Define God Thread

[Lion IRC]

You missed the Russel quote?

No, I read it. But you over-promised and under-delivered.
It didn't show Aquinas' argument to be "nonsense"

...Aquinas wasn't even trying to do philosophy. It's just propaganda/brain washing. Fundamentally Aquinas is argument from ignorance. "We can't know anything about God so therefore God is... "

Aquinas says we can't know anything about God????

...If you're interested in the Ontological argument

Very interested.

...I think Hume's is the strongest:
We can't argue from necessity about the unknowable. Argument from necessity requires stuff to make deductions from. In this case we've got nothing.

Aquinas does NOT say God is unknowable. You don't argue for the necessary existence of an unknowable thing.

In any case, we dont know enough about the unknown to say what is unknowable.

If there are two contenders for the title of greatest being, we are entitled to consider which of them is the maximally greatest of the two.

Sure. But only for specific and narrow domains. What's the greatest car? It depends on your needs, doesn't it?

No it does NOT depend on your needs.
The maximally fastest car exists necessarily. (Ontological necessity.)
If you remove the fastest car you are then left with the second fastest, the existence of which makes it the new fastest car ahead of all other contenders.
If it ceases to exist, then the third fastest car now becomes the fastest car in existence.

If you keep on eliminating car after car til there are no cars left THEN you can say there's no such thing as the fastest car - but that would be facile because we don't need superlatives for non-existent things. And if per chance there is only One Car in the entire universe it is the fastest by default.

Aquinas wouldnt quibble with the idea that his ontological argument for the existence of the maximally greatest Being might just as easily be an argument for the fastest car or the most fuel efficient car or the car with the best power-to-weight ratio...etc.

In fact if you have two EQUALLY fast cars, (neither being the maximally fastest), you would still be able to determine which of them was the greatest by simply adding rubrics such as fuel efficiency or acceleration.

The thing which matters is not the rubric used for deciding maximal greatness but the ontological necessity of existence in order to qualify as good, better, best in any category.

If there were two Gods arguing over which of them was the greatest, the ontological presumption is that the notion/category of "greatest" is valid and that we can therefore set (epistemological) rubrics to decide such questions.

 

[blastula]

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

"Perfect being" has yet to be defined meaningfully.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

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

"Perfect being" has yet to be defined meaningfully.

And what does "maximally greatest" even mean? I could define that to mean anything depending on how I define "maximally greatest," not to mention then going out to then find the alleged defined being.

Every human body will be consumed by microbes. Every human body cannot survive without the presence of billions of microbes, to the degree that microbial DNA outnumbers human DNA in every human organism. Where exactly does one being stop and another begin?

Lion's "maximally greatest" being is obviously a "maximally greatest pretend" being because he can't even define it meaningfully, let alone produce it.

 

[Lion IRC]

Why does something superlative need further definition?

It's like asking me to define God's omnipotence. All powerful means just that. It's so simple.
What part of 'ALL' don't you understand? Or are you ignorant of the meaning of the word 'power'?

I find it strange that so many purported atheists don't know what it is they are denying exists.

Do you say ghosts don't exist before or after you have a definition of the word ghost?

 

[blastula]

Why does something superlative need further definition?

It's like asking me to define God's omnipotence. All powerful means just that. It's so simple.
What part of 'ALL' don't you understand? Or are you ignorant of the meaning of the word 'power'?

Omni-ability isn't like the concept of perfection. "Perfect being" is as clear as "perfect cat."

I find it strange that so many purported atheists don't know what it is they are denying exists.

That it's poorly defined is a reason to deny it.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

The problem is, either one can define God, or one cannot. Revelation is a claim we can know about God, if in a limited fashion from revelation. And if those revelations create logical problems,and contradictions, it cannot be an adequate description of a viable God concept.

An old theological position is that only revelation can tell us anything about God, that is, define God.
But some theologians take it from that we can reason about claims to further our knowledge. If revelation claims God is perfect, we can reason about what would constitute a perfect god.

But perfect being theology creates it's own problems and internal contradictions, so that does not work. Any viable God is not the greatest God we can imagine as per Anselm.So defining God has turned out to be something of a fool's errand.

It is now all a problem of definition since there is no evidence for God, and a lot of evidence God does not exist. And theology is now largely an exercise in defence, not proof of God's existence. If we take via negativa seriously, that God is largely incomprehensible, and revelation is problematical, theology has serious problems.

There are in fact various ways of defining God, none work. Defining God is a problem, and it is not a problem with words, but deeper, its a problem of concepts denoted by words.

A god that as per Descartes, creates all the rules, laws and logic of the Universe, and is good and morally perfect logically would result in a Universe with far less moral evil than we see. Perfect God theology, maximal powerful God theology does not work.

 

[Speakpigeon]

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

"Perfect being" has yet to be defined meaningfully.

You are pulling my leg. I don't believe for a moment anybody sensible really would need any explanation at all.

Still, by "being", we mean something essentially similar to a human being and human beings will have an intuitive notion of what they are (rightly or wrongly) and therefore what it is essentially to be a being. So Gog is just similar to a human being, only he is perfect. He is also unique and he created the universe and mankind with it. He may also be many other things we don't know as long as they wouldn't detract from his being perfect etc.

The term "perfect" is similarly intuitive. Human beings have a natural tendency to compare each other. We talk of "good" and "bad" men or women and we categorise qualities and flaws quite minutely. So God has all the qualities (maximally) and none of the flaws.

I don't think this is even controversial. We all have this conception in mind. It is intuitive. To suggest it is not meaningful would amount to a redefinition of the concept of meaningfulness. In which case, nothing of what we say would be meaningful. And yet, here we are, talking.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

The problem is, either one can define God, or one cannot.

We don't define things. Things don't need our definitions because they are supposed to exist as they are whatever we may think they are.

So your idea of "defining things" is a category error. We define words and we do that by stating what a word means to us.

Your point is a red herring.

Revelation is a claim we can know about God, if in a limited fashion from revelation. And if those revelations create logical problems,and contradictions, it cannot be an adequate description of a viable God concept. An old theological position is that only revelation can tell us anything about God, that is, define God.
But some theologians take it from that we can reason about claims to further our knowledge. If revelation claims God is perfect, we can reason about what would constitute a perfect god.

But perfect being theology creates it's own problems and internal contradictions, so that does not work. Any viable God is not the greatest God we can imagine as per Anselm.So defining God has turned out to be something of a fool's errand.

Red herring again. We can conceive of revelation as something God can do. The concept of revelation provides a logical argument justifying the idea that we could know God. It could not provide any justification that we can know God, let alone that we know God.

So there is no logical problem intrinsic to the idea of revelation. The way theologians use it may create logical problem but that's a different question and, crucially, this question has no bearing on the question of the logical possibility of the existence of God.

It is now all a problem of definition since there is no evidence for God, and a lot of evidence God does not exist. And theology is now largely an exercise in defence, not proof of God's existence. If we take via negativa seriously, that God is largely incomprehensible, and revelation is problematical, theology has serious problems.

This is an absurd claim. If God reveals himself to someone then this someone has ipso facto evidence of God. Whether you personally or the rest of humanity has evidence or not is irrelevant. If you don't know God then you also won't have evidence he doesn't exist. So, you don't know that nobody has evidence of God. Your claim is clealry absurd.

There are in fact various ways of defining God, none work. Defining God is a problem, and it is not a problem with words, but deeper, its a problem of concepts denoted by words.

I provided a definition of God, i.e. the word "God", and nobody has show how it would be defective so you cannot sensibly claim that no definition of God works.

A god that as per Descartes, creates all the rules, laws and logic of the Universe, and is good and morally perfect logically would result in a Universe with far less moral evil than we see. Perfect God theology, maximal powerful God theology does not work.

This argument works against the Christian concept of God. It doesn't work against my definition.
EB

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

We do define God. We don't define material things that exist, we describe them. But Gods are not something you can examine like a material object. So we make a definition instead. Or we accept as authority a supposed revelation. The Bible, Quran, whatever. Or we try to derive a definition of God from natural religion that fits a definition we want. Sometimes such attempts try to define God as to get rid of the notorious problems that our definitions create. Process Theology does this and abandons the claims that God is omnipotent and omniscient for example. But God is not something like a tree or a goat or a star that we can observe and describe.

The word "God" is in and of itself meaningless, until you give it some form of definition. And if you cannot examine such a thing in any detail, all you have left is definition. One big sky pixie? Process theology God? Voodoo godlets? Yahwhe? Thor? The many Gods of Shinto? How do you pick and choose which definition is right if one cannot examine God in any way?

Like leprechauns, one cannot examine a leprechaun to see what a leprechaun truly is, one can only accept or reject the traditional definitions, claims about leprechauns.

Any mere definition, no matter how it is derived, completely divorced from any direct observation of the object itself, if it exists, is defective when we are supposedly discussing existent things, entities. The fact that perfect being theology, maximum God theology in the end, does not work is notable, forcing theologians to try to define God down to avoid these issues. So far without solving the problems. Leaving theologians trying to redefine concepts like omnipotence, omniscience to try to finesse problems these things create so as to define a God not subject to such logical dead ends. Or trying to employ the old "God is incomprehensible" trope to avoid having to admit that the fact their definitions of God do not work.



And so we are forced to make claims about something we cannot observe in any detail at all. Definition then is what we are left with.

 

[fast]

Words denote meaning.
Meaning is a function of usage.
Definitions explain meaning.

What we are ordinarily interested in is lexical meaning (as opposed to stipulative meaning).
Words denote lexical meaning which is a function of collective usage which can be explained with a definition.

Words have meaning (all of them), but not all words are referring terms. There is a subtle difficulty to be aware of. A word can be a referring term yet have no referent. The word, "although" is not a referring term. It has a meaning, but there shall never be an although to instantiate it--in any form concrete or abstract. The word, "unicorn" has a meaning but no actual referent, yet it is a referring term; for communications sake, let's say it attempts to yet fails to refer. The word "although" doesn't even attempt.

The word "God" already has a lexical definition, and remember from above, definitions explain meaning and meaning is a function of word usage. Speakpigeon was correct when he said we don't define things. If we define anything at all, it's the word, but I disagree with him about how we do that. The lexical meaning of a word is determined by its collective usage, not our individual usage.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

God has many definitions. God as the angry sky pixie or impersonal force for example. The problem is when common definitions contain claims that can be shown to create contradictions and problems that demonstrate that definition is not viable.

Many people not really familiar with deeper theological understanding of these problems are then, simply wrong.

And even supposedly sophisticated theologians struggle with defining God to avoid these problems. Sure anybody can have a definition, but how many such definitions hold water? When all that can be had is definitions without confirming observations, then we may suspect that God is merely a word game.

 

[Speakpigeon]

but I disagree with him about how we do that. The lexical meaning of a word is determined by its collective usage, not our individual usage.

That's not what I said. What I say is that as we speak the meaning we give a word depends entirely of whatever is somehow going on inside our head on the moment. What is going on inside our head has likely been affected by our past verbal interactions with other speakers of the language and so "collective usage" if you like. But each speaker remains a free agent and is a free agent. We say what we mean and we mean whatever we want and we decide how to express what we mean, and the creativity and inventiveness of speakers in various contexts is proof enough of that.
EB

 

[fast]

but I disagree with him about how we do that. The lexical meaning of a word is determined by its collective usage, not our individual usage.

That's not what I said. What I say is that as we speak the meaning we give a word depends entirely of whatever is somehow going on inside our head on the moment.

The meaning (i.e., the lexical meaning) of a word is completely independent of what we mean by what we say. Yes, we can use a word in an alternative manner, but such individual usage does not in any way alter the lexical meaning of a word.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

but I disagree with him about how we do that. The lexical meaning of a word is determined by its collective usage, not our individual usage.

That's not what I said. What I say is that as we speak the meaning we give a word depends entirely of whatever is somehow going on inside our head on the moment. What is going on inside our head has likely been affected by our past verbal interactions with other speakers of the language and so "collective usage" if you like. But each speaker remains a free agent and is a free agent. We say what we mean and we mean whatever we want and we decide how to express what we mean, and the creativity and inventiveness of speakers in various contexts is proof enough of that.
EB

Then by your explanation words are essentially meaningless. I would agree. What gives them meaning are substantial characteristics, of which the word "god" has zip.

All objects, to which we assign words, are environmentally constrained. They require context. When a person thinks up a word and begins to tell someone about how that word is a thing we automatically assign environmental constraints. When we don't, or can't, we know that person is talking bullshit, fantasy.

Because this word "god" has absolutely no contextual meaning, no connection to anything we can or ever will experience, except in the fantasy of our imagination, we can know it is a bullshit word. We can pretend it isn't, like we might pretend about "ghost," or a movie that gives us a feeling, but the word is meaningless wrt to any useful application. "God" is just a word for emotional gratification. In day to day experience it has zero relevance, and therefore no value.

 

[DrZoidberg]

No it does NOT depend on your needs.
The maximally fastest car exists necessarily. (Ontological necessity.)
If you remove the fastest car you are then left with the second fastest, the existence of which makes it the new fastest car ahead of all other contenders.

If it ceases to exist, then the third fastest car now becomes the fastest car in existence.

If you keep on eliminating car after car til there are no cars left THEN you can say there's no such thing as the fastest car - but that would be facile because we don't need superlatives for non-existent things. And if per chance there is only One Car in the entire universe it is the fastest by default.

Aquinas wouldnt quibble with the idea that his ontological argument for the existence of the maximally greatest Being might just as easily be an argument for the fastest car or the most fuel efficient car or the car with the best power-to-weight ratio...etc.

In fact if you have two EQUALLY fast cars, (neither being the maximally fastest), you would still be able to determine which of them was the greatest by simply adding rubrics such as fuel efficiency or acceleration.

The thing which matters is not the rubric used for deciding maximal greatness but the ontological necessity of existence in order to qualify as good, better, best in any category.

If there were two Gods arguing over which of them was the greatest, the ontological presumption is that the notion/category of "greatest" is valid and that we can therefore set (epistemological) rubrics to decide such questions.

The above is logically correct. But isn't Aquinas argument in its entirety. This is just a tiny part. Please explain how Christians then turn around and say so therefore the fastest car is infinitely fast. Not only infinitely fast, but also has the greatest carrying capacity, is the roomiest, and the least gas guzzling. Will both be the heaviest, (if that's what we're measuring) as well as the lightest, at the same time. That is Aquinas argument.

It's a non-sequitur. It's bait and switch. First we're discussing how to rank vehicles on performance of a single dimension, and then just expand that to be about vehicles in every dimension projected to infinity.

Kind of funny your comment about gods arguing. How can you compare gods if there's only one? He can suck, and still be the greatest god. Does that make him necessarily omnipotent?

Thomas Aquinas believed God was known through what he called "supernatural revelation". That's just a fancy word for "faith". Faith is just a fancy word for stuff you believe in spite of not having a good reason to do so.

He believed stuff about God because he wanted to believe it was true. And that was good enough for Aquinas. I'm sorry, but that's just talking shit. He's admitting that God is unknowable and starts to argue why it's not a problem but just trails off without giving an answer. It's bizarre that anybody ever found that convincing.

 

[Speakpigeon]

That's not what I said. What I say is that as we speak the meaning we give a word depends entirely of whatever is somehow going on inside our head on the moment.

The meaning (i.e., the lexical meaning) of a word is completely independent of what we mean by what we say. Yes, we can use a word in an alternative manner, but such individual usage does not in any way alter the lexical meaning of a word.

And I have as yet to see "collective usage" write down the definition of any word. I'd certainly very much like to see that. Whereupon do you think I should transport myself to witness such a prodigious feat?

My guess is that you're taking your proverbial unicorn for a causal agent.

I call your unicorn a convenient fiction.

Convenience is fine but you have to be prepared to come out of your comfort zone and assume more adventurous conceptions.

Still, I don't want to rush you.
EB

 

[Learner]

All objects, to which we assign words, are environmentally constrained. They require context. When a person thinks up a word and begins to tell someone about how that word is a thing we automatically assign environmental constraints. When we don't, or can't, we know that person is talking bullshit, fantasy.

Because this word "god" has absolutely no contextual meaning, no connection to anything we can or ever will experience, except in the fantasy of our imagination, we can know it is a bullshit word. We can pretend it isn't, like we might pretend about "ghost," or a movie that gives us a feeling, but the word is meaningless wrt to any useful application. "God" is just a word for emotional gratification. In day to day experience it has zero relevance, and therefore no value.

What is the contextual meaning of designer or creator? The word God is both of these in this context that even the likes of Dawkins for example; would take to this meaning of to debate with.

 

[Speakpigeon]

That's not what I said. What I say is that as we speak the meaning we give a word depends entirely of whatever is somehow going on inside our head on the moment. What is going on inside our head has likely been affected by our past verbal interactions with other speakers of the language and so "collective usage" if you like. But each speaker remains a free agent and is a free agent. We say what we mean and we mean whatever we want and we decide how to express what we mean, and the creativity and inventiveness of speakers in various contexts is proof enough of that.
EB

Then by your explanation words are essentially meaningless.

Sorry, you've just lost me. I don't follow the logic of your argument here.

Contrary to your unwarranted assumption, we just have to look at my post again to see that from my theory of meaning it follows that for a word to have meaning it is enough that the speaker (or writer) should use this word to mean something.

You're free to disagree with my theory but you better stop making unwarranted assumptions if you want to discuss it with me.

I would agree. What gives them meaning are substantial characteristics, of which the word "god" has zip.

So you agree with me but then I disagree with you. See?

Yours is another theory of meaning.

I will gladly leave it you.

All objects, to which we assign words, are environmentally constrained.

I'd like very much to know how one goes about assigning words to material things. How does it goes? Something like that I suppose: The speaker somehow gets to know some actual object, say a horse, and somehow gets to know that there is an actual piece of paper somewhere in the whole world where a particular word, "horse", is written. And somehow again, our speaker gets to realise that the word "horse" is to be used exclusively to signify the actual horse.

That's what I call a convenient fiction. It may seem to work to some people. And you are entitled to believe it does. Me, I don't believe it works.

They require context. When a person thinks up a word and begins to tell someone about how that word is a thing we automatically assign environmental constraints. When we don't, or can't, we know that person is talking bullshit, fantasy.

So now you'd have to explain why so anybody could possibly believe in God. Are these people not human beings? Do they come from some far galaxy? Or are they all so stupid you'd call them Mentally Disabled Persons? And how then could these complete idiots have any sensible conversation although they do have them?

A lot to explain you have.

Because this word "god" has absolutely no contextual meaning, no connection to anything we can or ever will experience, except in the fantasy of our imagination, we can know it is a bullshit word.

Oh Dear, your theory seems to be unravelling even before you could finish your post.

So, let's see. Some people give meaning to the word "God". How so then, since we're suppose to give meaning to objects, not words?

Then again, you say they experience something in their imagination. So, is this imaginary something an actual object? What is it if not an actual object? And if not a actual object, then again, how could these people possibly give meaning to it according to your theory?

We can pretend it isn't, like we might pretend about "ghost," or a movie that gives us a feeling, but the word is meaningless wrt to any useful application. "God" is just a word for emotional gratification. In day to day experience it has zero relevance, and therefore no value.

So now I'm confused. You seem to make you theory only applicable to those words that have a "useful" meaning. Sorry, but, I was clearly talking about all words, not just some words. If you have a subcategory theory then maybe you could open up a shop to invite your friends have meaningful conversations about that.
EB

 

[Learner]

The above is logically correct. But isn't Aquinas argument in its entirety. This is just a tiny part. Please explain how Christians then turn around and say so therefore the fastest car is infinitely fast. Not only infinitely fast, but also has the greatest carrying capacity, is the roomiest, and the least gas guzzling. Will both be the heaviest, (if that's what we're measuring) as well as the lightest, at the same time. That is Aquinas argument.

Come on Doc , you know "infinitely fast" is not what Lion or Christians would claim in the context of the analogy.

It's a non-sequitur. It's bait and switch. First we're discussing how to rank vehicles on performance of a single dimension, and then just expand that to be about vehicles in every dimension projected to infinity.

Kind of funny your comment about gods arguing. How can you compare gods if there's only one? He can suck, and still be the greatest god. Does that make him necessarily omnipotent?

The OP titles the thread as "Define God" yet we have now had ,oddly enough, doubts of the definitions of "Perfect or perfections" and " Greatest" by what is seen as flawed by theist's understanding in the discussion. Here.. as Lion posted regards the "greatest" above any other. Leave the goal posts where they are I say.

 

[Speakpigeon]

No it does NOT depend on your needs.
The maximally fastest car exists necessarily. (Ontological necessity.)
If you remove the fastest car you are then left with the second fastest, the existence of which makes it the new fastest car ahead of all other contenders.

If it ceases to exist, then the third fastest car now becomes the fastest car in existence.

If you keep on eliminating car after car til there are no cars left THEN you can say there's no such thing as the fastest car - but that would be facile because we don't need superlatives for non-existent things. And if per chance there is only One Car in the entire universe it is the fastest by default.

Aquinas wouldnt quibble with the idea that his ontological argument for the existence of the maximally greatest Being might just as easily be an argument for the fastest car or the most fuel efficient car or the car with the best power-to-weight ratio...etc.

In fact if you have two EQUALLY fast cars, (neither being the maximally fastest), you would still be able to determine which of them was the greatest by simply adding rubrics such as fuel efficiency or acceleration.

The thing which matters is not the rubric used for deciding maximal greatness but the ontological necessity of existence in order to qualify as good, better, best in any category.

If there were two Gods arguing over which of them was the greatest, the ontological presumption is that the notion/category of "greatest" is valid and that we can therefore set (epistemological) rubrics to decide such questions.

The above is logically correct. But isn't Aquinas argument in its entirety. This is just a tiny part. Please explain how Christians then turn around and say so therefore the fastest car is infinitely fast. Not only infinitely fast, but also has the greatest carrying capacity, is the roomiest, and the least gas guzzling. Will both be the heaviest, (if that's what we're measuring) as well as the lightest, at the same time. That is Aquinas argument.

It's a non-sequitur. It's bait and switch. First we're discussing how to rank vehicles on performance of a single dimension, and then just expand that to be about vehicles in every dimension projected to infinity.

Kind of funny your comment about gods arguing. How can you compare gods if there's only one? He can suck, and still be the greatest god. Does that make him necessarily omnipotent?

Thomas Aquinas believed God was known through what he called "supernatural revelation". That's just a fancy word for "faith". Faith is just a fancy word for stuff you believe in spite of not having a good reason to do so.

He believed stuff about God because he wanted to believe it was true. And that was good enough for Aquinas. I'm sorry, but that's just talking shit. He's admitting that God is unknowable and starts to argue why it's not a problem but just trails off without giving an answer. It's bizarre that anybody ever found that convincing.

Now you have your customer.
EB