PLEASE MAKE
SURE TO
FOLLOW THE
RULES!
RULES
This is the
Kill Em
With
Kindness
Forum!
PLEASE MAKE
SURE TO
FOLLOW THE
RULES!
RULES
This is the
Kill Em
With
Kindness
Forum!
PLEASE MAKE
SURE TO
FOLLOW THE
RULES!
This is the
Kill Em
With
Kindness
Forum!
RULES
PLEASE MAKE
SURE TO
FOLLOW THE
RULES!
This is the
Kill Em
With
Kindness
Forum!
PLEASE MAKE
SURE TO
FOLLOW THE
RULES!
RULES
This is the
Kill Em
With
Kindness
Forum!
PLEASE MAKE
SURE TO
FOLLOW THE
RULES!
Offline 
I was recently given a definition of "god":
Quote:
The problem is that when we look into this, we find out that it is a meaningless definition.
That is, there is no reason why the Creator of the Universe must also be the Sustainer, or that it was just One Being, or that the Being that created the Universe is Supreme, or that a Being created the Universe, etc.
The eternal problem for the Theist is to show that they are accurate in describing something in Actuality. For example, simply show that God is a Being, and that this Being exists. Then we can check the evidence of whether this Being is capable of Creating universes, or sustaining them, and maybe we can discover whether this Being is in fact the only one, or the Supreme one.
So, I would ask that the Theist pick just ONE attribute and show that it accurately describes an aspect of what they claim exists.
Let me be more clear.
Theist:
God is
1. Supreme Being
2. Creator
3. Sustainer
Me:
My dog is
1. Brown
2. 30" long
3. 16 lbs
Now, I can clearly show that a dog can be brown, 30" long and 16 lbs. The very metaphysical reality of dogs - as we are all aware - have the capacity for those attributes. We can then verify the accuracy of those statements. Even if you never see my dog, you would know something was wrong if I said he was 300' long, and weighed 1 ounce.
Now, the Theist definition of God is meaningless. I have no idea what a god is, hence the need for a definition (and since many claim there is only one, I can't even check someone else's god to compare). I don't know if Beings are capable of creating universes, even Supreme Beings.
In fact, it is totally counter-intuitive to imagine a Being existing without a Universe. It's not as if I can't imagine it, perhaps, it just would require a lot more convincing to get me to accept something can exist outside something in which to exist!
Now, let's complicate matters.
Theist:
God is,
1. Supreme Being
2. Creator
3. Sustainer
4. Blue
Is #4 correct? How do we know? How would the Theist be able to accurately show me that god is or is not blue, or whether god even has the capacity to have blueness?
Me:
My dog is
1. Brown
2. 30" long
3. 16 lbs
4. a pixie masquerading as a dog
Is #4 correct? How do we know? How would we be able to accurately show that my god is not a pixie?
What do we know about pixies?
Nothing.
What do we know about Gods?
Nothing.
And to put a nail in this. Theists have insurmountable hurdles to clear to even get a basic definition of a god or gods. They are unable to accurately show that their definition of God is even close to a reality - yet they believe in God.
Whereas, Theists have little problem understanding the definition of my dog, yet some may believe, some may not in the existence of my dog. The important thing is that I have given a definition that is Meaningful.
Every definition of God is Meaningless. I have no reason to believe the definition is accurate, but instead just a wish list, not an actual, accurate definition of something.
Meanwhile, the very accurate definition I have given of my dog?... well, I don't have a dog.
I have more accurately defined something that doesn't exist, but is more believable than something that Theists claim exists and is everywhere, but they can't define accurately whatsoever.
So, this is the challenge:
Theists, demonstrate that your definition of "god" is accurate.
(reposted for legibility)
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
Defining God in terms of existence will always be a lost cause in my opinion.
When asked to define something like God, it seems the meaning in this use of 'define' seems to resemble more of a search for an essence. As Bertrand Russell explains Aristotle's conception of essence, "The 'essence' of Socrates thus consists of those properties in the absence of which we should not use the name 'Socrates.' The question is purely linguistic: a word may have an essence, but a thing cannot" (From A History of Western Philosophy pg 201). Now, let us substitute the name Socrates for the name God. However, I realize that the word God is only a name that may or may not refer to a thing because many would dispute the mere possibility of God's existence. So, as a starting point for this discussion, it seems we should search for those properties in the absence of which we should not use the name God.
The one property I feel comfortable attaching to the name God is: Not in the world that humans exist in and experience.
Anything attempting to go beyond this singular definition is where the attempts to define God become a lost cause. What properties would we attach to him? Of course we are all familiar with the usual properties i.e. omni-this or that, but where are these properties coming from? They are coming from a human brain living in world within the scope of the human intellect. Yet, if God is supposed to be outside of this world, how can properties of this world be used in a list of the things that the absence of which we should not use the name God, a thing outside of our world of possible experience? Of course, this idea of there being properties that outside of this world seems absurd. In fact, I will not disagree with this conclusion because I am doomed to perceive only the properties of this world. Without getting too much more out of my league, I want to sum up what I am trying to say.
We exist in A.
God, if he exists, exists in B.
Properties in A may or may not exist in B.
Thus, using properties in A to describe something in B is barely contingent.
In conclusion, I suppose I have been trying to outline why trying to define God is something outside human possibility. In my mind, the ideas we may have of a God that fits the essence of the name 'God' are all based on faith and cannot be defined or somehow listed without arriving at a number of difficulties. This argument that I've constructed is merely a linguistic attempt to show how the problems of defining God can be avoided by stripping the definition of the name 'God' to its bare minimum. And of course, this bare minimum definition of God that I have posited can be heavily disputed.
For this reason, I am very open to discussion and I hope that I have made clear that I am disconnecting any personal beliefs that I may have regarding God from this argument. The word God I have described is intended to only refer to a name, not a thing.
So daedalus, I apologize for not responding to your question in the way you phrased it. I am granting that a definition for an existing God is impossible because it appears that we as humans can have no words or properties to describe an existing God when his very existence is supposed to be outside of our realm of existence.
Note: I realize this is all very abstract and loose. I personally don't like to go here, but I needed something to get me started on the forums again. I thought this would be a nice spot since it is one of the many ignored theists reaction posts.
The implication that we should put Darwinism on trial overlooks the fact that Darwinism has always been on trial within the scientific community. -- From Finding Darwin's God by Kenneth R. Miller
Chaos and chance don't mean the absence of law and order, but rather the presence of order so complex that it lies beyond our abilities to grasp and describe it. -- From From Certainty to Uncertainty by F. David Peat
The biggest problem, as you expressed, is that our definition of dog is derived from traits that are directly observed to be universal to dogs. With God however, the entire process works backwards; all definitions of "God" are pulled out of thin air, then ad hoc'd ad infinitum. It's exactly like a wish list, as you stated.
Although, by the typical theist's definition, a God must be Supreme and the Creator to be a God while a dog does not have to be brown to be a dog, so there is a difference here. Personally, I wouldn't say that the definition of God is meaningless, but it is definitely incomplete and inconsistent with what we know about the world. Fortunately, the theist cannot/chooses not to expand more on this definition either since God is, conveniently, supernatural. I'm sure we all shake our heads at this point and wonder how, if this is the case, the theist acquired knowledge of God in the first place.
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare
First, thank you so much for your thoughtful response.
Socrates is a person, which we know has the properties of being able to (generally) walk, talk, have a name, philosophize, etc. We know that what makes Socrates unique are the ideas attributed to him, which further defines his essence.
But, specifically, we know his essence includes the ability to do what he did, and be what he is claimed to have been.
1. Is there a world that is impossible for "humans (to) exist in and experience"? What do we know about it?
2. Can a Being exist in that world? What do we know about this world? What is it's essence? Can it contain things? Can there be life in it? Can it interact with this one?
I would say that the definition you provided has already dropped you from the running: you are saying you know something about something that can't be known.
Don't apologize. This has never been done to my knowledge, by the greatest minds to ever walk the Earth. It is not impossible to define God, but it is impossible to verify the accuracy of your definition.
That is, God could be "The Singularity that caused the Big Bang", and you might be right. But there is no way to verify it, since no one knows what the essense of God is... plus, why name something we already have a name for?
You are right, it is ONLY through Faith, or a religious assertion, that people can describe God. But it is a subjective and personal definition - and wholely unverfiable for accuracy.
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
i understand your objection, but let me respond in this way:
I know a dog can be brown (it doesn't have to be, but it can).
A sound: I know what a sound is, but can it be brown? No, it doesn't have the metaphysical characteristics to be brown. I know this, because I know what "sound" is.
Soul: I don't know what a soul is. Can it be brown? I don't know. I don't know what the metaphysical characteristics of a soul (is it singular or plural?)
Or, what about pixies? Can they be brown? Do they have the capacity for Free Will? For being Loving, in a human sense? How do we determine this?
So, if a person claims that a pixie, soul or god can have attribute "x", how do we verify if it is actually true?
You are right, the theist thinks that some version of a Supernatural World solves the problem, not realizses it compounds the problem. At least the Greek Gods lived in this Universe and we had a chance of verifying thei attributes.
Then along came Chrsitianity and defined god right out of existence.
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
Thanks for the thanks.
This makes me think about the concept of existence a lot. It seems that asking whether God exists or asserting that God exists is a mistake somehow. Not for the obivous reason that he may not exist, but for the reason that the word existence does not properly apply to a name like God. I want to say more, but I am honestly deeply perplexed right now on the concept. I am concerned I am trying to make something simple too complex.
We wouldn't be able to know anything about it, and this is horribly disatisfying. It is as if we are trapped in a human experience. On a purely curious level, I wouldn't eliminate the possibly of there being another layer of experience or existence. Again, that word existence is unsettling...I am tempted to search out a book just on that concept.
The "what is its essence" is a particularly great question. In my own mind and I suppose the argument of my post is that the essence of God is undefinable because we only have our human terms to define God with. This is an illustration of a general dillema for persons who believe in God. One horn is a God that is definable yet limited, and the other horn is a God that is undefinable and unlimited. Please, tell me if you agree with the way I set up this dilemma, I would love to discuss it more if you find it satisfactory in its description.
I agree, I have reluctantly chosen the undefinable and unlimited horn of the believer's dilemma.
I see what your saying, and I think its a humbling thing to realize that one's understanding of God could be wrong. One merely believes that what they have understood about God is accurate.
What you said makes me think of what Dawkin's said about how it is just as likelu for tea-pots to be orbitting around a planet in the universe as it is for God to exist. The difficulty in claiming the exlucsivity of one's God is something that I have not been able to overcome. It has been a question that has honestly haunted my belief. What about Buddhists? Hindus? Muslims? etc. Rationally, I can't see a way to write them off. My belief in my God is definitely a personal belief based on faith. I honestly cannot see a way to support exclusivity of any one God or teapot.
Again, I agree with and see what you are saying, but I am concerned about our limits as human beings. What is out there that we cannot be aware of? God aside, what other kinds of crazy shit could be out there? Granted, this isn't a question I trouble myself much because I through faith believe that God is out there. But, as an individual, I don't feel comfortable with forcefully asserting that that is what is out there if a person doesn't want to settle on one thing that could possibly be out there or not out there. I choose God to be out there because of the meaning that I find within the belief, and I value the benefits I gain through the belief.
I know that sounds semi-proselatizing, but I figured that would be an eventual question; if you can't know something or define it, why even belief it is out there?
The implication that we should put Darwinism on trial overlooks the fact that Darwinism has always been on trial within the scientific community. -- From Finding Darwin's God by Kenneth R. Miller
Chaos and chance don't mean the absence of law and order, but rather the presence of order so complex that it lies beyond our abilities to grasp and describe it. -- From From Certainty to Uncertainty by F. David Peat
Maybe....because they want to.
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare
Gold.
No, you're magnificently on the point. In order for a god to exist (any god, really) we'd have to alter what it means for something to exist. For instance, we obviously wouldn't say that a god exists in the same way that a toaster exists, but we absolutely know that toasters exist. It's difficult to see how gods exist more than fictional characters, too. (Other than the fact that seemingly non-crazy people believe in gods, but not in centaurs, that is.)
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
Thanks for the reassurance Willness. I am curious if you have read any good books lately on this subject (the concept of existence). Since it is summer, I have a lot of free time on my hands and I don't have any books that I am set in reading at the moment.
The implication that we should put Darwinism on trial overlooks the fact that Darwinism has always been on trial within the scientific community. -- From Finding Darwin's God by Kenneth R. Miller
Chaos and chance don't mean the absence of law and order, but rather the presence of order so complex that it lies beyond our abilities to grasp and describe it. -- From From Certainty to Uncertainty by F. David Peat
daedalus,
I recently came across this version of the Cosmological argument that might help point out a bit. I won't go through the argument as to actually try to proove it, but I will use it to show that if it is sound, what we can meaningfuly say about the conclusion. Here is the basic argument:
Okay, we generally all agree with 1. If we go with the Big Band, which right now seems decent enough, we can agree on 2. Then we can conclude 3. Yes, I know the main objection is that this might be a fallacy of composition, or that you could argue like Hume that we do not know what causation is. Let's leave aside if the argument is valid or not, but look at what we would get if it was sound:
So we would have a "cause" of the Universe. What to we know about this cause? Well, in order for it not to violate 1, it must be a cause without a beginning. So it is something that is beginningless.
Also, we would assert that space and time are properties of this universe, so whatever this cause is, it must exist apart from space, therefore be immaterial, and apart from time. We could go different ways with this, but a good possibility is that it would be an eternal cause, as this would also explain why it has no beginning.
Also, creating the universe is arguably a very big deal, so we could reasonably infer that this cause, whatever it is, is very powerful.
Also, when we talk about cause and effect, we have two general categories: Event causation and agent causation. Event causation is inherently tied to space and time, but both of those are part of the universe. That leaves us with agent causation. To have agent causation, we have to have an agent, or a person.
So what could we infer from this?
There exists a very powerful immaterial eternal person that created the universe.
I think something like that could pass at least for a Deist God. Specifically to the question of the one/many God causes: When we are talking agent causation, we normally only talk about one agent. If you have a good idea about what multi-agent causation would look like, that is certainly worth looking into though. Also, notice that from this argument we do not necessarily get a supreme being. In principle, I do not see why someone could not create something more powerful than oneself, but luckily you had permitted in your question to not have to answer all criteria at once
Again, please don't try to rebut the argument itself. I just wanted to bring this to the discussion to see if we can sensibly talk about God in these terms. I hope this adds some to the discourse. Let me know what you think.
Thanks,