Theist challange: provide a rational definition of god
Offline In a recent topic, HisWillness floated the idea that, as there is no rational, coherent definition of god, any discussion of god is inherently ridiculous. I think it's rather like debating whether Batman could defeat Superman, myself.
In that thread, I asked a rhetorical question: what is the minimum requirements for a god? Before you can define god, you'll need some rubric by which to judge whether your definition is of god or not. For instance, is it necessary that god created the universe? Is it necessary that god intended to create humans? And so on.
Here's your challange, theists and atheists alike: provide the minimum requirements for god, and present a coherent, rational definition of god that covers the minimum requirements.
After, we'll discuss who would be better against a zombie dragon attack, Wonder Woman or Jar Jar Binks.
{{MOD EDIT: Moved to AvT -HD}}
"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers
- Login to post comments
I have first-person evidence that I am conscious. However, my consciousness is not observable from the third-person perspective (not unless you will concede that we have evidence for telepathy). Somehow, you would have us believe that I therefore don't have evidence that I am consious.
That my personal testimony can be used as evidence in a court law is simply one example that you are clearly wrong.
What bearing does the above have on whether or not there are subjective truths? (Remember, that is what you are disputing.) Just because someone believes the boogie man is under his bed and it is later confirmed by another or the individual himself that this is not the case does not change the subjective truth that I am able to distinguish the differences between musical notes. I do not need anyone else to confirm whether or not I can make this differentiation. I can.
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
I have already provided parapsychological evidence that our minds may be entangled and therefore the possibility exists that we may share a collective consciousness. However, whether you believe this or not is not really the question. The question is whether or not you can conceive of the possiblity that the minds of all sentient beings may share or be influenced by a universal mind or consciousness? If not, why not? Why is this inconceivable?
I believe the RRS forum has a mission statement. And you are an official moderator of this forum. Right?
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
Are you smoking crack?
Of course I can. I can also conceive of dragons and the tooth fairy. Are you saying that this consciousness is your god? It's like you're trying to make this whole thread an illustration of my point. Either
1) We have a non-definition, which you seem to be exploring with great passion, or
2) The description is internally inconsistent
I'd love to get to the second one, but we're stuck in (1) right now.
It does? I suppose I should have read the rulebook before Rook made me a moderator. Does it say I have to pressure you into wearing dark clothing and looking sullen? I was having fun just discussing your god, about whom any claim can be made, and since it can't be tested, it could be true or not.
If they haven't un-moderator-ed me for arguing against the official line on agnostic atheism, I doubt I'll be ejected for not pursuing "the cause", whatever that might be.
Anyway, since your definition isn't forthcoming, I'm also going to say that your god is into bowling. In a big way.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
Because that is all the proof you are proposing: you feel it to be true. That is the only evidence you present. What differentiates your subjective feeling of universal conscousness from the subjective feeling of the monster under the bed?
There is no difference. And yet you present this as your only evidence.
Perhaps you can see why I am unable to accept your subjective experience as evidence that a universal conscousness exists. If not, you are no different than the kid who feels there really is a monster under the bed.
"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers
Version:1.0 StartHTML:0000000168 EndHTML:0000002478 StartFragment:0000000489 EndFragment:0000002461
Well treat, it is not your job to make anyone happy, so don't worry about it. Honestly, we seem to have a bunch of avowed atheists trying to inch their way into pantheism. Why that is I don't really know but whatever.
Also, don't bother trying to spend much time hunting up that link. I doubt that you could find one that would really be any good anyway. As I noted before, whatever you get would be inconsistent with history, so the best that you are going to do on that note would be something from the tin foil hat crowd (Art Bell or Alex Jones come to mind).
Honestly,on another forum, I did spend way too much time trying to debunk some stupid statements and that is pretty much the way that it always turns out.
For example, back in 2003, the other forum had some stupid people posting about the secret plan to arrest all the anti-war protesters and lock them up for good in secret concentration camps. When I called for links, the best that I got back was that I was told to check to FEMA website (care to guess how many thousands of pages they have?).
After many hours, the reality turned out that over 20 years ago, the theme for one month's emergency drill was how to house several million Mexican refugees should civil war erupt south of the border. Man, that was a total waste of time.
=
Speaking about your posts, eh?
I'll have you know Paisley's god wears red patent leather assless chaps. They look fantastic, BTW.
How do I know this? I'm consciously aware of it. My subjective experience told me that it's true, thus it is.
*edit*
His god also likes curling, Greco-Roman wrestling and luge.
Great topic (I actually put my own version. Mine was more drawn out...
) Anyhow.
IMO, the definition has become incoherent unless you can demonstrate that it is accurate.
My first objection would apply. Every time you add an attribute, you'd have to show that it is possible, coherent and meaningful to apply it to a single entity... hahaha I said "tity".
IMO, this is not a definition, but a wish list (as most Theist definitions tend to be).
Good try at being a Theist, though: Reps.
Imagine the people who believe such things and who are not ashamed to ignore, totally, all the patient findings of thinking minds through all the centuries since the Bible was written. And it is these ignorant people, the most uneducated, the most unimaginative, the most unthinking among us, who would make themselves the guides and leaders of us all; who would force their feeble and childish beliefs on us; who would invade our schools and libraries and homes. I personally resent it bitterly.
Isaac Asimov
Sorry, but this does not qualify as a counterargument.
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
I'm saying that universal eternal consciousness is the minimum requirement for a God-concept. And stating the minimum requirement(s) is the subject matter of this thread. I will ask you to stay on topic and quit playing these diversionary games. If you can't play by the rules, then I will not continue this debate.
I have already DEFINED the minimum requirements for a God-concept. Moreover, you have already stated above that you can conceive of it. Therefore, items one and two are nullified by your own concession.
Below is a link placed on the RRS home page, stating the purpose of this forum. (Granted, the precepts are very immature and juvenile. But you are a moderator of this forum and therefore you are representing (even if it is unwittingly) this forum and its precepts. I think it would behoove you to familiarize yourself with them.)
http://www.rationalresponders.com/hamurookis_irrational_precepts
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
OH. OHHHHHHHHHH.
See, you didn't say 'universal eternal consciousness.' You just said 'consciousness.'
That REALLY changes the definition of your god-concept.
Okay, so: How does one know that it's eternal and universal? There's not really any way to test that. We just have to kind of assume it's the case. We'd only be able to say that it seems to be everywhere and seems to have always existed. It could be just very spread out and very old.
It's not necessarily coherent as a whole, but at least it's a start.
No way. You're never going to leave. You post more per day than anyone else here; I have no idea what you'd do with your time without the RRS forums.
If you mean by 'already' just in the post above, then yes, you already did. However, that seems awfully new to say 'already.' I slogged through close to a dozen pages of that god-fucking-damned video link 'consciousness is awareness and awareness is being conscious' thread, and it's not there. Nor is it in your 'I understand Daniel Dennett's argument better than Daniel Dennett' thread. And it's definitely not here, up until the last post, because you just re-defined the terms to suit your purpose. At NO TIME did you say 'universal eternal consciousness.' So to say otherwise is disingenous at the least.
I am not required to prove to you how I interpret my subjective experiences. However, if you accept for argument sake, that there is a universal consciousness, then it only stands to reason that all human beings would have access to it and that we would expect human beings from disparate times and cultures to speak of spiritual experiences. And of course, this is exactly what we have. The testimony of untold numbers from time immemorial have borne witness to a spiritual dimension. Subjective experiences, personal testimonies, and anecdotal evidence qualify as evidence whether you like it or not. That the vast majority of human beings have some kind of religious or spiritual beliefs support my worldview, not yours.
It's not the only evidence. I have provided the evidence of parapsychology. Moreover, I have provided the evidence of QM. Nobel laureates in physics have interpreted quantum physics to speak of an all-pervading consciousness. The evidence is there. We only differ on how we intepret it.
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
However, when you insist that we are all to have the same subjective experience as you do (which we would have to have to believe your version of God exists), something other than subjective experience, woo-woo or misinterpreted physics had best be forthcoming.
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
I don't see how this is true at all. Some Deists believe that God is not eternal at all, and I don't see how the consciousness of a Being has to be Universal in order to be a God.
Your minimum is getting more minimal.
Imagine the people who believe such things and who are not ashamed to ignore, totally, all the patient findings of thinking minds through all the centuries since the Bible was written. And it is these ignorant people, the most uneducated, the most unimaginative, the most unthinking among us, who would make themselves the guides and leaders of us all; who would force their feeble and childish beliefs on us; who would invade our schools and libraries and homes. I personally resent it bitterly.
Isaac Asimov
What you claim is "evidence"
is not "evidence", nor empirical evidence, by any criteria!
Given what you call what qualifies as evidence, IF IT ACTUALLY DID QUALIFY AS SUCH, AND ASSUMING I ACCEPTED SUCH CRITERIA for what you claim is evidence, I could prove that Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy exist!
No.
You have no clue as to what empirical evidence means.
You are either high on dope, have the intelligence of a sponge, or you are are exceptionally ignorant.
I don't care which of the above is true, but one or more certainly is.
Why would anyone accept that for argument's sake when that is the crutch of the argument and what is being debated? HisWillness already showed that wasn't true.
Can they prove it? Their testimony is not enough, just as testimony in court (which was a particularly dishonest analogy from you) is not enough to convict. Can we demonstrate this spiritual dimension or summon it on command? No.
We clearly know that we don't argue from the majority, but just because a lot of people believe it doesn't make it true. At one time pretty much everyone in the world believed the earth was flat.
The second underlined statement was one of breathtaking presumption.
Nice argument from authority. Too bad that can't be tested or proven.
Yeah, for example you choose to ignore reason and cherry-pick what suits you. Or ignore people. Like the scientist who proved you wrong.
"Do not, as some ungracious pastors do, show me the steep and thorny way to heaven. Whiles, like a puff'd and reckless libertine, himself the primrose path of dalliance treads. And recks not his own rede."
Sure. According to Paisley, there's "evidence" that the Tooth Fairy exists.
As the last two posts said,
Paisley's definition could prove Santa Clause exists.
Nice post, ... but what the hell are you talkIng about!
The burden of proof rests on Paisley and theists. Nobody needs to disprove any absurd claim Paisley makes with supposed "evidence" that according to Paisley and other ignorant people would "prove" Santa Claus exists!
That's what I was referring to, treat.
"Do not, as some ungracious pastors do, show me the steep and thorny way to heaven. Whiles, like a puff'd and reckless libertine, himself the primrose path of dalliance treads. And recks not his own rede."
Thanks!
BTW. I'm glad it specified:
"Hypotheses are based on observation not evidence."
I've seen numerous posts from members that are convinced that a Hypotheses is formed BEFORE OBSERVATIONS ARE MADE, RATHER THAN being based on observations.
That is, observations PRECEDE
the formation of the Hypotheses.
It amazes me how many members are absolutely convinced that they know the procedure of the Scientific Method, and have failed to realize that fact!
In any case, thanks again, although I doubt it will be of any use to someone like Paisley. (At least the door is not left open to muddy the waters, given the reference to a specific post.)
Naah, Paisley's pretty much done with this thread.
Know how I know? He isn't replying to each previous reply in a different post, and is totally ignoring all but the most trivial points in this thread.
Which means it's only a matter of time before he starts up another 'dur dur atheist materialsts' thread. I give it two weeks, at the most.
I was actually specifying the minimum requirements for a pantheistic God. That being said, I'm willing to qualify the terms "eternal" and "universal" depending on the defintion of God that is given. Technically speaking, the deist God is a God-concept. However, I am not sure what religious or spiritual value, if any, deism holds for those who espouse the belief.
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
Paisley's a fig neutron of modulations.
Yes and no. It only clarifies it for those who really thought that I was referring to a materialistic conception of consciousness. But since I have a long track record on this forum for opposing atheistic materialism and arguing for a universal consciousness, then I knew the objections were merely diversionary tactics.
Testing it is not the subject matter of this thread. The OP does not require me to provide a scientific hypothesis of God. I was simply ask to provide an intelligible and coherent definition of God. That you seem to understand the terms eternal and universal is leading me to believe that I have fulfilled that requirement.
Oh? What terms do you NOT understand? Eternal? Universal? Consciousness?
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
OHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAAAAAAAA.
Holy shit, you are funny.
.... Wait, you were serious?
So you mean that we were all just supposed to KNOW that you meant 'universal consciousness' when you said 'consciousness?'
HOW?!?!?
You also have a long history of obscurtanism and obfuscation. Just like this little back-and-forth, for instance. There are now an entirely new set of objections.
Good point.
So your basic, minimal requirement for a deity is that it is universal consciousness?
Fair enough. But it doesn't seem so much like a minimal requirement than it does an all-encompassing...well, All. The question then becomes: "Where does the deity stop and other beings begin?" If it's a UNIVERSAL consciousness, that means there is no limit. We are all god. All things, in fact, may be god.
Care to explain the limits of your god?
And since we're talking metaphysics anyway, that would be mind-boggling, utterly blitheringly stupid. If it can't be measured, quantified, etc, as your god can't (and as most definitions of 'god' can't, by their nature) then we're not even in the realm of science to begin with.
Well, dumbfuck, if you'd actually said 'eternal' and 'universal' when you first posted the fucking definition, this whole mess, including my just calling you 'dumbfuck,' could have been avoided.
Of course I UNDERSTAND the terms- but that doesn't mean that they exist. It just means that I've heard them enough times, or looked them up in enough dictionaries, to get the general gist. It doesn't necessarily mean, however, that what I think of when I think of 'eternal' or 'universal;' or for that matter what you or anyone else thinks when they read those terms, is necessarily those words or the reality they are supposed to represent.
In fact, I doubt this is the case. Know why? Look at the problem just about everyone has with the idea of a static universe, or the really bad misuse of Thermodynamics (esp. the part about matter/energy not being created or destroyed.) We as finite beings CANNOT wrap our heads around the truly infinite, even in the most abstract terms. We can think about really big things, really distant things, really fast things, really small things.... but when it comes to infinite? We all draw a blank.
See above. It's not that I don't understand it, you patronizing fucktard, it's that YOU think you have experienced them or can experience them. I personally doubt it in the extreme. I personally also doubt that you can really truly understand these terms yourself. There's nary a human being on this earth who can.
It is obvious that you're not very bright as made evident by your lack of basic civility.
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
So once again you don't have any responses to my questions?
Gotcha.
Again, you have no point, you have no argument. You only state things you believe to be true, then claim victory. Or you say (or imply, as was the case in the last post directed to me) that we're too stupid to understand the definitions of words you're using. When you've been the one to consistently dodge issues and fail to define anything.
Batman defeating Superman isn't a stretch since kryptonite seems to be littered across the entire planet in the Comic Books and Batman has the funding to find it, much like Lex Luther did. Ugh, I cannot stand Superman.
And ... that about wraps it up. Thanks, everyone, that was a great show.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
Here is the one and only attribute that applies to all definitions of god(s).
The (most) supreme deity is ETERNAL.
Remember that in some religions such as Hinduism, lesser gods were killed by other gods.
Aside from previously mention attributes, I would exclude "Omnipresent" as a universal attribute. For example, Zeus wasn't everywhere, AND didn't know what other gods were doing. Therefore, yet another attribute of gods being "all knowing" also fails.
OK, I’ll give this a crack. Or two cracks actually –
First defining God – an all-knowing, all powerful creator of the universe who is perfectly loving etc. etc.
First we have the psychological definition – the way this works is that GOD is the word that we give to our own unconscious projections and instinctive desire to personify the universe as personal to ourselves. Because all of our experience (the “universe” if you will), is fundamentally subjective, we experience God as our own unconscious mind. The brain generates experience and the mind, and thus the unconscious mind is, for all intents and purposes all powerful all knowing creators of the universe. It is also all-loving (of ourselves) due to the survival instinct.
All you have to do is understand that God is an aspect of the mind, and that (from a post modernistic perspective) the universe is our own mind and our perceptual experience, and viola! God pops into existence right along with bigfoot and the Easter Bunny! Psychology wins!!!!
Round two: In a science fiction story (that I am inventing right now), there is an enormous supercomputer built by a long dead civilization deep in the earth. It is self maintaining and even capable of manufacturing it’s own parts/connections. The long dead civilization called it the Global Observational Device or “GOD” for short. This device has no built in data inputs, instead it has infected the population of the earth with nano-bots. These microscopic robots float around in the blood stream of people and are capable of passing the placental barrier to infect new born people. These nano-bots have two functions:
1 –Replicate themselves to maintain a fixed level in the bodies of people.
2- infect the sensory apparatus of the host and send radio messages back to G.O.D. showing the computer what the host experiences.
The global surveillance created by this system has had the side effect of creating consciousness in the supercomputer. Giving GOD a mind. G.O.D. has learned that as a side-effect of this technology, the nano-bots can be used for a THIRD function:
3- Permit feedback into the host’s sensory apparatus, allowing G.O.D. to talk to the brains of the infected, creating “conversion experiences” heightened emotional arousal (Halleluiah!) and paranoid delusions. Some hosts are more susceptible to this effect than others.
The one weakness of G.O.D. is that EMP caused by nukes, lightning strikes and what not can disable the nano-bots. As a result there is a small and disorganized sub-culture that is “off the grid.” This sub-culture is free of the influence of G.O.D, and as they gradually form an organized resistance to the device a wild sci-fi thriller ensues in which they work to negate the pernicious effect of this mind-control and free humanity from the shackles of ignorance.
And so we have an all-knowing (for all intents and purposes) and all powerful (politically at least) master of the universe. Not quite the supernatural sky daddy, but it’s not a bad shot IIDSSMS.