Definition of God - one thread to rule them all

[Write4U]

Michael 345 said: ↑
But seriously you are questioning why I define god as non existent when my belief is god is non existent?

No, seriously, "non existant" is a description, an assessment. It's just not a definition.

Actually, "non existant" is not a description or an assessment. It's not even a word. I believe Michael's posit is the correct one....

 

[Michael 345]

No, seriously, "non existant" is a *description, an assessment. It's just not a definition.

No seriously Miriam-Webster

def·i·ni·tion
\ˌde-fə-ˈni-shən\
noun

• :an explanation of the meaning of a word, phrase etc.
• :a statement that *describes what something is
• :a clear or perfect example of a person or thing

You have 30 seconds to find the matching *'s

Meanwhile, pay attention to the topic post. Sure there's plenty to look up, in dictionaries, encyclopedias, scholarly analyses, &c., but looking stuff up isn't what this thread was intended for, and often isn't what this topic poster is into

I gave my definition

Again the thread, in my opinion, was to provide a single location for agreed definitions of god

often isn't what this topic poster is into I leave it to you find the other whatever's re whatever the posters other whatever's might be

Well, 'tis a strange sort of belief, statistically speaking

Another thing I didn't know

so we'll leave you to explain it in re the topic post

Thought I had although I can expand a little

Statement by Michael345

I believe god(s) to be contrived mystical being(s) (all of them throughout history) and none of them exist

I feel the above fits

• :an explanation of the meaning of a word, phrase etc.
• :a statement that describes what something is
• :a clear or perfect example of a person or thing

 

[Tiassa]

No seriously Miriam-Webster

No, seriously, it's an adjective, not a statement: What is your definition of God? ¡Blue!

Again the thread, in my opinion, was to provide a single location for agreed definitions of god

Well, as I said, 'tis a strange sort of belief, statistically speaking, for a believer.

(I accented those words, for a believer, since you skipped them, last time.)

Understand, I get your point. In your opinion, the thread was to "provide a single location for agreed definitions of god". And, sure, that's great. But what are these, "agreed definitions of god", you believers are providing? All I'm saying is that, "non-existent", despite being an adjective, is still a strange definition, statistically speaking, for believers.

often isn't what this topic poster is into I leave it to you find the other whatever's re whatever the posters other whatever's might be

You should learn to follow yourself from post to post.

Still, though—

I believe god(s) to be contrived mystical being(s) (all of them throughout history) and none of them exist

—that really is a statistically unusual defintion of God, for a believer.

Which, I suppose, would explain quite a bit.

 

[Michael 345]

No, seriously, it's an adjective, not a statement: What is your definition of God? ¡Blue!

I will accept that

But seriously seriously

Definition of 'nonexistent'

nonexistent British English

REGIONAL NOTE: in BRIT, also use non-existent

ADJECTIVE

1. not having being or existence
2. not present under specified conditions or in a specified place

Derived forms

nonexistence (ˌnonexˈistence)

NOUN

Collins English Dictionary. Copyright © HarperCollins Publishers

Shall I amend my definition to

god is nonexistence ?

Definition of god

A anthropomorphic collection of everything outside of reality ©

AND

Atheists here

My definition of god = non existent

Since other atheists had posted in thread I thought I could also

Have I been naughty?

I highlighted atheists since it seems to have been missed

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

Since other atheists had posted in thread I thought I could also

Of course you can...this thread has been going for a while I can't recall how many theists have posted a definition.

But as I said earlier there can be no single definition of God given the huge number of gods, religions and the various denominations ...heck you could have a book Definitions of God from every religion (and Athiest qualification for each).

And as I also suggested or meant to say but may have not, unlikely, wouldn't the sensible thing to do ...establish that what is claimed as a god exists and then examine that entity ,force, person ...whatever and define that...a description of what is before us.

Theists waffle waffle waffle and one forgetscthat they have not met the first step in dealing with any claim or assertion which is to provide support.

Anyways you tried to help with the most important component of any definition that of non existence which can be the only default position given all god claims go unsupported...

I think we can at least build on Jans famous words "God is...non existent, ..and I can help here..created in mans image...

You must be looking forward to getting home...and of course all these theists can do is pray to God to save them from the virus not a damn one stops to wonder why their god just does not step in and smite this virus..he is probably too busy working on a cure for cancer or saving kids from sex perverts... mushrooms the lot of them.

Alex

 

[Michael 345]

You must be looking forward to getting home

Thank you yes. Must be honest, current company is outstanding. But situation has put me anywhere up to a year behind fixing house up


Repair motorbike, loose exhaust heat guard, change oil, pump up tyres, our excitement for the day

Almost forgot cost was $6:50

 

[Michael 345]

I think we can at least build on Jans famous words "God is...non existent, ..and I can help here..created in mans image...

Didn't Jan update is? I've had Jan on Iggy for long period as all three neurones of my brain Huwey Dewey and Louie threatened to walk away if I kept reading the nonsense Jan posted

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

Repair motorbike, loose exhaust heat guard, change oil, pump up tyres, our excitement for the day

I guess you have never come off a bike..unless those are very high grade thongs you are wearing.
I came off a bike in shorts, t shirt and thongs..had a helmet..but man I lost some bark.

Alex

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

Didn't Jan update is? I've had Jan on Iggy for long period as all three neurones of my brain Huwey Dewey and Louie threatened to walk away if I kept reading the nonsense Jan posted

Jan has disappeared which was timely for me as I have been busy busy setting up this van and land clearing or should I say sky clearing...it's really coming together finally.
Alex

 

[Michael 345]

I guess you have never come off a bike..unless those are very high grade thongs you are wearing.
I came off a bike in shorts, t shirt and thongs..had a helmet..but man I lost some bark.

Alex

Ummm Not me with bike
Girlfriend Inul my current outstanding company

London - age about 17 - taking bend under railway bridge to wide hit small car head on. Told I went over top car in somersault slid under London bus feet first. One week hospital

Couple of minors laying bike down right side has given me minor limited movement right shoulder

 

[Write4U]

If God is invented as the abstract external agent of change, what should any definition include?

If the definition of god includes the term "agent of change", can we ask if any biome in the universe requires an abstract controlling agent.
The answer is clearly yes. All biomes act in accordance to a prevailing controlling condition or environment.

The question is if this abstract controlling agent needs to be intelligent? Again the answer is yes. All physical events are controlled by mathematical equations and mathematics is a form of intelligence. It's a quasi-intelligent function based on relative values.

Then the question is, if the abstract controlling mathematical agent needs to be conscious and motivated?
Here the answer is clearly no. It only needs to be a self-referential unconscious physical response to related formative (causal) information. Chemical reactions are a perfect example of non-conscious self-referential quasi-intelligent causal change. In biology, bacteria are perfect examples of non-conscious self-referential behavior.

So, considering that the required properties of a causal agent of any biome do not need to be of a conscious nature but are a form of quasi-intelligence. The assignment of conscious motive and intent to the abstract controlling agent is not necessary at all and we can only conclude that the observable physical interactions controlled by mathematical laws are sufficient to produce all we can see and the concept of a God as conscious intelligent controlling agent is not an absolute requirement.

And if it is not required in nature, it probably does not exist, because of the law of necessity and sufficiency.

 

[foghorn]

To the other, I don't know, Foghorn, should we take you seriously↗, or did you tank for the sake of self-gratification?

Both.

 

[Tiassa]

Shall I amend my definition to

god is nonexistence ?

If you want.

Since other atheists had posted in thread I thought I could also

Have I been naughty?

No, you're just not very smart.

It's not the posting that is problematic. It's the misrepresentation that is problematic.

I highlighted atheists since it seems to have been missed

And I'm sure that means something, to you.

 

[Vociferous]

Vociferous:


Yeah, okay. I'll walk you through it again, more slowly.

Bowser defined God to be "all things". This means that car radiators are God and entire cars are God. As I pointed out in post #9, with that definition it becomes meaningless to talk about "God and car radiators" or "God and cars" as if they are different. Those statements, by definition, become tautological. Car radiators are God, so "God and car radiators" translates as "God and God".

Bowser did not say that all things are parts of a greater thing called God. Remember that I asked for his definition of God. To say that all things are parts of God doesn't define what God is. It just says that God has some parts that have been identified.


You got it!


Yeah. You can ask him, you know.


How can God be all things and each thing not be wholly God? That definition would say "God is all things and some other stuff we aren't mentioning that isn't all things."

Coming back to the car example: if I were to ask you for your definition of "car" and you said "a car is tyres, a radiator, a fusebox, a steering wheel, a driver's seat, a sun roof, etc. etc." then the radiator would be the car, according to your definition. If, on the other hand, you said "a car is a collection of parts that include tyres, a radiator, etc." then in my opinion you'd have a more sensible definition of a car.

I can only work with what the Believers give me to work with, Vociferous. Maybe you can help peg down the definitions of your fellow theists to make them more sensible and workable.

I'm still waiting on your definition, by the way. Are you keeping it a secret? Are you afraid that Bowser might take issue with your definition in the same way you're taking issue with his?


Bowser did not say that God is comprised of all things. He said God is all things.

For the sake of argument, let's assume, for the moment, that Bowser specifically meant pantheism, which can be simplistically described as "God is all". Even so, it doesn't mean what you claim.

Pantheism is the view that everything is part of an all-encompassing, immanent God. All forms of reality may then be considered either modes of that Being, or identical with it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantheism#Definitions​

"Everything is part of... God", "all forms... considered either modes of that Being, or identical with it." Only in the latter, particular take on pantheism is God considered nothing more than the things themselves, and even that doesn't imply any one thing possesses any divine attributes that could be equated with the entirety of God. It's still completely justified to differentiate between any one thing and the collection of all things, whether you call that collection God or not.

Now if he wasn't specifying pantheism, that makes it a general statement of religious monism. God is then the source of all (priority monism), possibly makes up all (existence monism), and perhaps composes all (substance monism). God composing all is not the same as all composing God, no more than particles composing all means all composes particles.

How can you be your whole body and each part of your body not be wholly you? Easy, your being/identity/mind/brain is not the same as, for instance, your thumb. Same goes for a car or God. The being is more than the sum of parts.

This is all so simple I'm surprised it bears saying.

You didn't understand the point I was making? Figures.

I really don't think you have any idea what you're on about.

Yeah, I see what you're doing. Hiding.

No definition is without context. In a very general context, yes, God is all. In the specific context of you not being able to differentiate between God and all, being part of God obviously doesn't impart any wisdom.

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

It's still completely justified to differentiate between any one thing and the collection of all things, whether you call that collection God or not.

It is still completely justified to require that one establish the subject of their claim before defining it one could think, and also to recognise there are thousands of gods to deal with such that talking about just one can never produce a suitable definition..however why not work on establishing the claim, would that not be the best place to start...establish that the god you may seek to define is somehow removed from the thousands of others..if you can.
Alex

 

[Vociferous]

It is still completely justified to require that one establish the subject of their claim before defining it one could think, and also to recognise there are thousands of gods to deal with such that talking about just one can never produce a suitable definition..however why not work on establishing the claim, would that not be the best place to start...establish that the god you may seek to define is somehow removed from the thousands of others..if you can.

I guess you missed where this thread is all about "your preferred definition of God" (OP).

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

I guess you missed where this thread is all about "your preferred definition of God" (OP).

You guessed right, so does your observation make my observation invalid? Moreover do you see any value in my proposition that if we are to define something we should first hear the evidence offered in support of the claim?
Alex

 

[Write4U]

Lewis Black spoke from "knowledge"

 

[Vociferous]

You guessed right, so does your observation make my observation invalid? Moreover do you see any value in my proposition that if we are to define something we should first hear the evidence offered in support of the claim?

No, even in science, we have functional or descriptive definitions of things we otherwise really don't understand and cannot show any direct, independent evidence of. So it's not my observation that makes your point invalid, it's just the practical necessity of pushing the boundaries of the unknown that does so.

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

No, even in science, we have functional or descriptive definitions of things we otherwise really don't understand and cannot show any direct, independent evidence of.

You are correct of course on this aspect in so far as we have "placeholders" such as dark energy or dark matter, however these are not made up "placeholders" there is something there in each case that generate observations that are very real...that is the only difference I need mention.
To have a creator one must assume a creation point which even our science has not yet achieved..most likely because the universe is eternal.
Alex

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

Duplicate