Definition of God - one thread to rule them all

[paddoboy]

And Jan claims Jan enjoys a discussion but I notice Jan avoids the science section in particular your thread where Jan could have a sensible discussion..but no.

Must correct that Alex. It's obvious Jan cannot contribute to the sciences sections, particularly the one detailing the BB, as being legitimate science, he would be obliged to contribute meaningfully, and support any alternative claim with evidence. We know that won't happen because she cant offer any evidence invalidating the BB, nor obviously, any evidence supporting any supernatural cause. But she obviously has read it, and is obviously inflamed by the facts presented, that support the BB as the evolution of the universe/space/time, as we know them. She would also learn from that thread, that the BB is applicable to the observable universe.

Jan's game is to have us focus on god even if it is to the effect that god does not exist Jan I suspect is content..you know any publicity is good publicity.

Perhaps he's a masochistic? Just saying.

Fortunately my astronomy is getting back on track so I won't have time to amuse myself crushing Jan on a daily basis and my visits will be confined to reading the latest science news you post...which was always the main reason I came here. [.QUOTE]
Thanks, and good for you with the photography!!! Actually I'm also getting bored playing games with him.

I finally conclude that Jan has been shown to be a liar and a troll who indulges in what Jan claims to be discussion for no other purpose than feeding Jans ego and searching for Jan's almost non existent self esteem.[/QUOTE[
Obviously as everyone has noted, but at least the lies and nonsensical claims and denials of scientific fact, are kept in the fringe religious section.

In fact I think I will join the likes of Michael and W4U and put Jan on ignore because I admit Jan is very good at trolling and I will bite on Jans nonsense.

I'll persevere with him for a while. I don't believe anyone should be able to get away with lies, even if it is in the fringe religious section.

..clearly Jan gets the attention Jan craves and does not care if Jan lies or makes a fool of Jan.

Well said, but he maybe banned for the nonsense before long as clearly, he is unable to be honest at all or indulge in honest debate regarding his beliefs. Which is why I gave praise to teroko
in the other thread. At least he was honest and in my opnion, that is all that is required despite your beliefs.

One very telling comment Jan made was that Jan had no idea what a carburettor was only that it did its job...now if you think about it how many men would not know about a carburettor.

A valid point that I did miss.

Good luck and progress with the Astronomy photos!

 

[paddoboy]

I knew it, I knew it I knew it.

I have been expecting such a post for days. I knew exactly what you were doing and here's my proof.

Such nonsensical replies have been evident for a few days now in actual fact Alex....
check out.....

Well.... were they?

Why?

Are these talking dogs the result of darwinism?

Aw! Feeling left out are we?
Want some attention?

My definition of god/s again anyway.....
A mythical unscientific supernatural being, fabricated by ancient man, to explain the wonders of the universe and the existence of life.

 

[Jan Ardena]

You yourself agreed the universe came in the Big Bang. Are you back-pedalling now?

Lying again Jan or a terminal case of dementia?.

Do you really want me to fetch the post where you admit the universe came from the Big Bang?

Go ahead.


“The BB was everything...all of space and all of time.” - Paddo

 

[(Q)]

Why?

They are the only two options available. There is either something or there is nothing. There's no in-between.

 

[(Q)]

Aw! Feeling left out are we?
Want some attention?

Just curious, Jan, what is your system of smilies based upon? Why use three? Or four? Is one not sufficient?

Inquiring minds want to know.

 

[(Q)]

Eleven smilies?!? What does that even mean?

 

[Jan Ardena]

Just curious, Jan, what is your system of smilies based upon? Why use three? Or four? Is one not sufficient?

Inquiring minds want to know.

They are to show Paddo how increasingly nervous I am becoming.

They are the only two options available. There is either something or there is nothing. There's no in-between.

What about the origin of everything?
Is that either something or nothing?

 

[(Q)]

They are to show Paddo how increasingly nervous I am becoming.

Why are you so nervous?

What about the origin of everything?
Is that either something or nothing?

That's exactly what scientists are working on finding out, and trying to do that means they need evidence and observations of that timeframe, which is not something easy or readily available to study.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Why are you so nervous?

Because he is an intellectual giant.
His intellect is so awesome, he can chat rubbish and get away with it.
You’ve got to be in awe of that.

 

[Jan Ardena]

That's exactly what scientists are working on finding out, and trying to do that means they need evidence and observations of that timeframe, which is not something easy or readily available to study.

So your there are only two options statement.
Is that scientific?

 

[(Q)]

So your there are only two options statement.
Is that scientific?

Your free to describe a term that describes what is not something and not nothing.

 

[paddoboy]

“The BB was everything...all of space and all of time.” - Paddo

While your usual stupidity is obvious, do you have a link and post number for that supposed quote of mine? I ask because we all know you are basically a liar.
In any event, and once again, there is a BB thread, if you want to talk about science. river is banned from that due to his ignorant nonsensical approach to science, and I dare say you keep away from it for the same reason/s and of course you lack the intestinal fortitude to discuss the science, within the sciences.
But if you have some science to offer, be my guest.

In the meantime the best definition of god/s is that it is nothing more then an unscientific supernatural myth built up over centuries by ignorant ancient man, to explain the universe around him.

 

[Tiassa]

Tiassa posted about this a bit earlier. Did you read his post?

Please, do go on.

 

[James R]

Jan Ardena:

We both know God is the cause of everything.

You don't know that. You're making two assumptions:

1. There is a cause of everything.
2. There is a transcendental thing you label "God", defined to be the aforementioned cause of everything.

I don't know that either of these things is true, and neither do you. I'm open to being convinced about (1), but (2) is a real uphill battle. The sticking point is "transcendental", since no such things have ever been established to exist, as far as I am aware.

The only thing you and I disagree on, is the nature of God.

I don't believe in God.

That’s another way of saying the universe just goes on and on.

No. Just as "north" has a limit at the North Pole, time and space apparently have a limit at the big bang. There is nothing north of the North Pole; there is no time and space before the big bang (in fact, in this picture, there is no "before the big bang").

Traditional “concepts” of God, hold that God is the transcendental origin of everything. Everything exists, therefore God Is.

What if there was no transcendental origin?

 

[James R]

Ok, then let's again insert my two prior definitions of god/s...again.
"Mythical entities dreamed up before science reared its head, to explain the wonders of the universe around him/her."

or perhaps....God/s are unscientific, unevidenced mythical concepts, ignorantly fabricated to avoid the reality and finality of death, by substituting a warm, inner pleasurable feeling.

If this is your working definition of God/s, paddoboy, you should realise that you have nothing to discuss with likes of Jan. Your definition of God is incompatible with his, so if you both start talking about your respective Gods then you'll be talking about different things.

Jan's God isn't defined to be mythical, for instance. You might argue that Jan's God, as defined by him, is mythical, but you would need to argue it. On other other hand, if you start by defining God to be a "mythical concept", then Jan just simply say "The God you're talking about is not God, as I define it", and he's done with you, unless either of you wants to try to convince the other that his definition is unworkable.

Despite all the off-topic discussion, it looks like this thread is turning out to be useful. Unless people can actually agree to discuss gods using a common definition, the entire discussion threatens to be a waste of time. There seems little point in discussing two different things and complaining that "your thing is wrong because it's not the same as my thing".

 

[paddoboy]

If this is your working definition of God/s, paddoboy, you should realise that you have nothing to discuss with likes of Jan. Your definition of God is incompatible with his, so if you both start talking about your respective Gods then you'll be talking about different things.

OK, what you say made some sense...Still though of the same mind as I defined god/s, I decided to check on definitions
Here;s what I found.....
Definition of god/s
https://www.google.com/search?q=definition of god&oq=definition of god&aqs=chrome..69i57j69i59j0l3j69i60l3.8918j1j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-81.(in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.(in certain other religions) a superhuman being or spirit worshipped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Then the Definition of Unicorn:https://www.google.com/search?q=definition of unicorn&sxsrf=ALeKk01vmlvbudLaUGzdqSlTdvDEJX7lpQ:1587465311022&ei=X8yeXuh9opvj4Q-s2aqoCA&start=0&sa=N&

1. a mythical animal typically represented as a horse with a single straight horn projecting from its forehead.<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

The above did not make me happy. Note the highlighted bits are by me as important.
Anyway, I then decided to check on the definition science has of god...https://www.quora.com/Can-science-define-god
:Q: Can Science define god?
:A: No, because Science is premised on the Scientific method. The existence of god is incongruent to the Scientific Method.
Science and Faith are different realms.Scientists defined the Scientific Method, that is fit-for-purpose for, surprise, surprise, Science.

• Faith leaders defined religious doctrine that is fit-for-purpose for Faith.
• Trying to reconcile the two realms is an exercise in futility. But, people still do it ad nauseam.
  • Scientists pooh-poohing god and religion.
  • Faith believers endeavoring to unwieldingly (often comically) force-fit religious doctrine on god into the Scientific Method template. The abstract and the clinical. Chalk and cheese.

Jan's God isn't defined to be mythical, for instance. You might argue that Jan's God, as defined by him, is mythical, but you would need to argue it. On other other hand, if you start by defining God to be a "mythical concept", then Jan just simply say "The God you're talking about is not God, as I define it", and he's done with you, unless either of you wants to try to convince the other that his definition is unworkable.

Despite all the off-topic discussion, it looks like this thread is turning out to be useful. Unless people can actually agree to discuss gods using a common definition, the entire discussion threatens to be a waste of time. There seems little point in discussing two different things and complaining that "your thing is wrong because it's not the same as my thing".

While this is in the fringe religion section, the forum is governed by the scientific methodology.
My questions that remains then, while accepting that "we are discussing two separate things" is how can you define something for which we have no evidence for and only faith?
And does god/s have to be part of our understanding of the universe?
And of course the word "God" according to the scientific methodology is defined as something that doesn't exist. So that answers my questions.

 

[James R]

paddoboy:

a mythical animal typically represented as a horse with a single straight horn projecting from its forehead.<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
The above did not make me happy. Note the highlighted bits are by me as important.

The word "mythical" appears in this definition of the unicorn. I guess that if there are any people out there who believe that unicorns are actually real, then this definition would not make them happy. On the other hand, dictionaries record how people use words. I suppose the finding here is that the vast majority of people regard unicorns as mythical. The word "mythical" does not typically appear in dictionary definitions of God for the same reason: because most people don't regard God as mythical.

Personally, I'd prefer a definition that doesn't prejudge the ontological status of the thing defined. On the other hand, maybe "mythical" here only means that unicorns are found in myths, which is certainly true. In that case, the definition isn't necessarily excluding the possibility that unicorns might also be found in the real world.

:Q: Can Science define god?
:A: No, because Science is premised on the Scientific method. The existence of god is incongruent to the Scientific Method.

I have some issues with this answer. It seems to be implying that science can't investigate any claims about gods, because it couldn't recognise their existence. I'm inclined to disagree, but it depends very much on the definition of "god". Unfalsifiable gods would certainly be "incongruent to the scientific method" (and a lot of versions of god have that attribute).

My questions that remains then, while accepting that "we are discussing two separate things" is how can you define something for which we have no evidence for and only faith?

We can define unicorns, so why not gods? All kinds of fantastical things can be clearly defined. Whether they exist in reality is a separate question to the definition, unless the definition in question actually specified existence or non-existence.

And does god/s have to be part of our understanding of the universe?

If there are no gods, the only thing we need to understand are reasons behind the common mythologies.

And of course the word "God" according to the scientific methodology is defined as something that doesn't exist.

Not in my book. Existence is not a question of definition. It's something we can empirically test, separately from the definition.

 

[paddoboy]

paddoboy:


The word "mythical" appears in this definition of the unicorn. I guess that if there are any people out there who believe that unicorns are actually real, then this definition would not make them happy. On the other hand, dictionaries record how people use words. I suppose the finding here is that the vast majority of people regard unicorns as mythical. The word "mythical" does not typically appear in dictionary definitions of God for the same reason: because most people don't regard God as mythical.

When I said "The above did not make me happy" I did so because myth/ical was not in the definition of God and seem to define as fact, probably because as you say, most people still believe that.

Not in my book. Existence is not a question of definition. It's something we can empirically test, separately from the definition.

Isn't it a fact that God is unfalsifiable? And If a theory doesn’t make a testable prediction, it isn’t science.
So I checked out the definition of falsifiability...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability

Now I am confused! I didn't believe anything could be so complicated.

 

[kx000]

Love - an intense feeling of deep affection. God isnt a thing, LOVE is a thing.

 

[James R]

Isn't it a fact that God is unfalsifiable? And If a theory doesn’t make a testable prediction, it isn’t science.

I don't think theists usually claim that God is scientific. That God is unfalsifiable doesn't usually seem to bother them. On the contrary, they consider it an advantage.