Define god

Oh my...

My definition: a intentional entity unconstrained by, and able to abrogate, natural law.
<HR>
<B>
CA and I at least agree on the fundamentals of this definition.
Cool.
 
Yeah, CA's seems to meet minimum requirements for a god.

Cris' would be good too, but people will argue about 'unnatural'.
 
Originally posted by ConsequentAtheist
Defining God(s) is relatively easy. Primitive peoples did it all the time. Defending one's definition against all others is more difficult, and has often necessitated recourse to fanaticism, doctrinal purges, and war.

My definition: a intentional entity unconstrained by, and able to abrogate, natural law.
Click to expand...
Hello, C.A.
I have read much of what you have written with great interest. One of the assumptions I have made in my investigations is that neither God's existence or actions abrogate natural law (in much the same way that a radio would have seemed supernatural hundreds of years ago, but is not). But I have no interest in defending that position, because I accept that I look through a glass darkly. What I am impressed with is that I believe you still look at the world and feel a sense of awe. Not bad, Grandpa ;)
 
i like it too (ca's defintion). however god could then said to be a very skilled magician. isnt scientific endeavour about abrogating natural law? there will eventually come a time when natural law is mastered and fashioned to our liking. do we not then, become de facto gods?

?
 
No... we'll just find laws which supercede the ones we currently know.
 
Laws

I agree with Persol here. Each physical law appears to be dictated by a law above that. Gravity, for a specific example.
 
God cannot be defined, he is related for energy not materia.We cannot define energy.
Sorry on bad English.
 
Originally posted by Persol
How do you define god?
I'd state:
created the universe
all-knowing
ability to affect our world
Click to expand...

The smallest
The greatest
The most beautiful
The strongest
The most knowledgable
The most renounced
The wealthiest
The oldest
Eternal
Perfect

Love

Jan Ardena.
 
Re: Re: Define god

Originally posted by Jan Ardena
The smallest
The greatest
The most beautiful
The strongest
The most knowledgable
The most renounced
The wealthiest
The oldest
Eternal
Perfect
Click to expand...

If a being has any less then those 10 qualities you won't consider it god?
 
When only imagination is concerned then of course there is nothing to limit an assertion of a superlative set of superlatives.

In the idealistic desire for a utopian universe then a perfect power and a perfect intelligence is a necessity.

So as a definition such an entity must be the absolute best of everything.
 
Re: Re: Define god

Originally posted by Jan Ardena
The smallest
The greatest
The most beautiful
The strongest
The most knowledgable
The most renounced
The wealthiest
The oldest
Eternal
Perfect

Love

Jan Ardena.
Click to expand...

all excepting "eternal" appear meaningless
 
Re: Laws

Originally posted by Persol
No... we'll just find laws which supercede the ones we currently know.
Click to expand...

Originally posted by Fluidity
I agree with Persol here. Each physical law appears to be dictated by a law above that. Gravity, for a specific example.
Click to expand...

there is an infinite succession of cause and effect? (personally, i feel comfortable with this!) in that case i will say that there is no entity logically imaginable that can abrogate natural law ie: the law is a work in progress!

??
 
Huh?

Originally posted by spookz
there is an infinite succession of cause and effect? (personally, i feel comfortable with this!) in that case i will say that there is no entity logically imaginable that can abrogate natural law ie: the law is a work in progress!
Click to expand...
I suspect that only anonymity allows people to write such things without embarrassment.
 
Originally posted by spookz
consequent
what is so outrageous in asserting that there is no first cause?
Click to expand...
Nothing. Nevertrheless:
  • "there is an infinite succession of cause and effect ... [therefore?] ... there is no entity logically imaginable that can abrogate natural law ie: the law is a work in progress!"
is roughly equivalent to asserting:
  • "cabbage also grows elsewhere in the universe, therefore there are no aquatic giraffs: xenobiology copes."
The sum is more underwhelming that the uselessness of the parts.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top