Define God Thread

[T.G.G. Moogly]

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

Then I can understand your confusion. By your methodology any sound or squiggle we create in whatever language has objective reality.

Okay. I understand your position.

 

[Kharakov]

Is God the greatest being to the greatest number of beings?

Is God the greatest being to beings that don't know God?

Is God the greatest being to beings that do know God?

Is God the greatest being to a select group of beings?

Is God the greatest being compared to nothing?

 

[abaddon]

Is God the greatest being compared to nothing?

Not if Nothing is greater than God. Then Nothing wins the greatness contest and God loses.

 

[Kharakov]

The Neverending Story. It's a Hilbert's Hotel California joke about the Penthouse suite.

 

[Speakpigeon]

By your methodology any sound or squiggle we create in whatever language has objective reality.

Can you support your claim here?

I'm sure you can't.

Good bye!
EB

 

[fast]

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

Here's a stab at what I think is going on:

Lexicographers observe in objective fashion a vast number of fluent speakers' usage of words and try to hone in on crafting an explanatory definition with a scope reflective of common usage.

 

[Jobar]

From 2005- Can we get a few definitions of "god"?

Well, here's one I've found to be acceptable. It's an unattributed quote, in Ernest Nagel's Philosophical Concepts of Atheism from the book Critiques of God, Peter Angeles, ed.

"...And by theism I shall mean the view which holds, as one writer has expressed it, "that the heavens and the earth and all that they contain owe their existence and continuance in existence to the wisdom and will of a supreme, self-consistent, omnipotent, omniscient, perfect, righteous and benevolent being, who is distinct from, and independent of, what he has created.""

(Note that 'omnibenevolent' isn't included. However, I don't see that this definition reduces the impact of the PoE arguments for atheism, since any humanly understandable definition of "righteous and benevolent" when coupled with omnipotence would seem to preclude the existence of evil.)

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

http://www.pewforum.org/files/2008/06/report2religious-landscape-study-key-findings.pdf

A Pew survey has shown 92% of Americans seem to believe in God, but only 60% think God is a personal being. 25% see God as an impersonal force, and 7% aren't sure either way. If we are looking for the one real definitions, ain't no such animal.

We have a large zoo of God concepts to choose from, none of which it seems hold water. Angry God of the old testament or Cosmic Muffin?

If we ask anyone, "What is your definition of God", you may get an answer, but what is it worth?

 

[Juma]

From 2005- Can we get a few definitions of "god"?

Well, here's one I've found to be acceptable. It's an unattributed quote, in Ernest Nagel's Philosophical Concepts of Atheism from the book Critiques of God, Peter Angeles, ed.

"...And by theism I shall mean the view which holds, as one writer has expressed it, "that the heavens and the earth and all that they contain owe their existence and continuance in existence to the wisdom and will of a supreme, self-consistent, omnipotent, omniscient, perfect, righteous and benevolent being, who is distinct from, and independent of, what he has created.""

(Note that 'omnibenevolent' isn't included. However, I don't see that this definition reduces the impact of the PoE arguments for atheism, since any humanly understandable definition of "righteous and benevolent" when coupled with omnipotence would seem to preclude the existence of evil.)

Too narrow.
Theism should include vague beleifs as "there must be something more out there".
The vagueness shouldnt disqualify it.

 

[DrZoidberg]

From 2005- Can we get a few definitions of "god"?

Too narrow.
Theism should include vague beleifs as "there must be something more out there".
The vagueness shouldnt disqualify it.

I also think it misses the point. God is more than anything an emotional construct. Theists have created God to fill various holes in their hearts. What function does that God-idea serve in the theists life?

It's a much more basic and easier topic to discuss.

There's nothing wrong about a vague definition of God, as long as it comes with a concrete emotional reaction in the theist. At this point still clinging to God as something physically real is... well... that train left the station a couple of hundred years ago. Philosophy has moved on since then.

Just came to think of something. God doesn't really exist, in a physical sense. That's literally what supernatural means. Something beyond the physical world. Imaginary things certainly are supernatural.

 

[Speakpigeon]

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

Here's a stab at what I think is going on:

Lexicographers observe in objective fashion a vast number of fluent speakers' usage of words and try to hone in on crafting an explanatory definition with a scope reflective of common usage.

Exactly.

A long, protracted, somewhat messy process where "collective usage" doesn't figure as an agent, only individuals, with all their flaws and subjectivity. Collective usage, there, is what the lexicographers can only hope to pin down, not something holding the pen of the lexicographers. It is the hoped-for result and it's no better than saying, "I tried my best to find the best definition I could". And the entity doing the judgement here is the individual, if that.
EB

 

[bilby]

Too narrow.
Theism should include vague beleifs as "there must be something more out there".
The vagueness shouldnt disqualify it.

I also think it misses the point. God is more than anything an emotional construct. Theists have created God to fill various holes in their hearts. What function does that God-idea serve in the theists life?

It's a much more basic and easier topic to discuss.

There's nothing wrong about a vague definition of God, as long as it comes with a concrete emotional reaction in the theist. At this point still clinging to God as something physically real is... well... that train left the station a couple of hundred years ago. Philosophy has moved on since then.

Just came to think of something. God doesn't really exist, in a physical sense. That's literally what supernatural means. Something beyond the physical world. Imaginary things certainly are supernatural.

Perhaps more 'infranatural'. Or 'subnormal'.

 

[Speakpigeon]

If we are looking for the one real definitions, ain't no such animal.

Red herring.

A definition can be understandable or not, and then, if you think it's understandable, you can ask the question of whether it is true.

As to being understandable or not, each definition has to be assessed on its own merit. There's no shortcut. Just saying, "Oh, Dear, there are so many lot definitions, it's not possible any could be true", won't be enough.

We have a large zoo of God concepts to choose from, none of which it seems hold water.

So we're supposed to take your word here. Really?

If we ask anyone, "What is your definition of God", you may get an answer, but what is it worth?

We would need to know what is the definition. Each definition has to be assessed on its own merit. There is no shortcut.
EB

 

[Lion IRC]

Asking people to clearly define God doesnt seem like a very smart AvT counter-apologetic.

Sure, there are bound to be some competing impressions/definitions but how many theists are gonna say ...oh well if my definition is mistaken then there's nothing there to define.

God doesn't go away just because humans don't know everything there is to know about Him

 

[DrZoidberg]

Asking people to clearly define God doesnt seem like a very smart AvT counter-apologetic.

Sure, there are bound to be some competing impressions/definitions but how many theists are gonna say ...oh well if my definition is mistaken then there's nothing there to define.

God doesn't go away just because humans don't know everything there is to know about Him

That's an excellent point and the perfect illustration.

We don't know what set off the Big Bang. The Big Bang destroyed any evidence from which to work it out. It's a mystery. It's a fascinating mystery. But that's all it is.

It's not a cue to assume talking flying lizards, elephant headed gods giving blow-jobs to jackal-headed gods of death, three wise men, (who may or
may not have been Zoroastrian magi) distributing gifts to infants (which suspiciously comes across as payment for sexual services, but really wasn't. Scouts honour). Or was it swords in ponds to British kings? And honouring Papa Legba to ensure meeting your ancestors in the afterlife, (or was it Charon?) that is either on Earth, under ground, or in heaven... or someplace completely different, or back to where we started.

These divine theories can't all be right. They are mutually exclusive. And all are supported by the exact same ontological argument. As well as all other theistic arguments. Picking just one religion out of the heap and believing that this one is probably right is absurd. Even if God exists we still know nothing about God. That's just a fact. How likely is it that the Bible is correct about anything? Even if the authors had an encounter with the actual God, which part of the elephant were they touching?

What's wrong about admitting that we don't know? How about ignoring all religions and sticking to atheism until we've got something tangible in regards to God to talk about?

Or how about becoming a Christian mystic? That's a form of Christianity I can respect. They embrace the mystery. They don't pretend to know jack shit. They study the Bible because of the joy of studying it. They study it because they think they might learn something about themselves. Not God. About themselves. They've already admitted that God is unknowable.

What mystics have going for them is that they are genuinely humble. They've done away with the need to justify and defend an untenable faith. They don't have to pretend to know shit which all smart people know is unknowable.

All religions have mystics and they're all kick-ass. Being a mystic also allows them to study any religion freely. To mix and match as they see fit. They can take lessons from any book.

Why follow a faith you know is wrong? If you still don't believe that it's wrong, look at your illustration of the elephant and the blind men again. Which part of the elephant have you been touching? How do you know it's an elephant?

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

There was a cartoon by S.Gross, unfortunately not on line, of one of the blind men wrist deep in an elephant turd. "An elephant is soft and mushy".

Part of the problem with defining a fantasy is without something "to feel", you end up defining nonsense.

 

[abaddon]

A more accurate image for theism than blind guys feeling an elephant would be blind guys feeling themselves.

An elephant at least is detectable, and the whole elephant too by sighted persons, so it's not a good analogy to god.

 

[DrZoidberg]

A more accurate image for theism than blind guys feeling an elephant would be blind guys feeling themselves.

An elephant at least is detectable, and the whole elephant too by sighted persons, so it's not a good analogy to god.

If they're feeling themselves then God is detectable, is it not?

 

[abaddon]

If they're feeling themselves then God is detectable, is it not?

Well, yeah, as an aspect of oneself. We were already invited by the OP writer to define God as a human concept or image:

Some atheists might define God as a psychosocial construct in the minds of believers.

God's an introject. A parental and authority figure, both guardian and inner judge. But generally projected outward so he becomes parent of the whole universe.

The elephant analogy was a theist's demonstration of that outward projection.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

By your methodology any sound or squiggle we create in whatever language has objective reality.

Can you support your claim here?

I'm sure you can't.

Good bye!
EB

Sure I can. Just take the word "god," just as it is, and see how many people understood it back in biblical times. You may as well say zumzumdoo. Guaranteed to get lots of deer-in-the-headlights looks.