Let's define God
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
29-04-2014, 09:14 AM
RE: Let's define God
Actually, to add to my previous point…one way in which we all sort of agree on a definition of “god/s” whether we believe it to be a real thing or not, is that “god/s” are supernatural.

Supernatural is generally defined as something apart from, and separate from nature.

Ghost, for example, are considered supernatural. But if ghost could ever be shown to actually exist, then they would simply be a part of nature, and there for natural. The same is true for all supernatural phenomenon. Once it’s show to be true, and exist, they are part of reality, and no longer supernatural.

Take Harry Potter for example. In those books, they perform “magic” (supernatural). But they have to study it, the right way to move their wrist when using their wand, the right materials for the wands to be made out of, the right words have to be spoken in the right way, with the right articulation. Get any of these aspects wrong, and it effects the end result of the spell. If we imagined that the world of Harry Potter were real, then we could also imagine studying these different effects. Studying what happens if you say the words slightly differently, or move the wrist in a different way. You could use the scientific method on it to determine everything about “magic” and ultimately it’s “source” and it’s nature. There would be rules and laws that regulate it. In effect, if we take the supernatural things, like magic to be real, then that makes them…REAL and no longer supernatural.

If “god” is a part of our reality, then by definition, “he” is not supernatural. If “he” is not part of our reality, then “he” is not an actual real thing…meaning “he” doesn’t exist to be defined.

However, if “god” is a part of our reality, then why call that “god”? It would just be another thing in the universe. It would be important to study and learn about it, if there was such a thing contained within our universe, but it would still be a part of it, not something outside of it. And unless we are arbitrarily ascribing the title “god” to anything bigger and more powerful than us, then why call this particular thing “god”…if it even existed. And even if it did exist, why call it good, or bad? I would just be another creature moving through the universe, but not meeting the definition of “god” and there for not a “god”.

...
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Raptor Jesus's post
29-04-2014, 09:27 AM
RE: Let's define God
(28-04-2014 10:26 AM)TrainWreck Wrote:  "God" is the infinite entity of human knowledge and undefined phenomenon.

I would say that defining god as "undefined phenomenon" is fine. That's like saying I don't know so god. Right?
That's fine. That's using a word (god) to describe the unknown. I kinda do this myself from time to time.
What I like about this idea is that once we gain an actual understanding of how things work god goes kaput...
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-04-2014, 09:32 AM
RE: Let's define God
According to clarke's third law, all supernatural phenomenon, are advanced technology.

[Image: v0jpzpT.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Alex_Leonardo's post
29-04-2014, 09:42 AM
RE: Let's define God
(29-04-2014 09:27 AM)Drunkin Druid Wrote:  
(28-04-2014 10:26 AM)TrainWreck Wrote:  "God" is the infinite entity of human knowledge and undefined phenomenon.

I would say that defining god as "undefined phenomenon" is fine. That's like saying I don't know so god. Right?
That's fine. That's using a word (god) to describe the unknown. I kinda do this myself from time to time.
What I like about this idea is that once we gain an actual understanding of how things work god goes kaput...

I disagree that defining "god" as "undefined phenomenon" is fine.

It's fine, if you completely replace your use of the word "god" with undefined phenomenon. But then there is no use for the world “god” in that case. But if go ahead and use the word "god" to mean that “undefined phenomenon”, then you are using a loaded word, loaded with extra meaning you may or may not intend to use. There is farther defining to do there, and as such using this definition clarifies nothing.

And besides which, as Mathilda pointed out previously, if you simply arbitrarily use the word "god" as a word for other things, such as in her example the whole of the universe itself, then the word "god" has no meaning, because there is an already existent, better, useful way of describing that without the loaded confusion that the word "god" brings into the picture. And the word "god" doesn't fit that picutre.

...
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Raptor Jesus's post
29-04-2014, 09:44 AM
RE: Let's define God
The theistic definition of god seems to be a set of goalposts that are forever moveable, on a whim. So on that note, it seems pointless for us to bother to attempt to define, because even if we come up with a perfect definition, they'd still object to it.

Then again, it'd only further highlight unwillingness to actually listen/debate.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-04-2014, 10:00 AM
RE: Let's define God
(29-04-2014 09:42 AM)Raptor Jesus Wrote:  
(29-04-2014 09:27 AM)Drunkin Druid Wrote:  I would say that defining god as "undefined phenomenon" is fine. That's like saying I don't know so god. Right?
That's fine. That's using a word (god) to describe the unknown. I kinda do this myself from time to time.
What I like about this idea is that once we gain an actual understanding of how things work god goes kaput...

I disagree that defining "god" as "undefined phenomenon" is fine.

It's fine, if you completely replace your use of the word "god" with undefined phenomenon. But then there is no use for the world “god” in that case. But if go ahead and use the word "god" to mean that “undefined phenomenon”, then you are using a loaded word, loaded with extra meaning you may or may not intend to use. There is farther defining to do there, and as such using this definition clarifies nothing.

And besides which, as Mathilda pointed out previously, if you simply arbitrarily use the word "god" as a word for other things, such as in her example the whole of the universe itself, then the word "god" has no meaning, because there is an already existent, better, useful way of describing that without the loaded confusion that the word "god" brings into the picture. And the word "god" doesn't fit that picutre.

I can't be held responsible for other peoples interpretations of the words I might use. I also can't be bothered with caring.
The thing is words get redefined all the time. When Einstein talked about god what did you think he was saying? Did you consider the context?
When my father told me to collect faggots I understood that he was talking about sticks. When my Scottish friend says he going out for a fag I understand that he wants a cigarette.
But no. We shouldn't redefine words because that would be silly....
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-04-2014, 10:04 AM
RE: Let's define God
I kinda think it's one of those words we should take from the theists.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-04-2014, 10:07 AM
RE: Let's define God
Back when the Flintstones were having a gay old time I'm pretty sure Fred and Barney weren't fucking each other.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-04-2014, 10:30 AM
RE: Let's define God
It seems to me that if we want to eliminate the idea of a personal god or a god that has intellect or awareness we must redefine the word. We already know that theists don't have a solid definition of god so why not give it a definition that's concrete?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-04-2014, 10:43 AM
RE: Let's define God
(28-04-2014 10:29 AM)natachan Wrote:  
(28-04-2014 10:26 AM)TrainWreck Wrote:  "God" is the infinite entity of human knowledge.

So "god" is the contents of any library then?
No, silly, God is Google.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: