For Christians, define god

[Rhea]

This is a much more reasonable response because it at least shows a willingness to engage with the actual definition offered by the biblical theist (Christian) instead of invisible pink unicorns or farming goats etc etc

Don’t you get that, to us, your definition of your god is EXACTLY LIKE invisible pink unicorns and farming (sic) goats?

Do you still not get that?

Offer a definition of your god that is not the same as the definition of an invisible pink unicorn.


But no, you offer insubstantial platitudes and then screech that we don’t engage with your definition differently.
What did you offer:

1. Gender neutral but typically presents attributes of maleness (if that matters).
2. Didn't come from anywhere.
3. "Out of" nothing. (It's a quantum thingy)
4. Yes. He makes rules. (Eg. Gravity has no free will. God does.)
5. Yes. Logos.
6. No. God isn't a machine you can dismantle.

The male invisible pink unicorn.

And then you say we are absurd for brining up oother gods with identical definitions as yours.
Well...... yes. Those definitions are indeed absurd. They are yours.

This thread was your opportunity to define your god convincingly. And you took that opportunity and turned your god into a joke by immediately jumping to “atheists should have to define all the gods they reject as not believable!” Freudian slip?

 

[Rhea]

Can we please get back on topic?

Christians - define god.

 

[steve_bank]

What Lion is avoiding is that his concepts of god are a product of his imagination, there is nothing in the bible. If he thinks god speaks to him and others who speak to god disagree, then either one or both are wrong.

One of the fallbacks is I believe god exists but god is a mystery beyond my comprehension. Christians always have a way out.

 

[Tigers!]

I would be interested to know whether LionIRC agrees with me that this is how he treats gods other than the Christian god. He seems to be of the opinion that they are real, but not 'correct' - perhaps because they are merely obscured or misunderstood views of his 'true' god - rather than that they are purely fictional.

(I was wondering whether to stick my oar in the water. Nothing ventured, nothing sprained.)
I am happy to agree with Bilby's view that as a theist I believe that other gods exist (note lower case). They are false in the sense that they make claims that they cannot support but they are real.

So strictly speaking it is not correct as to characterise me as only accepting one God. The argument used by some atheists that they only disagree in the existence of one more god than me is not correct. They disbelieve in a lot more gods than I do.

- - - Updated - - -

What Lion is avoiding is that his concepts of god are a product of his imagination, there is nothing in the bible. If he thinks god speaks to him and others who speak to god disagree, then either one or both are wrong.

One of the fallbacks is I believe god exists but god is a mystery beyond my comprehension. Christians always have a way out.

God's total comprehension is beyond me but somethings about him are comprehensible.

- - - Updated - - -

Can we please get back on topic?

Christians - define god.

If you automatically reject everything that a theist proposes then this discussion will rapidly die.

 

[Jobar]

One of the fallbacks is I believe god exists but god is a mystery beyond my comprehension. Christians always have a way out.

Yes, we hear that one a lot. The entirely reasonable response is, then why do you believe this mystery exists? Why have faith in a mystery? For all you know, the God you worship could be Cthulhu, or Baal- or completely nonexistent.

We don't see many attempts to answer that. Lion, care to give it a shot?

 

[skepticalbip]

(I was wondering whether to stick my oar in the water. Nothing ventured, nothing sprained.)
I am happy to agree with Bilby's view that as a theist I believe that other gods exist (note lower case). They are false in the sense that they make claims that they cannot support but they are real.

So strictly speaking it is not correct as to characterise me as only accepting one God. The argument used by some atheists that they only disagree in the existence of one more god than me is not correct. They disbelieve in a lot more gods than I do.

Thanks for the insight. So your view is pretty much the same as the pantheism of ancient Greece, Rome, Egypt, the Norse, etc. only placing the Biblical god as the chief god and demoting Zeus, Jupiter, Ra, Odin, etc. to minor deities.

I was drilled on the meaning of Christianity by my grandfather who was a Methodist minister. He was a staunch monotheist. Now I have to wonder how many Christians accept pantheism rather than the monotheism that is claimed in all the cannon I am familiar with.

 

[Underseer]

1. Gender neutral but typically presents attributes of maleness (if that matters).
2. Didn't come from anywhere.
3. "Out of" nothing. (It's a quantum thingy)
4. Yes. He makes rules. (Eg. Gravity has no free will. God does.)
5. Yes. Logos.
6. No. God isn't a machine you can dismantle.



Now, when atheist proselytisers ask me to define God my first thought is...
Shouldn't atheists be the ones defining what it is they disbelieve?

Lion, I know you mean well, but it seems silly to make claims about something when you can't prove that something exists in the first place. It's like arguing about the color of Luke Skywalker's lightsaber. If you can't offer evidence for god, you can't possibly offer evidence for the various characteristics and properties of god.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Lion, I know you mean well, but it seems silly to make claims about something when you can't prove that something exists in the first place.

But he wasn't asked to prove that gods exist, merely to describe what he feels the gods he believes in are like.
This is actually unusually far from a derail for Lion.

 

[abaddon]

... the pantheism of ancient Greece, Rome, Egypt, the Norse, etc. ... Now I have to wonder how many Christians accept pantheism...

I think you mean polytheism. I don't know if it's so in your case, but sometimes there's a confusion of pantheism and pantheon. Pan = all, theos = god. Pan + theism = all is god. Pan + theon = all the gods. So, similar roots, entirely different meanings. Pantheism is a monotheism. Its one god is "All that exists as a whole". Pantheon's the list of deities in polytheism.

I wonder though if it's polytheism if the theist believes the great slew of gods across cultures are gods? Or distorted faces of his own God? Aren't the Greeks polytheists for having their own pantheon?

The preacher at the church I went to informed us that the pagan gods were demons. To me, that makes more sense. Cuz that way they stay inside their own mythology: One tripartite god-thing, and a lot of fallen angels.

In another sermon he told us about the atheists... But the first half of the sermon was about devil worshipers. He covered those deceived believers first, before proceeding to the worst thing... the unbelievers. The atheists were scarier for being something you might someday actually become if you "backslid" far enough. That's interesting to me... belief has a virtue to it, so it's better to be a believer in false gods than to "not believe in anything at all". But of course, best if you don't backslide at all.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Well, I imagine that from a Christian point of view, if you believe in false gods, you're halfway there. Your mind is already in a "there's some kind of deity" mode and all that's required is updating your beliefs so that they point at the proper deity.

If someone thinks that it's all fiction, on the other hand, convincing them that your particular god is actually real is kind of like convincing them not to make this one guy angry or else he'll turn into a giant green rage monster. When the whole concept of deities is separated from concepts of reality, there's a much higher bar to clear to get them onto your team.

 

[skepticalbip]

... the pantheism of ancient Greece, Rome, Egypt, the Norse, etc. ... Now I have to wonder how many Christians accept pantheism...

I think you mean polytheism. I don't know if it's so in your case, but sometimes there's a confusion of pantheism and pantheon. Pan = all, theos = god. Pan + theism = all is god. Pan + theon = all the gods. So, similar roots, entirely different meanings. Pantheism is a monotheism. Its one god is "All that exists as a whole". Pantheon's the list of deities in polytheism.

You are right, my error. Thanks for the correction.

I wonder though if it's polytheism if the theist believes the great slew of gods across cultures are gods? Or distorted faces of his own God? Aren't the Greeks polytheists for having their own pantheon?

The preacher at the church I went to informed us that the pagan gods were demons. To me, that makes more sense. Cuz that way they stay inside their own mythology: One tripartite god-thing, and a lot of fallen angels.

In another sermon he told us about the atheists... But the first half of the sermon was about devil worshipers. He covered those deceived believers first, before proceeding to the worst thing... the unbelievers. The atheists were scarier for being something you might someday actually become if you "backslid" far enough. That's interesting to me... belief has a virtue to it, so it's better to be a believer in false gods than to "not believe in anything at all". But of course, best if you don't backslide at all.

I find that interesting, in an odd way, too. Though I get the impression that they see atheists as more despicable (rather than scarier) than devil worshipers. At least they seem to rant more against atheism than they do against devil worship.

 

[Copernicus]

ETA: Can we stop with the shifting of the burden of proof? I expect better from theists that hang out here, this isn't Rapture Ready for fuck's sake.

Second this. I've started a new thread - moderators, can you move the derail posts to it, plz?

Some posts have been moved from this thread to https://talkfreethought.org/showthread.php?14379-For-Atheists-define-what-you-don-t-believe-in

 

[abaddon]

I find that interesting, in an odd way, too. Though I get the impression that they see atheists as more despicable (rather than scarier) than devil worshipers. At least they seem to rant more against atheism than they do against devil worship.

Yes, agreed. I phrased it badly; I should have said "atheism" instead of "atheists". I meant the fear was of backsliding till one has lost his faith. No one's scared "I might turn into a satanic priest and get tattoos and skull jewelry and wear all black clothing if I don't safeguard my faith against doubts". But the fear of turning into something "bad" (as in losing your relation with God and thus all sense of purpose and meaningfulness in your life) is greater regarding atheism.

 

[Rhea]

Christians - define god.

If you automatically reject everything that a theist proposes then this discussion will rapidly die.

That’s an interesting viewpoint. Let’s explore it. And I say that sincerely, without mocking, so read the following as conversational inquiry in whose answer I am very much interested.

Is it because Christians are unwilling to state the definitions of their god(s) if they think people won’t agree right off?
Is it because they think everyone should already know the definition of their god so that, in a form where they are being INVITED to describe their god, it seems like a waste of time?
Is it the pearls before swine syndrome, where they cringe at the prospect of having their sacred studied by non-sacred people?
Is it because it comes as a surprise to christians that the people they are answering have heard 500 descrtiptions of god and none are believable?

Why would my disbelief cause a Christian to lose interest in defining their god in a place where they have been (for once) invited to do so?

 

[Tigers!]

Christians - define god.

If you automatically reject everything that a theist proposes then this discussion will rapidly die.

That’s an interesting viewpoint. Let’s explore it. And I say that sincerely, without mocking, so read the following as conversational inquiry in whose answer I am very much interested.

Is it because Christians are unwilling to state the definitions of their god(s) if they think people won’t agree right off?

I can state all the definitions of God I could wish. Whether others accept/like those definitions is another thing all together.

Is it because they think everyone should already know the definition of their god so that, in a form where they are being INVITED to describe their god, it seems like a waste of time?

The definitions of the Christian God have been around for hundreds of years. we will keep saying them. You may consider it to be a waste of time.

Is it the pearls before swine syndrome, where they cringe at the prospect of having their sacred studied by non-sacred people?

I am not fearful of scrutiny of the Bible. It was around long before me and will still be around long after you and I are gone.

Is it because it comes as a surprise to christians that the people they are answering have heard 500 descrtiptions of god and none are believable?

It is not a surprise to me at all. You are the one who considers they are unbelievable not I.

Why would my disbelief cause a Christian to lose interest in defining their god in a place where they have been (for once) invited to do so?

Your disbelief does not cause me to lose interest in God.

 

[Tigers!]

(I was wondering whether to stick my oar in the water. Nothing ventured, nothing sprained.)
I am happy to agree with Bilby's view that as a theist I believe that other gods exist (note lower case). They are false in the sense that they make claims that they cannot support but they are real.

So strictly speaking it is not correct as to characterise me as only accepting one God. The argument used by some atheists that they only disagree in the existence of one more god than me is not correct. They disbelieve in a lot more gods than I do.

Thanks for the insight. So your view is pretty much the same as the pantheism of ancient Greece, Rome, Egypt, the Norse, etc. only placing the Biblical god as the chief god and demoting Zeus, Jupiter, Ra, Odin, etc. to minor deities.

I was drilled on the meaning of Christianity by my grandfather who was a Methodist minister. He was a staunch monotheist. Now I have to wonder how many Christians accept pantheism rather than the monotheism that is claimed in all the cannon I am familiar with.

No I am not a pantheist. I can now see why you might think so.
When I call them gods I was being ironic. These entities/beings claim to be gods but are false since they do not have what they claim nor deliver on their promises.
Sometime sit is easier to use the terminology of the locals carefully when talking to them.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

(I was wondering whether to stick my oar in the water. Nothing ventured, nothing sprained.)
I am happy to agree with Bilby's view that as a theist I believe that other gods exist (note lower case). They are false in the sense that they make claims that they cannot support but they are real.

So strictly speaking it is not correct as to characterise me as only accepting one God. The argument used by some atheists that they only disagree in the existence of one more god than me is not correct. They disbelieve in a lot more gods than I do.

Thanks for the insight. So your view is pretty much the same as the pantheism of ancient Greece, Rome, Egypt, the Norse, etc. only placing the Biblical god as the chief god and demoting Zeus, Jupiter, Ra, Odin, etc. to minor deities.

I was drilled on the meaning of Christianity by my grandfather who was a Methodist minister. He was a staunch monotheist. Now I have to wonder how many Christians accept pantheism rather than the monotheism that is claimed in all the cannon I am familiar with.

No I am not a pantheist. I can now see why you might think so.
When I call them gods I was being ironic. These entities/beings claim to be gods but are false since they do not have what they claim nor deliver on their promises.
Sometime sit is easier to use the terminology of the locals carefully when talking to them.

What do you mean when you say they're real but they do not have what they claim nor deliver on their promise? I haven't heard that one before.

Are you saying that you believe there is an entity named Thor out there who once told a group of Vikings that thunder was the sound of his fighting Frost Giants with a hammer only he can lift but he was lying to them? That there is a guy named Eros who tried to convince some Greeks that the reason they fall in love is because he shoots them with magic arrows?

That's how I'm reading your post and I want to make sure that I understand you properly.

 

[bigfield]

Is it because Christians are unwilling to state the definitions of their god(s) if they think people won’t agree right off?

I can state all the definitions of God I could wish. Whether others accept/like those definitions is another thing all together.

"I am unwilling to define my god to atheists, so instead I pretended this question was asking me whether I want to produce a catalogue of all of the definitions of my god."

Is it because they think everyone should already know the definition of their god so that, in a form where they are being INVITED to describe their god, it seems like a waste of time?

The definitions of the Christian God have been around for hundreds of years. we will keep saying them. You may consider it to be a waste of time.

"I think everyone should already know the definition of my god."

Is it the pearls before swine syndrome, where they cringe at the prospect of having their sacred studied by non-sacred people?

I am not fearful of scrutiny of the Bible. It was around long before me and will still be around long after you and I are gone.

"I cringe at the prospect of having my sacred beliefs scrutinised, so I pretended you were referring to a book, instead."

Why would my disbelief cause a Christian to lose interest in defining their god in a place where they have been (for once) invited to do so?

Your disbelief does not cause me to lose interest in God.

"I am unwilling to define my god to atheists, so once again I pretend the question referred to my interest in my god rather than the job of providing a definition to infidels."

 

[Politesse]

What is god? female, male, or otrher?
Where did god come from, did he, she, or it always exist?
When god created the universe, out of what did he, she, or it make it from?
When god creates something are there rules or laws similar to science?
Does god have thoughts? From the bible god can certainly be angry and feel love.
Is god a being with inner workings, is there an energy source?

I don't see how we could possibly have definitive answers to any of those questions. If God exists, God is not an entity that operates in plain view. We see the effects of God, but you are asking for a diagram of an unknown machine based solely on its product. I suppose you could say, "ask the Bible!", but even if one takes a very literal view of those books, the God portrayed therein makes no claim to be able or willing to explain how they created the universe. They are described as thinking, so I suppose there is an answer to that one. On purely logical grounds, it seems to me that God must favor the seeming rules of science, as otherwise I cannot imagine how or why said rules would exist at all, or be consistent in their occurrence.

 

[braces_for_impact]

What is god? female, male, or otrher?
Where did god come from, did he, she, or it always exist?
When god created the universe, out of what did he, she, or it make it from?
When god creates something are there rules or laws similar to science?
Does god have thoughts? From the bible god can certainly be angry and feel love.
Is god a being with inner workings, is there an energy source?

I don't see how we could possibly have definitive answers to any of those questions. If God exists, God is not an entity that operates in plain view. We see the effects of God, but you are asking for a diagram of an unknown machine based solely on its product. I suppose you could say, "ask the Bible!", but even if one takes a very literal view of those books, the God portrayed therein makes no claim to be able or willing to explain how they created the universe. They are described as thinking, so I suppose there is an answer to that one. On purely logical grounds, it seems to me that God must favor the seeming rules of science, as otherwise I cannot imagine how or why said rules would exist at all, or be consistent in their occurrence.

So are you saying that you believe in...something that has undefinable characteristics? Many Christians would at least answer a few of those questions above. But this is rather unsophisticated, so the more wily among believers seem to try to keep that definition in a fog...until they're asked what it wants or needs or feels or has to teach us something...or well, something. I mean, if it cannot be defined and we know nothing about it, it's kind of useless isn't it? I have to admit I'm suspicious, because when I see theists doing this what I often see is God gets put into a closet during definition time, and then later when he's needed to be useful somehow to the theist, he get pulled out again, only to again be shoved into the dark when the atheist enters the room.