For Christians, define god

[Politesse]

So how do you distinguish your Christian God from Xiao, the flying monkey of China?

I'm not really able to process this question adequately, I don't think. If you mean by "my" something like "my personal conception of God" I can tell because it is in my head, as opposed to someone else's. But I'm fairly sure that's not the kind of definition you want.

I think you are making the very simple question a hell of a lot more complicated than asked... whether intentional or reading comprehension, I dunno.

I am fairly sure that the bolded is exactly what Rhea is asking. It is certainly what I have asked. When asking someone what they mean by god, I absolutely mean THEIR meaning when they use the word, not what a church means, not what a book means, not what Saied means, not what Prahana means, not what anyone else means - only what the person using the word means. Why? So I can understand what they are saying. So far, the only thing I understand about what you mean by god is that you don't mean anything like a sprig of basil. That doesn't mean that I assume that anyone else wouldn't but then I have no reason to believe someone else doesn't assume basil is something like god - but I can now safely assume that you don't

Then why specify that I am also supposed to represent Christianity? It was made clear that agnostic perspectives, though certainly my true perspective on the question, were not welcome because they weren't "Christian". A dubious claim to be sure, but that's what was said. I've been describing my own personal perspective at length. Ironically, only to be accused of "swerving", "dodging", and other such terms oft applied to free thinkers. It has been repeatedly stated of myself and others in this thread that we are refusing to answer the question. But the real problem is that you aren't getting the answer you want.

- - - Updated - - -

I think Politese meant in the context of the quote below.

I am perplexed as to why you, or Politesse, should think that "infinite" cannot be defined or described.
No this is not "true of anything eternal." Why would it be. We have words to describe eternal, and infinite.

However, what you need words for is to distinguish it from empty space, which could also be described as eternal and infinite, but is not a personal god. I can tell the difference between the two. I'm at a loss as to how you cannot.

Why would I "need" to do any such thing?

If you're so much better at defining God than everyone else, why aren't you providing such a definition?

 

[skepticalbip]

I think you are making the very simple question a hell of a lot more complicated than asked... whether intentional or reading comprehension, I dunno.

I am fairly sure that the bolded is exactly what Rhea is asking. It is certainly what I have asked. When asking someone what they mean by god, I absolutely mean THEIR meaning when they use the word, not what a church means, not what a book means, not what Saied means, not what Prahana means, not what anyone else means - only what the person using the word means. Why? So I can understand what they are saying. So far, the only thing I understand about what you mean by god is that you don't mean anything like a sprig of basil. That doesn't mean that I assume that anyone else wouldn't but then I have no reason to believe someone else doesn't assume basil is something like god - but I can now safely assume that you don't

Then why specify that I am also supposed to represent Christianity? It was made clear that agnostic perspectives, though certainly my true perspective on the question, were not welcome because they weren't "Christian". A dubious claim to be sure, but that's what was said. I've been describing my own personal perspective at length. Ironically, only to be accused of "swerving", "dodging", and other such terms oft applied to free thinkers. It has been repeatedly stated of myself and others in this thread that we are refusing to answer the question. But the real problem is that you aren't getting the answer you want.

You are still swerving, evading, and weaving. I haven't said anything about the Christian god or you as a Christian. I have said that I have no idea what any individual talking about god means by the term - what the term means to them personally. I ask them what they mean by god if they use the term so I can understand what the hell they are talking about. I don't care what flavor of religion they identify with or even if they have no specific religion.

You say that you can easily describe what you personally mean by the word god and yet you continue to act as if you have no idea what someone is asking when they ask how you personally would describe the god you claim to believe in.

I'll ask again, how would you describe this god you believe in?

If your definition is "everything except a sprig of basil", I can accept that it is your belief but would be really perplexed how such a belief would mean anything to you and what the hell is wrong with basil. Also such a description would make the use of the word god in a discussion rather meaningless.

 

[Learner]

I think Politese meant in the context of the quote below.

I am perplexed as to why you, or Politesse, should think that "infinite" cannot be defined or described.
No this is not "true of anything eternal." Why would it be. We have words to describe eternal, and infinite.

Theists use the same description for "infinite" as everyone else. Now I understand what you're getting at,(a little hasty in posting perhaps, I often do) but you must mean; defining GOD, as discussed in previous posts, which is not about defining the word "infinite", otherwise that would be a tad misleading.

However, what you need words for is to distinguish it from empty space, which could also be described as eternal and infinite, but is not a personal god. I can tell the difference between the two. I'm at a loss as to how you cannot.

I don't think you really believe that Rhea . I'm pretty sure we are distinguishing between the two, just as with the word "infinite" in much of the same way.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I don't think you really believe that Rhea . I'm pretty sure we are distinguishing between the two, just as with the word "infinite" in much of the same way.

The word is fascination.

People can be duped into accepting really outlandish claims because they are simply fascinated by the possibility - and - lack the knowledge and information that would allow them to dismiss the claims as false. Ancient aliens, megalithic structures, alien abduction, bigfoot, magic, ghosts, gods and demigods, miraculous events, the list is as endless as human imagination and curiosity. Watch our movies to find out what we're fascinated with.

Perhaps Rhea is fascinated by the fact that no one is able to define their god in a way that separates it from infinity, that the best they've done here thus far is to be certain it is not a sprig of basil of like a chinese god, yet maintain a belief in it's reality. Even hoaxers abound with evidence that the lunar landings were faked.

It really is fascinating.

 

[abaddon]

People can be duped into accepting really outlandish claims because they are simply fascinated by the possibility - and - lack the knowledge and information that would allow them to dismiss the claims as false. Ancient aliens, megalithic structures, alien abduction, bigfoot, magic, ghosts, gods and demigods, miraculous events, the list is as endless as human imagination and curiosity. Watch our movies to find out what we're fascinated with.

Yes. God's in that same class because it's quick and easy to make the cosmos personal to you and feel expert on how reality "really is". A life infused with instant meaning. You're really a soul, like a body of light, not merely this nasty physical thing. You don't have to learn that dry science stuff, you can gain expertise by reading the wisdom of the ancients, or make it easier still by letting a preacher tell you.

The details don't matter, they're not going to dissect their gift horse. Ancient wise men have some details, but still the basic idea boils down to "Something More". Whatever physical reality is, God is Other and More and Better than that.

God has to be conceptually nebulous but as intimate as "personal experience", to make 'him' or 'her' both your personal friend AND a quick summary of existence.

 

[Rhea]

Theists use the same description for "infinite" as everyone else. Now I understand what you're getting at,(a little hasty in posting perhaps, I often do) but you must mean; defining GOD, as discussed in previous posts, which is not about defining the word "infinite", otherwise that would be a tad misleading.

However, what you need words for is to distinguish it from empty space, which could also be described as eternal and infinite, but is not a personal god. I can tell the difference between the two. I'm at a loss as to how you cannot.

I don't think you really believe that Rhea . I'm pretty sure we are distinguishing between the two, just as with the word "infinite" in much of the same way.

Can you show the sentence where you think you explained, “infinity is this, and my god is that” ?

 

[Tharmas]

Years ago, when I was still a theist of sorts (“spiritual but not religious,” as they say) I came up with the following axiom: If God is transcendent, then that which can be defined cannot be God.

That sort of satisfied me until I came to the conclusion that in the first part, the term “transcendence” is also essentially undefinable, leaving me with a tautology, i.e. “If God is undefinable, then God is undefinable.” Didn’t do so much for me, after that.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

People can be duped into accepting really outlandish claims because they are simply fascinated by the possibility - and - lack the knowledge and information that would allow them to dismiss the claims as false. Ancient aliens, megalithic structures, alien abduction, bigfoot, magic, ghosts, gods and demigods, miraculous events, the list is as endless as human imagination and curiosity. Watch our movies to find out what we're fascinated with.

Yes. God's in that same class because it's quick and easy to make the cosmos personal to you and feel expert on how reality "really is". A life infused with instant meaning. You're really a soul, like a body of light, not merely this nasty physical thing. You don't have to learn that dry science stuff, you can gain expertise by reading the wisdom of the ancients, or make it easier still by letting a preacher tell you.

The details don't matter, they're not going to dissect their gift horse. Ancient wise men have some details, but still the basic idea boils down to "Something More". Whatever physical reality is, God is Other and More and Better than that.

God has to be conceptually nebulous but as intimate as "personal experience", to make 'him' or 'her' both your personal friend AND a quick summary of existence.

You are correct. All these fabulous claims become part of a very comforting identity. They give great satisfaction and act as a drug on the brain so that we keep craving more and more. And it's great stimulation for the brain itself.

For many people it never materializes into an emotional vs intellectual situation, and that's obviously simply evidence of cognitive inequality and natural selection at work. Also, as human groups have increased in size it has become possible to use collective intellectual gains more easily so that one can continue to engage in these behaviors while not threatening competition or survival.

 

[Learner]

I don't think you really believe that Rhea . I'm pretty sure we are distinguishing between the two, just as with the word "infinite" in much of the same way.

The word is fascination.

People can be duped into accepting really outlandish claims because they are simply fascinated by the possibility - and - lack the knowledge and information that would allow them to dismiss the claims as false. Ancient aliens, megalithic structures, alien abduction, bigfoot, magic, ghosts, gods and demigods, miraculous events, the list is as endless as human imagination and curiosity. Watch our movies to find out what we're fascinated with.

Perhaps Rhea is fascinated by the fact that no one is able to define their god in a way that "separates" it from infinity, that the best they've done here thus far is to be certain it is not a sprig of basil of like a chinese god, yet maintain a belief in it's reality. Even hoaxers abound with evidence that the lunar landings were faked.

It really is fascinating.

I'm fascinated with the word "seperates". An introduction perhaps, widening the field (for lack better words) adding to the "Define God" argument (is it an argument?). Asking to "define God", is of course a good valid question,... from the pov that you're merely asking for the perspective view of someones belief. Since it it can be answered , (regardless if one accepts the answers or not). It does become imo, a little redundant as an argument.

 

[Learner]

Theists use the same description for "infinite" as everyone else. Now I understand what you're getting at,(a little hasty in posting perhaps, I often do) but you must mean; defining GOD, as discussed in previous posts, which is not about defining the word "infinite", otherwise that would be a tad misleading.

However, what you need words for is to distinguish it from empty space, which could also be described as eternal and infinite, but is not a personal god. I can tell the difference between the two. I'm at a loss as to how you cannot.

I don't think you really believe that Rhea . I'm pretty sure we are distinguishing between the two, just as with the word "infinite" in much of the same way.

Can you show the sentence where you think you explained, “infinity is this, and my god is that” ?

After you show me how "we" cannot distinguish between the two mentioned above.

 

[Rhea]

Can you show the sentence where you think you explained, “infinity is this, and my god is that” ?

After you show me how "we" cannot distinguish between the two mentioned above.

You said,

I'm pretty sure we are distinguishing between the two, just as with the word "infinite" in much of the same way.

I am asking you to show where you

are distinguishing between the two,

Did you, or did you not say you were distinguishing between the two? You said that you were. Please show where you were distinguishing between your god and space.

 

[Rhea]

Then why specify that I am also supposed to represent Christianity?

You said you were Christian. So I asked about your Christian God.

It was made clear that agnostic perspectives, though certainly my true perspective on the question, were not welcome because they weren't "Christian".

Well, the thread did very clearly say it wanted to know how Christians would define their god. So there is that, in black and white - not hard to comprehend why someone might say, “well if you’re defining an agnostic god, you can see why we’re not really caring right now.” Or maybe you can’t. Dunno why.

I've been describing my own personal perspective at length.

Despite the question being quite clear that what is of interest is a definition of a god, for any individual who can stay on target enough. You weren’t asked for your perspective on religion or faith or how you came to be converted. That’s what you answered, at length, but it was not what was asked.

Ironically, only to be accused of "swerving", "dodging", and other such terms oft applied to free thinkers.

That wasn’t ironic. We’re just amazed that “define your god” seems so very tricky for y’all.

It has been repeatedly stated of myself and others in this thread that we are refusing to answer the question. But the real problem is that you aren't getting the answer you want.

Indeed. You’ve got it. A question was asked, and “what we want” is an answer to that question.
And that refusing to answer the question is quite literally off topic.

If you're so much better at defining God than everyone else, why aren't you providing such a definition?

The question is, “For Christians, define god.”
I am not a Christian.
I don’t have a god.

Although I did start a thread for Atheists to define the gods that they don’t believe in.



The question is so simple.
If you are a christian,
And you’re talking to someone who has never heard of your god,
Can you describe it so that they can “meet” your god?
Can you define it so they can know that it is different from a sprig of basil or empty space?
Or... is there no one to meet?

 

[Politesse]

You said you were Christian. So I asked about your Christian God.


Well, the thread did very clearly say it wanted to know how Christians would define their god. So there is that, in black and white - not hard to comprehend why someone might say, “well if you’re defining an agnostic god, you can see why we’re not really caring right now.” Or maybe you can’t. Dunno why.

I've been describing my own personal perspective at length.

Despite the question being quite clear that what is of interest is a definition of a god, for any individual who can stay on target enough. You weren’t asked for your perspective on religion or faith or how you came to be converted. That’s what you answered, at length, but it was not what was asked.

Ironically, only to be accused of "swerving", "dodging", and other such terms oft applied to free thinkers.

That wasn’t ironic. We’re just amazed that “define your god” seems so very tricky for y’all.

It has been repeatedly stated of myself and others in this thread that we are refusing to answer the question. But the real problem is that you aren't getting the answer you want.

Indeed. You’ve got it. A question was asked, and “what we want” is an answer to that question.
And that refusing to answer the question is quite literally off topic.

If you're so much better at defining God than everyone else, why aren't you providing such a definition?

The question is, “For Christians, define god.”
I am not a Christian.
I don’t have a god.

Although I did start a thread for Atheists to define the gods that they don’t believe in.



The question is so simple.
If you are a christian,
And you’re talking to someone who has never heard of your god,
Can you describe it so that they can “meet” your god?
Can you define it so they can know that it is different from a sprig of basil or empty space?
Or... is there no one to meet?

I am a Christian, but a syncretic one, and agnostic on the question of God. I'm not sure how to simplify this any further.

And I doubt that any Christian sees God as something that can be defined, any more than the Taoist can define the Tao or a Hindu Brahma. You can throw out dictionary definitions and so forth, but cosmological concepts defy satisfying definition. Anyone older than the age of eight or so, who has really thought about their faith, is going to give you vague and abstract answers, because the most expansive things in the universe are that way. The problem is not that they are all confused about what they believe in, but that you are confused about them. Faith doesn't come from dictionaries. But if that's what you wanted, you could always just use google. This gives us:

God (noun): (in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.

C'est voila!

 

[Tom Sawyer]

You said you were Christian. So I asked about your Christian God.


Well, the thread did very clearly say it wanted to know how Christians would define their god. So there is that, in black and white - not hard to comprehend why someone might say, “well if you’re defining an agnostic god, you can see why we’re not really caring right now.” Or maybe you can’t. Dunno why.


Despite the question being quite clear that what is of interest is a definition of a god, for any individual who can stay on target enough. You weren’t asked for your perspective on religion or faith or how you came to be converted. That’s what you answered, at length, but it was not what was asked.


That wasn’t ironic. We’re just amazed that “define your god” seems so very tricky for y’all.

It has been repeatedly stated of myself and others in this thread that we are refusing to answer the question. But the real problem is that you aren't getting the answer you want.

Indeed. You’ve got it. A question was asked, and “what we want” is an answer to that question.
And that refusing to answer the question is quite literally off topic.

If you're so much better at defining God than everyone else, why aren't you providing such a definition?

The question is, “For Christians, define god.”
I am not a Christian.
I don’t have a god.

Although I did start a thread for Atheists to define the gods that they don’t believe in.



The question is so simple.
If you are a christian,
And you’re talking to someone who has never heard of your god,
Can you describe it so that they can “meet” your god?
Can you define it so they can know that it is different from a sprig of basil or empty space?
Or... is there no one to meet?

I am a Christian, but a syncretic one, and agnostic on the question of God. I'm not sure how to simplify this any further.

And I doubt that any Christian sees God as something that can be defined, any more than the Taoist can define the Tao or a Hindu Brahma. You can throw out dictionary definitions and so forth, but cosmological concepts defy satisfying definition. Anyone older than the age of eight or so, who has really thought about their faith, is going to give you vague and abstract answers, because the most expansive things in the universe are that way. The problem is not that they are all confused about what they believe in, but that you are confused about them. Faith doesn't come from dictionaries. But if that's what you wanted, you could always just use google. This gives us:

God (noun): (in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.

C'est voila!

And that neo-deist stuff is fine, except that the Tao and Brahma aren't defined by their worshipers as guys who interact with their followers and directly intervene in their lives. The sects of Christianity like yours which write God off as an abstract entity who's just sort of floating there in the background aren't the ones which are relevant to this conversation. It's the ones which claim that God has a will and a personality and desires and interacts with the world and cares about what we do in it that matter.

Even if we can't understand God as a whole, we can understand the parts of him that interact with us. Given that he clearly and directly said that we understand good and evil the same as he does, we can therefore make judgments about these interactions or the lack thereof. When Christians say things like "God intervened in that accident and saved my life", the followup question to them of "Well, the driver of the other car died. Why didn't God save him too?" isn't a case of atheists misinterpreting what Christians think about God, its us taking the definition they give of him and questioning the logic of that definition.

Also, if you can't define what it is that you're worshiping, then why are you worshiping it in the first place? That would be like me calling myself a Zoffcrafter when I don't know what the hell a Zoffcrafter is.

 

[Politesse]

And that neo-deist stuff is fine, except that the Tao and Brahma aren't defined by their worshipers as guys who interact with their followers and directly intervene in their lives. The sects of Christianity like yours which write God off as an abstract entity who's just sort of floating there in the background aren't the ones which are relevant to this conversation. It's the ones which claim that God has a will and a personality and desires and interacts with the world and cares about what we do in it that matter.

I'm open to the possibility. Not sure you understand what agnosticism is.

Or Brahma, for that matter. Cause, dude. There's some history there.

And it's not true that the Tao doesn't interact with people either, though it is true that it is not tied to a Person.

Even if we can't understand God as a whole, we can understand the parts of him that interact with us. Given that he clearly and directly said that we understand good and evil the same as he does, we can therefore make judgments about these interactions or the lack thereof. When Christians say things like "God intervened in that accident and saved my life", the followup question to them of "Well, the driver of the other car died. Why didn't God save him too?" isn't a case of atheists misinterpreting what Christians think about God, its us taking the definition they give of him and questioning the logic of that definition.

Being able to describe an interaction with a person is not the same thing as defining them.

How could anyone possibly know why God saved one person and murdered another? That would be hard to suss out even if it were a fellow human we were talking about. You might be able to define the crime, but the criminal?

Also, if you can't define what it is that you're worshiping, then why are you worshiping it in the first place? That would be like me calling myself a Zoffcrafter when I don't know what the hell a Zoffcrafter is.

Why would I worship someone I could understand in that way? Anything that actually fits in our tiny ape-brains without the aid of metaphor, symbolism, and allusion is not really worth our time. The fundamental mystery of existence is what makes it interesting. If Zoffcrafter is what you call that mystery, why not run with it?

Religion is more than just worship, in any case.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

How could anyone possibly know why God saved one person and murdered another? That would be hard to suss out even if it were a fellow human we were talking about. You might be able to define the crime, but the criminal?

Yes. This is the entire point. They are giving credit to God for intervening and saving them. That is a claim on their part that God saved a person. It is also an implicit claim on their part that God did not intervene and save the other person. For that claim to have any merit, there needs to be a way to distinguish it from "There was no intervention at all and one person just happened to live and one just happened to die". If there is no way to distinguish between scenarios where God intervenes and God doesn't intervene, why include God in the first place when talking about it?

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

How could anyone possibly know why God saved one person and murdered another? That would be hard to suss out even if it were a fellow human we were talking about. You might be able to define the crime, but the criminal?

Yes. This is the entire point. They are giving credit to God for intervening and saving them. That is a claim on their part that God saved a person. It is also an implicit claim on their part that God did not intervene and save the other person. For that claim to have any merit, there needs to be a way to distinguish it from "There was no intervention at all and one person just happened to live and one just happened to die". If there is no way to distinguish between scenarios where God intervenes and God doesn't intervene, why include God in the first place when talking about it?

If I murder someone it's god's will. If I stop a murder it's god's will. If I'm murdered it's god's will. If I can stop someone from murdering me it's god's will. Whatever happens is god's will, especially when I like what happens. When I don't like what happens, then it's mysterious but still god's will.

There must be something comforting there that thankfully is foreign to me.

 

[Learner]

You said,

I'm pretty sure we are distinguishing between the two, just as with the word "infinite" in much of the same way.

I am asking you to show where you

are distinguishing between the two,

Did you, or did you not say you were distinguishing between the two? You said that you were. Please show where you were distinguishing between your god and space.

Oh , I thought you would at least show me "how we cannot distinguish between the two". Because of the sequence of posts i.e. yours was the first post on this matter.

Never mind , I won't accuse you of swerving (as some try to do with politesse).

"
Can you show the sentence where you think you explained, “infinity is this, and my god is that” ?

Did you, or did you not say you were distinguishing between the two? You said that you were. Please show where you were distinguishing between your god and space. "

I didn't nor did you explain. You overlooked the first line when I said in post # 203 "Theists use the same description for "infinite" as everyone else." That is to mean: as generally understood , universally.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

How could anyone possibly know why God saved one person and murdered another? That would be hard to suss out even if it were a fellow human we were talking about. You might be able to define the crime, but the criminal?

Yes. This is the entire point. They are giving credit to God for intervening and saving them. That is a claim on their part that God saved a person. It is also an implicit claim on their part that God did not intervene and save the other person. For that claim to have any merit, there needs to be a way to distinguish it from "There was no intervention at all and one person just happened to live and one just happened to die". If there is no way to distinguish between scenarios where God intervenes and God doesn't intervene, why include God in the first place when talking about it?

If I murder someone it's god's will. If I stop a murder it's god's will. If I'm murdered it's god's will. If I can stop someone from murdering me it's god's will. Whatever happens is god's will, especially when I like what happens. When I don't like what happens, then it's mysterious but still god's will.

There must be something comforting there that thankfully is foreign to me.

Well, the good news is that despite everything that happens being God's will and he's in control of everything, you still have your own free will and are in control of yourself and that all happens in a totally compatible and logical way.

 

[skepticalbip]

How could anyone possibly know why God saved one person and murdered another? That would be hard to suss out even if it were a fellow human we were talking about. You might be able to define the crime, but the criminal?

Yes. This is the entire point. They are giving credit to God for intervening and saving them. That is a claim on their part that God saved a person. It is also an implicit claim on their part that God did not intervene and save the other person. For that claim to have any merit, there needs to be a way to distinguish it from "There was no intervention at all and one person just happened to live and one just happened to die". If there is no way to distinguish between scenarios where God intervenes and God doesn't intervene, why include God in the first place when talking about it?

If I murder someone it's god's will. If I stop a murder it's god's will. If I'm murdered it's god's will. If I can stop someone from murdering me it's god's will. Whatever happens is god's will, especially when I like what happens. When I don't like what happens, then it's mysterious but still god's will.

There must be something comforting there that thankfully is foreign to me.

It took me a while to really understand that the idea that everything happens only by the will of Allah is a very big part of Islamic thought. One Muslim I know was always quite upset about the US involvement in the Middle East. He once asked me why Christians were there killing Muslims. My answer that it was the will of Allah so they have no choice actually seems to have calmed him down... I haven't heard a rant from him since (but then maybe he is just avoiding that crazy man.)

ETA:
Apparently the big difference between Christianity and Islam is that Muslims attribute everything to 'the will of Allah' while, for Christians, god is only involved in things they like - everything else is chance, cause and effect, or Satan.