I have offered a definition, however, the definition I'm using is: "I am that".
and what is that?
What would you say the distinction is between who you are and what you experience?
quite a lot if I can neither establish what I am or what I experience
Note that I've also been criticizing your definition, since you appear to believe that the subject must be defined by using ordinary words and their ordinary meanings.
There is nothing ordinary about suggesting the living entity and god operate out of distinct ontological categories.
What is ordinary however is to partake of a conditioned existence (IOW an existence characterized by limitation ... whether it be an inability to remember events several days ago or prevent one's molars from rotting) and not recognize this distinction
I'm saying you can't really "define" God with words, you can however, "define" God by realising that you experience God. It seems to me to be a much more useful definition, because you don't "need" words.
Technically you can't really define anything with words. For instance i cannot accurately define the smell of a rose with a keyboard. What we can do with words however is establish a context and relationship between things. So for instance, if I say "I have the experience of smelling a rose" and then, by way of example, proceed to draw a picture of an antelope and a make phone call regarding a quote to get it framed, there is a drastic anomaly with the words i choose to use to describe my experience. Sure, I can say "I don't care what you think of accurate definitions of "smelling" and "rose", I know by dint of my experience that i have smelled a rose" ... but , existential equivocations surrounding the nature of experience and expression aside, the fact remains
key terms I choose to use in describing my experience are inappropriate (or at least, require further explanation ... like I dunno, maybe "smelling" is a slang word I use for calling someone on the phone and Mr. Rose is the local picture framer)
You seem to be having a hard time with this, which I attribute to your belief in the "power" of the meaning of words.
If you are choosing particular words over others, you are already utilizing that power. Even if you are simply doing it as an experiment in surrealism or automatic writing, its the power of meaning in words that grants any value to anything you say.
There is no escaping the power of meaning of words ... except for maybe this : vbuidfsjvh afsbvhjbfhjv fbvhjbfjv fsbvhjbvhjabskquiowfjkladsbva bm,x asx as cv adsvj ..... which, as a detail, is a poor argument for many things, including the non/existence/nature of god
But words can't describe a lot of things,
They do however describe specific things at the exclusion of others.
So for instance if I say "I am the president", it behooves me (at least for as long as I don't generously dip into solipsism) to explain why I claim such a thing despite displaying an absence of qualities associated with the president.
IOW if a word suggests an increased scope of influence/power/capacity ("president"), there are other experiences that readily typify it.
So to bring the topic to bear, the fact that you indicate a state ("I know I am god") distinct from another state ("you do not know you are god") and with a professed inability to elucidate anything of your experience/knowledge to distinguish the two clearly indicates you have a problem beyond mere semiotics
their "power" fails everyone at some point.Well, suppose I reason that I don't need a definition, or any words that have definitions, and then I sit around wondering why there are people who suppose otherwise? People like you, say.
Once again, you don't score any extra points for slipping back into solipsism.
No doubt you will retort "I don't need to score anything", but please remember the issue at hand is your coherence.... and if I guess you don't feel the need to support that, you can just as easily say you are jesus, a giraffe, aldolph hitler or all three.
:shrug:
Someone who says God has a definition in words probably doesn't know what God is.
Someone who says they have experience of god and who cannot distinguish it from
not having the experience
definitely doesn't have the experience.