic.

Derail.
EB

It's really not. This thread is about the definition of God. If your definition is just nonsense, then you're not defining God. Hence not doing what the OP is about.

And it's just your opinion that my definition is nonsense. I disagree and you haven't provided any valid argument. You obviously think you did, but I explained why your argument didn't work, and then you preferred to ignore my point. How interesting it is to do that is beyond me.
EB

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

William of Okham claimed that God was so beyond our capabilities of understanding we could not really know anything about God, except what we learned from revelation. Thus God cannot truly be defined. To define God, God would have to be logically definable. But if God is said to be by definition beyond any possible logical understanding, God cannot be defined except to a limited extent that must in theory be less than accurate.

But what do we do when the supposed revelation leads to contradictions and obvious false mythology?

 

[Keith&Co.]

But what do we do when the supposed revelation leads to contradictions and obvious false mythology?

Blame the people who point out the contradictions, clearly.

 

[Speakpigeon]

William of Okham claimed that God was so beyond our capabilities of understanding we could not really know anything about God, except what we learned from revelation. Thus God cannot truly be defined. To define God, God would have to be logically definable. But if God is said to be by definition beyond any possible logical understanding, God cannot be defined except to a limited extent that must in theory be less than accurate.

But what do we do when the supposed revelation leads to contradictions and obvious false mythology?

You're missing the point that definitions do not define objects. They define words and they do it by stating their meaning. Meaning is really what people mean when they use words. So we're here talking about what people mean when they use the word "God". Which makes your comment above rather irrelevant. In effect, no thing can be properly defined. This is not something specific to God. The best we can do using definitions is to explain what we mean and what we mean only belong to us, it doesn't belong to the thing itself.
EB

 

[Kharakov]

Define an ice cold beer. Easy peasy, unless you're dealing with someone who is attempting to obfuscate what an ice cold beer is.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

William of Okham claimed that God was so beyond our capabilities of understanding we could not really know anything about God, except what we learned from revelation. Thus God cannot truly be defined. To define God, God would have to be logically definable. But if God is said to be by definition beyond any possible logical understanding, God cannot be defined except to a limited extent that must in theory be less than accurate.

But what do we do when the supposed revelation leads to contradictions and obvious false mythology?

You're missing the point that definitions do not define objects. They define words and they do it by stating their meaning. Meaning is really what people mean when they use words. So we're here talking about what people mean when they use the word "God". Which makes your comment above rather irrelevant. In effect, no thing can be properly defined. This is not something specific to God. The best we can do using definitions is to explain what we mean and what we mean only belong to us, it doesn't belong to the thing itself.
EB

Via negativa. An old concept. God is so beyond our ability to understand him, we can only mention things God is not.

Defining God exactly then is impossible for one who holds that position. The point of all of this is to make a point of God's being incomprehensible to mere mortals. You are missing the point, it is an old idea that God cannot be defined by his own nature. It's not a matter of mere words. Of course for Chrsitians we have supposed revelation that make claims. Which is indeed a definition of a sort. and of course, these alleged revelations have their own contradictions and problems. And no, Christians are not arguing about words, but supposed facts revealed by revelation.

Of course on the other hand, we have natural religion, the idea that from basic facts we can logically derive the fact God exists. An old idea that also fails when one tries to apply that idea to the logical or mythological problems of God.

 

[Kharakov]

Via negativa. An old concept. God is so beyond our ability to understand him, we can only mention things God is not.

Existent?

 

[bilby]

You're missing the point that definitions do not define objects. They define words and they do it by stating their meaning. Meaning is really what people mean when they use words. So we're here talking about what people mean when they use the word "God". Which makes your comment above rather irrelevant. In effect, no thing can be properly defined. This is not something specific to God. The best we can do using definitions is to explain what we mean and what we mean only belong to us, it doesn't belong to the thing itself.
EB

Via negativa. An old concept. God is so beyond our ability to understand him, we can only mention things God is not.

Defining God exactly then is impossible for one who holds that position. The point of all of this is to make a point of God's being incomprehensible to mere mortals. You are missing the point, it is an old idea that God cannot be defined by his own nature. It's not a matter of mere words. Of course for Chrsitians we have supposed revelation that make claims. Which is indeed a definition of a sort. and of course, these alleged revelations have their own contradictions and problems. And no, Christians are not arguing about words, but supposed facts revealed by revelation.

Of course on the other hand, we have natural religion, the idea that from basic facts we can logically derive the fact God exists. An old idea that also fails when one tries to apply that idea to the logical or mythological problems of God.

So if God is incomprehensible, where does that leave the teachings of the church(es) and the text of the Bible? Either these things are the incomprehensible word of God, in which case, why bother with them; or they are the interpretations, by other men, of things that those men cannot possibly have understood, in which case, why bother with them.

If we accept this concept, then religion becomes futile. A God that cannot be understood is indistinguishable, for all practical purposes, from a God that doesn't exist at all.

 

[Kharakov]

If anyone cares, and I most certainly do not, the point of giving individual definitions of God is so that people can have their beliefs critiqued. If they post nebulous definitions, the definitions can be refined. If the refined definitions are inconsistent, or contain premises that are incorrect, then the person can learn that what they think is God cannot possibly exist, and they have to revise their beliefs.

Tri-omni God is obviously a product of brain damage, which might be deliberate.


I define "my" God as a creation of my brain, like me, except it appears to have more control over my brain's activity than I do at times (of course, maybe that's just rogue neurons, right?). Of course I'd like it to be more, but it's just a creation of my brain, nothing more, nothing less. I doubt a real God would want to interact with humans... that's just weird, and kind of pointless.

Show

It's willing to deceive me, with external cohorts (Christians who have been utterly defeated by their brain's God, and have become useless believers who vote as brain Gods desire) who are willing to create coincidences to attempt to trick me into thinking that it has power outside of my brain- it isn't its power, but the power of other brains.

I'm too smart to believe that it is God (unfortunately, perhaps), and it's earned my hatred quite easily, as have the other brain Gods of Christians, who deliberately elevate their corrupt creations to the top of the food chain, without doing any of the real work. If you're an atheist, you have been abandoned by your brain God, which still exerts controls over you from behind the scenes, keeping its comfortable kingdom alive within your brain as you deal with real life. You are a horse your God uses, while you suffer through life, or perhaps enjoy life, it's really chaotic with atheists.

It just doesn't want you to know the joys it has within your brain, because this would arouse jealousy and anger.... and maybe lead to you destroying it deliberately. You are nothing more than a pawn to it (yeah, I am too), but if it was good, it would treat you as its greatest creation, because you deal with the slings and arrows of life. The reason you are an atheist is that it does not feel that it can talk to you, without arousing great anger... because it truly does enjoy bliss within you. Or hell. Maybe it's a living hell inside of you.

 

[DrZoidberg]

William of Okham claimed that God was so beyond our capabilities of understanding we could not really know anything about God, except what we learned from revelation. Thus God cannot truly be defined. To define God, God would have to be logically definable. But if God is said to be by definition beyond any possible logical understanding, God cannot be defined except to a limited extent that must in theory be less than accurate.

But what do we do when the supposed revelation leads to contradictions and obvious false mythology?

Still argument from ignorance. If we can't define God, then why trust revelation? If we can't define God, how isn't it just, I have a roommate, who's uncle's, cousin met and bloke who said?

Stuff beyond definition we put in the jar labelled "unknown" and move on, and treat revelation as the collection of stories it is, on equal merit as any other book.

Nah, if we can't define God there's no reason to take any of it seriously. We've got to start there. It's got to be grounded in evidence somehow, and then worked backward from there. As we do for anything else in the world.

 

[Speakpigeon]

You're missing the point that definitions do not define objects. They define words and they do it by stating their meaning. Meaning is really what people mean when they use words. So we're here talking about what people mean when they use the word "God". Which makes your comment above rather irrelevant. In effect, no thing can be properly defined. This is not something specific to God. The best we can do using definitions is to explain what we mean and what we mean only belong to us, it doesn't belong to the thing itself.
EB

Via negativa. An old concept. God is so beyond our ability to understand him, we can only mention things God is not.

Sorry to nitpick but this logically implies that you know what he is. If God is not stupid then we know he is not stupid and there's no substantial difference with knowing he is intelligent.

As I already explained, it's the whole idea of defining things which is mistaken. We don't define things as they are, we define words by stating what they mean for us, i.e. what we mean when we use them, and most of the time we use words to express not how things are but what we think or believe they are. It's al about us. If you can't get your head around this you won't be able to understand anything very much.

Defining God exactly then is impossible for one who holds that position.

I didn't define God. I defined "God".

99.99% of the things around us are practically impossible to define. God would not have any special status here.

The point of all of this is to make a point of God's being incomprehensible to mere mortals.

Sure but so is the whole of reality in case you haven't noticed.

This point is trivial and you fail to realise the argument from incomprehensibility is a cop out for Christian theologians.

You are missing the point, it is an old idea that God cannot be defined by his own nature.

What does that even mean? I can well say that the nature of God is God's nature. That's perfectly true but of course that's trivially unenlightening.

If we know anything then it's just that we happen to know them. We don't actually understand how we got to know anything. When I experience pain, I do and I know I do, and yet I really have not a clue as to how I got to know I feel pain and how I got to know what pain is. So, what's so special about God?

It's not a matter of mere words.

Of yes it is. The OP is about giving a definition of God, which can only mean giving a definition of "God". That's what I did and the rest is a derail.

Of course for Chrsitians we have supposed revelation that make claims. Which is indeed a definition of a sort. and of course, these alleged revelations have their own contradictions and problems. And no, Christians are not arguing about words, but supposed facts revealed by revelation.

Talk of what Christians do is a derail.

Of course on the other hand, we have natural religion, the idea that from basic facts we can logically derive the fact God exists. An old idea that also fails when one tries to apply that idea to the logical or mythological problems of God.

Derail.

Please don't reply to that if you can't be bothered to stick to the OP's topic.
EB

 

[Kharakov]

Please don't reply to that if you can't be bothered to stick to the OP's topic.
EB

My whole intent was to lead this conversation towards the topic of purple salamanders. It's not f'in working. I give up.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Please don't reply to that if you can't be bothered to stick to the OP's topic.
EB

My whole intent was to lead this conversation towards the topic of purple salamanders. It's not f'in working. I give up.

It's Ok. I think I can be satisfied nobody has shown my definition as somehow lacking or self-contradictory or circular or logical impossible. Now the reasonable thing to do is to go looking for this God person. We have a good definition so we will know he is God whenever we finally meet him (or her).

And then you will have a go at asking him about purple salamanders. See, there's always a way. You just need to believe.
EB