Heh, Snake, the grand tradition of "believer equivocation" continues; that of "God != god"... funny how every monotheist has that same delusion.
tsk~
tsk~
Defining what is God.
- Thread starter lightgigantic
- Start date
Sankelord
If you want to talk about evidencing god better you take it to another thread
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=61415
actually this thread is about defining god as opposed to evidencing god (the idea being it is easier to evidence something if you have a definition to work with)
If you want to talk about evidencing god better you take it to another thread
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=61415
In short, the specific nature of god (omnipresent, omnipotent, the cause of all causes, etc) make it impossible for more than one entity to possess the same characteristics
Hurray for ineffible gods...
Pfff~
Pfff~
How does one hope to objectively define that for which evidence is absent? It seems to be akin to "fairyologists" trying to define what is a fairy. Can they truly argue with objective opinion the nature and color of fairy wings? In the end, when trying to define that which is ultimately a product of human fantasy, the definition is merely a consensus. Why can't a god be omniscent but not omnipotent? Or, even omnipotent but not omniscent? The reason, of course, is that humans don't want their fantasies limited in such ways.
If you truly want to define, with any objective validity, what a god is, you must first show evidence such a thing is a part of reality and not just fantasy.
Poppycock. What evidence do you have that this is the case? Show me a single omnipotent/omnipresent entity that I can use to reference the rest. This shouldn't be difficult, particularly if the entity is "omnipresent" (present everywhere all the time). Your "definitions" hold up only in your imagination and fall flat on their faces in reality.
Skinwalker
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=61415
Qwerty mob
generally intelligent discussion does not solely rely on confidence statements and allusions to charisma
how does one find evidence for something that one does not have a concept of?
well if you want to talk what a fairy is, it helps to know what the concept of a fairy is, otherwise you might start talking about wheelbarrows or something
after they had a definition of what a fairy is, it could be possible
thats your definition of god
such a god would lack absolute power
such a god would lack knowledge
both attempts at defintions run contrary to what is established in the OP
there's a thread for this
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=61415
show me that you are qualified for such referencing
omnipresent differs quite a bit from omnivisibility - like fo r instance if you entered into an area contaminated with radiation whether you got affected by it or not with have nothing to do with whether it was visible to you
Qwerty mob
generally intelligent discussion does not solely rely on confidence statements and allusions to charisma
Fine, I'll start.. god: beings of any sex - the men have beards, purple spots and wear levis jeans, the women wear make up, like to nag a lot and wear mini skirts. Both female and male gods are powerful beings - able to do whatever they like with the click of a finger. They live in a quaint village out in the delta quadrant.
Ok that was easy, what now?
I must admit it was fun and I can carry on all day coming up with definitions, but personally I fail to see it's worth to anything. Your definition, mine, Bob's, Jacks and Mary's.. of what worth is any of it?
I suppose I should go check out that "evidencing thread", but I'm quite sure as far as actual 'evidence' is concerned the thread will be empty.
The specific nature of god? What are you talking about? We haven't even got past the definition phase and are nowhere near even remotely substantiating any of the gazillion definitions one could come up with. From where have you pulled this "nature of god"?
So.. why can't there be 100 gods?
P.S My name is SnakeLord
Snakelord
Btw you can call your defintion of god the FSM or Larry or whatever, but what we are after for this thread are qualities
it raises many problems - mostly how a community of beings can lay claim to being the cause of all causes - and also you seem to indicate that these absolute beings tend to argue quite a lot (what with the nagging women) so it raises the perplexity what is the outcome when one god has a different view than another (your gods seem to be subject to frustration).
Btw you can call your defintion of god the FSM or Larry or whatever, but what we are after for this thread are qualities
actually, for the purpose of this thread you havce to submit defintiions of god (ie you have to offer qualities of god, not identities of god) that resist all attempts to be conceived of as being inferior - so your original notion about an assembly of gods seems to be defeated at the onset
if you read it with the same attention that you read the OP for this one, yes, th eoutcome will be predictable
read the OP
If you read the OP it may help answer your query
Last edited:
LightGigantic:
Didn't you know that Faeries and wheelbarrows are the same creature?
Didn't you know that Faeries and wheelbarrows are the same creature?
Really?
I always thought my garden shed was mystical ...
do these things have different definitions?
Last edited:
Clearly, my good man, clearly!
Did you not know that the handles and wings are used for the same purpose? We just call them different things because of a custom from the French!
Did you not know that the handles and wings are used for the same purpose? We just call them different things because of a custom from the French!
Typical bullshit answer. Rather than answer the question with a real response, dodge the issue.
Then its time for the thread to diverge and cover more ground. "The OP" cannot be answered without taking into consideration the fantasies of humanity. THIS is how a "conception" of god is created. I challenge you to show any other way. Of course, you'll no doubt bring up your silly "high school drop out" straw man again.
Isn't this the coward's way, LG? Or is it intellectual dishonesty? Rather than produce any evidence, merely state that the challenger is unqualified. Doubtless, you bitch and moan about how the big bad mod is "ad homing" you again, but my criticisms of your methods are fair. Running from challenges of evidence like above are cowardly or dishonest. Either you're prepared to support a claim or you aren't. Implying that one must first be a "believer" to be qualified to "know," as you've been doing these past months is pure, unadulterated poppycock.
And yet it is detectable. An omnipresent entity will be detectable. Doubtless you'll bring up your "high school drop out" straw man or continue to imply the unbelievers are somehow "unqualified" to "know."
PJ, you wanted to know what I meant by "intellectual dishonesty." There's an example.
Skinwalker
You cannot even talk of wheel barrows or fairies without fulfilling this requirement
Regardless of your opinions, the thread deals with the idea that the defintion of god (outside of evidence or no evidence) is 'that which no one can conceive of as greater than' - your conception of god is something that is concocted by human society so it becomes easy to defeat, since the conception of a god that is not concocted is superior to a god that is.
(BTW the purpose of this thread, hopefully, is to make clear what is the exact definition of god that a theist works with- naturally the conception of god that an atheist works with is not superior since such conceptions don't warrant worship by the atheist advocate, so its pointless to bring them up in this thread)
so your claim that an omnipresent thing should be evident to anyone and everyone is straight out silliness
just like detecting radiation requires special qualifications of the seer, just like detecting an electron require special qualifications of the seer, in the same way detecting the nature of the transcendental requires special qualifications, much like the detection of absolutely anything, it requires special or at least specific qualfications
Until you do this, to spill out with claims of 'straw man', 'intellectual dishonesty', 'poppycock' etc is jumping the gun
Actually its common sense - I doubt you can provide evidence of anything that doesn't rest on a definition/conception - if such things are absent it becomes impossible to distinguish evidence from non-evidence, since you don't know what you are looking for.
You cannot even talk of wheel barrows or fairies without fulfilling this requirement
Regardless of your opinions, the thread deals with the idea that the defintion of god (outside of evidence or no evidence) is 'that which no one can conceive of as greater than' - your conception of god is something that is concocted by human society so it becomes easy to defeat, since the conception of a god that is not concocted is superior to a god that is.
(BTW the purpose of this thread, hopefully, is to make clear what is the exact definition of god that a theist works with- naturally the conception of god that an atheist works with is not superior since such conceptions don't warrant worship by the atheist advocate, so its pointless to bring them up in this thread)
Cowards way? It is the way of recognizing who is qualified in what field, without which it is impossible to determine whether one should consult a lawyer or a fruit vendow in times of legal difficulty - its actually the intelligent way
why?
so why do you approach a lawyer when you have legal problems instead of a fruit vendor? Its the same q of 'belief'
I never said that omnipresent things are not detectable
yes but it may not be detectable to everyone - much like radiation
so your claim that an omnipresent thing should be evident to anyone and everyone is straight out silliness
I never used the word 'believer'
just like detecting radiation requires special qualifications of the seer, just like detecting an electron require special qualifications of the seer, in the same way detecting the nature of the transcendental requires special qualifications, much like the detection of absolutely anything, it requires special or at least specific qualfications
if you want to label the high school drop out thing as a straw man or an eg. of intellectual dishonesty, you have to establish what is unique about the person who has ascertained knowledge by applying processes relevant to spiritual life that does not tally with a molecular physicist who has ascertained knowledge by applying processes relevant to molecular physics.
Until you do this, to spill out with claims of 'straw man', 'intellectual dishonesty', 'poppycock' etc is jumping the gun
Ahhhh that explains it.
You wouldn't believe the trouble I've had putting lawn clippings in my wheel barrow
Utter bollocks!
(Pardon my French).
Atheists can have exactly the same understanding and definitions of God as a theist - yet, based on the lack of evidence of that God's existence, choose not to have a belief that it exists.
You can NOT dismiss atheists' conceptions merely because they don't have a belief in that God's existence UNLESS you establish the reasoning for that atheist's lack of belief and build that into the framework of your definition.
But you can not - as lack of belief for the majority of atheists is based entirely on EVIDENCE - and this thread, as you have said yourself - is not discussing evidence (or lack of).
Therefore Theism or Atheism is IRRELEVANT in this discussion - and an insultful logical fallacy on your part, not to mention arrogant.
Well not really, no. I guess a decent analogy right here would be for me to say it's somewhat like being a high school dropout. What does he know of electrons and neutrons?
They have little to no interest in what you think they care to lay claim to. They have always existed, always been.. One day during an annual godly festival one of the gods voiced an idea. The other gods loved it and the universe was created. Which one of those gods did all or most of the work is irrelevant. They all find they can click their fingers and create things and so which specific one clicked his/her finger this time is of no relevance to anything.
They settle their differences by playing a game similar to human chess.
No I can't, or if I can then we might as well call your definition FSM as well.
Again I can only say it's like explaining electrons to high school dropouts - but I shall try nonetheless.
1) To be thorough the definition should have both "qualities" and "identities". The fact that they wear mini skirts is just as important to know as them also having the power to induce supernova's whenever they pass wind. However, to satisfy you I shall provide a list of qualities.
- Eternal, (this only applies for however long they want it to apply)
- Omnipotent, (they can do anything they want. They can even make square circles and stones so heavy they can't even lift them even though they have the power to lift them.. don't ask for an in depth explanation, it's like a high school dropout understanding electrons remember?)
- Omniscient, (although they can choose to un-know things if they want. They then become omniscient - 1, -2 and so on depending on how many things they decided to un-know).
- Not omnipresent, (they disliked the sight and smell of being inside a humans bumhole so much they un-omnipresented themselves).
That's a start although the list goes on.
2) They're not interested who considers them 'inferior' and as such neither them nor I have to 'resist it'. Out of curiosity though why did you say I had to?
3) how was anything "defeated at the onset"? There's many of them, you're just a high school dropout trying to understand electrons. Having no direct contact with them, not being knowledgeable about them etc makes you... what is it you keep saying? Ah yes, "unqualified".
Amusing but pointless.
I think something I might as well teach you now just so we can get it out the way is this...
Discussions evolve. I know, I know, you probably hate that word but it's true. Discussions are generally not that rigid that they don't often evolve to include other things. While rushing to accuse me of not paying attention you seemingly forgot all about that simple fact of life. This is a discussion forum, not a borg cube.
I read it.. what was your point?
What you're seemingly telling me is that you want me to define god while defining god under parameters that you set. What on earth is the point of that? Might as well just have you tell us your definition and be done with it.
"Define god, you can use anything but it must.."
How fucking stupid is that?
I read it. In no way whatsoever does it help answer why there can't be 100 gods - unless you wrote it in invisible ink in which case I apologise.
Conceptions do not define reality. This is not a game of Mage: The Ascension. Whether athiests and thiests have different conceptions of God (which I doubt; I was a thiest once, it's not like I needed amnesia to drop my faith) it makes little difference to the reality of any omnipresent beings.
I think all LG is after is to define something for which there is nothing superior.
LG then equates this to GOD, not realising that it is really just LG's God.
Other peoples' Gods don't necessarily need to be the most superior "thing" ever to have been.
Look at the Romans / Greeks - and their Pantheon of Gods - some smaller and lesser ones, but Gods nonetheless.
LG's God is obviously, as he conceptualises God, "the most superior thing" - and he then appears to exclude all other Gods as otherwise inferior and thus not "the most superior thing" - and thus not God.
Well, whoop-di-doo.
"My God is better than your God".
Your OP, LG, might say that it is not an attempt to do this - but it is, nonetheless.
Puerile.
And for any, and I mean any God you eventually come up with, I can come up with one that is superior to it...
Because the one I can come up with can make you think that the definition and qualities you give this "God" make nothing else superior, all the while knowing that there is something superior. He is also capable of making you think that if you try some similar conceptualisation for your own God that you will honestly believe it true, again all the while knowing that you are being fooled by him.
And that is something that from now on know makes your eventual conceptualisation / ideas inferior to mine.
So I'd give up now - 'cos mine is superior to yours.
Always will be.
Nah nah na-nah nah!
*************
M*W: Good question. Just because atheists don't believe in god doesn't mean that they don't know or understand the "concept" of a god. We probably understand god more than its believers do!
I would note that the notion of God is not purely "fantasy". The august tradition of philosophical theology goes back to Plato.
There are also serious reasons to suggest that existence has almost all the attributes of the Western conception of God.
There are also serious reasons to suggest that existence has almost all the attributes of the Western conception of God.
What if our Universe had one supreme God, but this being wasn't the only other being besides humans. For example, what if we had a God which lived in on a certain plain of existence and which created the Universe and our plain of existence. Whose to say that our God is alone? Our God may be part of a biiger picture of existence which we have absolutely no way of conceptualizing.