• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Define God Thread

Kharakov said:
Each person gets to create their own, personal definition of God.
Click to expand...

It's the name we give to our hopes and dreams. It's a symbol to gather around. An empty projection space. It's by necessity abstract.

Kharakov said:
Did it create the universe? Was it a primordial consciousness that arose out of various conscious experiences and interactions to guide other consciousnesses towards greater experience of unity (like an "intelligent" human)?
Click to expand...

No. It's just a symbol. Symbols can't do anything other than to give meaning to people. Nor is it conscious. God is literally just what we make it to be.

Kharakov said:
1) God is X.
a,b,c... evidence that supports this claim
Click to expand...

Is a good excuse to make rituals, erect temples and have festivals.

Any excuse is a good excuse IMHO
 
I believe God is a Calvinist and only believes in himself because he commands it.
 
Based on the behavior of the people I know who think such a creature is real, for most of them god is just the name of their spaceman.

Their spaceman made everything and for many of them they will get to go stay with their spaceman after they die.

Their spaceman has magical powers and can do anything.

So god is by definition a spaceman and the most powerful spaceman.
 
bilby said:
God Thread is infinitely strong thread that never frays, tangles, snags, or unravels.
Click to expand...
Why don't we start selling God products? Wouldn't it decrease faith in God if atheists sold... crap. Creflo Dollar already cornered that market.
 
Lion IRC said:
Kharakov said:
So the first part of your definition of God would be:
1) God is the creator of heaven and earth.

What is heaven (imagination?)? What is earth (nature?)?
What is the evidence that God created heaven and earth?
Click to expand...


Is this a debate thread?

OK

Heaven is where everyone is in harmony with God.
Earth is the planet where we currently exist.

I suppose you could argue that someone other than God created heaven and earth if you wanted. *shrug*
Click to expand...
Its a thread about how you define god. How do you define god?
 
Kharakov said:
Each person gets to create their own, personal definition of God.

Did it create the universe? Was it a primordial consciousness that arose out of various conscious experiences and interactions to guide other consciousnesses towards greater experience of unity (like an "intelligent" human)?


Logically inconsistent or contradictory definitions are not acceptable.

God cannot both be the sole creator of the universe and not be the sole creator of the universe. One or the other.


Introduce characteristics in list form, so that specific characteristics can be addressed:

1) God is X.
a,b,c... evidence that supports this claim
2) God does Y.
a,b,c... evidence that supports this claim
3) God likes pie.
a,b,c... evidence that supports this claim


If characteristics 1 and 3 are contradictory (1) God hates pie in all cases, 3) God likes pie), pick only one of them to make your full definition logically consistent.



If you claim something like "God created a multiverse, in which all possible things happen happen, and we happen to be in one of the branches", what you've said is logically consistent, but vague, as this God might or might not matter in our lives, depending on whether the God reacts to and interacts with the multiverse it created. So you'd need to extend the definition.

Anyway you take it from here...
Click to expand...

1. God is a perfect being
2. God is unique (he is the only perfect being)
3. God created the universe where we are
EB
 
Define perfect being.

I'm not rabbit holing you, I just want to know your specific definition.
 
Speakpigeon said:
Kharakov said:
Each person gets to create their own, personal definition of God.

Did it create the universe? Was it a primordial consciousness that arose out of various conscious experiences and interactions to guide other consciousnesses towards greater experience of unity (like an "intelligent" human)?


Logically inconsistent or contradictory definitions are not acceptable.

God cannot both be the sole creator of the universe and not be the sole creator of the universe. One or the other.


Introduce characteristics in list form, so that specific characteristics can be addressed:

1) God is X.
a,b,c... evidence that supports this claim
2) God does Y.
a,b,c... evidence that supports this claim
3) God likes pie.
a,b,c... evidence that supports this claim


If characteristics 1 and 3 are contradictory (1) God hates pie in all cases, 3) God likes pie), pick only one of them to make your full definition logically consistent.



If you claim something like "God created a multiverse, in which all possible things happen happen, and we happen to be in one of the branches", what you've said is logically consistent, but vague, as this God might or might not matter in our lives, depending on whether the God reacts to and interacts with the multiverse it created. So you'd need to extend the definition.

Anyway you take it from here...
Click to expand...

1. God is a perfect being
2. God is unique (he is the only perfect being)
3. God created the universe where we are
EB
Click to expand...

What is "perfect' or are you just using the words 'god" and "perfect" interchangeably?

How is god unique? Are there any other beings exactly the same as yourself or are you also unique and therefore perfect as yourself in this same sense?

How is the universe not unique and perfect as it is, along with everything in it?
 
Juma said:
Lion IRC said:
Is this a debate thread?

OK

Heaven is where everyone is in harmony with God.
Earth is the planet where we currently exist.

I suppose you could argue that someone other than God created heaven and earth if you wanted. *shrug*
Click to expand...
Its a thread about how you define god. How do you define god?
Click to expand...

Why are you bumping my post?
I already answered this way back in January.
God is the maximally greatest Being.
 
Learner said:
Kharakov said:
The discrepancies within it, describing the same events.

David "took" 1700 horsemen in 1 Chronicles 18:4, and 7000 in 2 Samuel 8:4.
Click to expand...

Probably from the KJV but as you see below from the earlier Septuagint the writings are in sync.
Click to expand...
There are a lot of versions with that specific discrepancy.

The writers of the Septuagint were a group of OT scholars, who worked together to produce a uniform manuscript. It's not like 70 scholars wouldn't realize the discrepancy, knowing that the tales described the same storyline, and that they needed to cover up the discrepancy in order to cover up the previous mistakes. Chronicles preceded the Septuagint as well.

Of course the discrepancy could be on purpose....
 
Lion IRC said:
God is the maximally greatest Being.
Click to expand...

'Maximally greatest'? That's not so much theology as tautology.

As my three year old niece would no doubt say, 'the most bestest in the whole wide world ever ever the end'. Which is a lovely string of superlatives, but still lacks a noun to which they might apply. 'Being' is a metasyntactic variable, and has no meaning without a context.

So God is a thingy, and not only that, God is 'the most bestest thingy in the whole wide world ever ever the end'.

Having made every possible attempt to extract an actual definition from your statement, I still am not able to see any actual definition of God therein - just a rather childish emission of emotional froth, with no substance at all. Saying 'maximally greatest' instead of 'bestest ever' adds exactly no gravity to your claim, only loquaciousness.
 
bilby said:
Lion IRC said:
God is the maximally greatest Being.
Click to expand...

'Maximally greatest'? That's not so much theology as tautology.

As my three year old niece would no doubt say, 'the most bestest in the whole wide world ever ever the end'. Which is a lovely string of superlatives, but still lacks a noun to which they might apply. 'Being' is a metasyntactic variable, and has no meaning without a context.

So God is a thingy, and not only that, God is 'the most bestest thingy in the whole wide world ever ever the end'.

Having made every possible attempt to extract an actual definition from your statement, I still am not able to see any actual definition of God therein - just a rather childish emission of emotional froth, with no substance at all. Saying 'maximally greatest' instead of 'bestest ever' adds exactly no gravity to your claim, only loquaciousness.
Click to expand...

I think God is the maximally greatest being ever in the same sense as Trump is the maximally greatest president ever.

Biggly.
 
Lion IRC said:
I'm writing for a maximally average audience.
Click to expand...

Bilby picked apart your statement and showed what was wrong with it. And that' the best you can come up with?

BTW, the Christian philosopher Thomas Aquinas made the same argument. But with the rigour of a philosopher. He's still considered the greatest Christian philosopher by the Catholic church. The problem of course it's that it's just nonsense. As the critique of Thomas Aquinas has shown.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Aquinas#Criticism_of_Aquinas_as_philosopher
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom