A Working Definition of God

quote:

---

Mammuthus, absence of evidence can mean absence of God if that evidence is what is to be expected that God should do. The universe isn't expected as Since no one decides what God should do, he can only declare what he did do after he did it.

---

It is hard to see how you can have an "expectation" of what god can do but have not even be able to coherently say what it is...and how can something you cannot even define delcare anything? By the way, you sure make your god into a fairly incompetent being..I can declare what I am going to do BEFORE I do it.

quote:

---

I a fossil evidence of a transitional? Or is it evidence of itself?

---

I can both provide a working definition of a fossil and by placing it in contexts with other fossils, determine if it is a transitional or not. And even better anyone else can then come and do the same thing and see if they agree. No special pleading to invisible mythological beings, no having to rely on non-reproducible phenomenon, no saying trust me..you are too stupid to figure it out, just accept what I say...no bible even. Sure beats just saying my self evident god is proved by the existence of the universe...then I can say is not..and you say is too..and I say is not..and you say is too...at least paleontology can progress beyond this with my kind of evidence.

quote:

---

I'm not going to make up a definition of what God is and that is idolatry,

---

How convenient for you.

quote:

---

It's not my desired outcome though, it's what the bible says which predates your science and logic

---

Funny then that ancient Greek scholars before your bible did employ methodological naturalism..however not consistently.

quote:

---

when it is written that the universe is evidence of God BEFORE logic and science

---

It is also written that Kid Rock can sing..however this is also incorrect...you are writing pure nonsense. A god you cannot even provide a definition for or evidence for is then suddenly supported by non existent evidence that the same ill defined thingy predates the universe...is there any kind of evidence or a definition coming soon mike? I am getting kind of tired of you directionless ranting.

quote:

---

Science is TOO LATE, the bible is the truth of the ages, that tells us the truth millenia before naturalistic input.

---

Science is just getting started...with every discovery, every gained bit of knowledge of how reality works, the greater the amount of evidence you have to hand wave away and the harder you have to cling to superstition.So, you still have failed to answer Dan's question which is what is the working definition of god and you claim you will not do this because it conveniently conflicts with your beliefs.You then put the cart before the horse and try to provide evidence and ta da, claim that the evidence is everything...and you really wonder why I am not even slightly persuaded?

Well, perhaps I should have made it clear that I was looking for an actual definition, not a partial or incomplete one. Read the title of the thread. It should give you a clue. I've explained multiple times... if your definition describes a comic book character, your definition is too vague.Unless, of course, a Dr. Strange character can be considered a god. After all, according to your definition, he fits the bill.I like the idea that I disappeared, though. Probably wouldn't have wasted my time with all those posts if I'd known I was invisible. I like the idea that finally sitting theists down and saying, "What are you telling us is there" is mocking them.Where I come from, that's called taking people seriously. A definition under which I don't qualify as God?I am. I'm love. I'm God!This message has been edited by [Dan's Clever Alias], 04-20-2005 09:21 AM

Don't count that one out, guy.I know he's dressed like a reject from the Dark Dimension's gay pride parade, but he's still pretty bad-ass.

I like the idea, but it's pretty much entirely subjective. What is better to be for me would probably be radically different than what is better to be for Mike or Faith.

quote:

---

Don't count that one out, guy.

​

I know he's dressed like a reject from the Dark Dimension's gay pride parade, but he's still pretty bad-ass.

---

I guess he has to be with a name like that...I mean, if Wolverine threatens you, you just have to do better than put on a cape and say "hi, I'm Strange".

This is off-topic, but if I could offer a brief aside, since you read many books before rejecting atheism, in other words, you informed yourself, could I suggest that it would be appropriate to do the same before rejecting so much of science?--Percy

quote:

---

I gave you the barest beginnings of a definition of God according to Christian theology.

​

Well, perhaps I should have made it clear that I was looking for an actual definition, not a partial or incomplete one.

---

You don't want anything about his actions, so that automatically limits it.

quote:

---

But there's no point in contributing more information until you make it clearer what you are after here.

​

Read the title of the thread. It should give you a clue.

---

You just said you want a complete definition, now you are back to wanting a working definition, but none of the true definitions are acceptable to you.

quote:

---

But then you said some comic book character fit what was left, as if that were relevant to anything, and then disappeared.

​

I've explained multiple times... if your definition describes a comic book character, your definition is too vague.

---

There is only one Being in the universe who has no beginning and no end, and some comic book blasphemes that definition of God, and you take the comic book's definition as the standard?

quote:

---

Are you just looking for an excuse to mock definitions of God or what?

​

I like the idea that finally sitting theists down and saying, "What are you telling us is there" is mocking them.

​

Where I come from, that's called taking people seriously.

---

Where do you come from? Some black hole?

quote:

---

You got my definition and you got "I Am" from jar, and you got "God is Love" from somebody. Where do you want to take this?

​

A definition under which I don't qualify as God?

​

I am. I'm love. I'm God!

---

You don't bother to find out what is meant by any of that; you just take the first shallow meaning that pops into your head and that's the end of it?I really AM sorry I took you seriously.

Mamuthus, I don't don't seek to persuade you of anything when you misconstrue and warp everything I say to fit into your argument. For example; 1. I have clearly defined what the bible says God is, and not what I say he is.2. I didn't say God can't declare anything, he often does in the bible, I infact said;" Since no one decides what God should do, he can only declare what he did do after he did it. "How can God declare something to you before he makes you? Are you deliberately being obtuse, or are your reading glasses being repaired? This neither negates nor confirms any of my claims, according to logic.If Joe can play football, that doesn't mean mike can't.But I've already said that football involves naturalistic dogma that excludes God.So, that's a double logical error. First, you seem to imply I am stating that I am scientific, and you then say that your being scientific makes me unscientific.1. I'm not trying to be scientific
2. Even if I was your being scientific wouldn't negate my scientificness.Mammy my friend, it's all good showing what you and others can confirm according to science, but I've already said you're using God's evidence, which is the universe, which also - anyone else can confirm as to whether it exists or not. The first people were Adam and Eve, there was no Greek scholars that could have pre-dated them. You assume I look at things with a premise of naturalistic dogma, and thereby "date things" with little devices of arrogant man. Science doesn't negate God, like you are implying. Are you saying science says Jesus Christ doesn't exist? Thanks for coming clean. I told you you really ARE out to rid God, but this recent naturalistic authoritative idolizing of the elementary philosophies is but a fart in Yahweh's wind. PS. I think we should agree to disagree, I like you, but we're just totally different animals ideologically. Your big truth is the method, which is my big zero = nihilism. It's not to offend you, it's just how I see it.This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 04-20-2005 10:13 AM

Yeah its subjective, but I think just about everyhing else your going to get will be subjective as well, and good many things you can agree on with Faith and MTW.Such as:Weak or Strong; Aware or Unaware; Good or Evil; Kind or Unkind....Just in this list I think you guys would agree that it would be better to be strong, aware, good, and kind.So god would be the strongest, most aware, most good, and most kind that it is possible to be.

---

It's not selling out if nobody's buying.

What would you recommend I read, Percy?

Again... if you can tell me what a "God" is, I'm happy to then move on to what this specific one does. Well clearly, if the definitions offered are crap, it's my fault. Okay, let's crank this back a shade, shall we? Whether or not the comic book is blasphemy is irrelevant. Your definition fits both.If I ask you to define "apple", and you say "a fruit", then you have no grounds on which to complain if someone holds up an orange and says, "So... what, this is an apple?"Similarly, if you put forward a definition of God under which a comic book character fits the definition, you have no grounds on which to complain if someone points to the comic book character and says "So... what, that comic book character is God?" If you'd prefer, I have a cavalcade of wildly entertaining dick jokes that I can use to respond with the next time you mention this "God" thing. (Not to mention the mountains of evidence that support the existence of... y'know, whatever it is.) For some reason though, I figured that giving your idea the benefit of the doubt, and asking you to explain what this "God" thing was showed more respect.Me and my crazy black hole logic. If you choose to leave it there, sure.In the meantime, the definitions "I am" and "God is love" do qualify me as God. You find that shallow? Then it looks like the definitions are shallow.Obviously, that would be my fault.

I'm tempted to agree with you. But for the time being, I'm going to give the theists the benefit of the doubt, and assume that when they say that yes, the thing they're talking about objectively does exist, they're referring to something that they can objectively define.

quote:

---

we can interpret ad infinitim without ever having to touch down to reality.
And that's your opinion of... science?!

---

No, it's my view of evolutionism which is not science.

quote:

---

If that's not a spot on definition of religion and coming up with a definition of God, I don't know what is.

---

No, it's a definition of science when it pretends to be able to pronounce on the nature and reality of things outside its area of applicability.This message has been edited by Faith, 04-20-2005 10:48 AM

quote:

---

i believe i know my god (in a very superficial and character-based manner). but at least i am humble enough to accept that i could be completely wrong. what gives you the authority and the arrogance to proclaim that you know god. you cannot know him. he is eternal and exists outside of anything you can comprehend.
how dare you?

---

I already answered this but there are also other answers I'd like to add. We not only CAN know God, He WANTS us to know Him, but you can never know Him unless you follow HIS rules rather than your own.The Bible invites us to know Him:Job 22:21: Acquaint now yourself with Him and be at peace; thereby good shall come to you."Jeremiah 9:23-24: Thus saith the LORD, Let not the wise [man] glory in his wisdom, neither let the mighty [man] glory in his might, let not the rich [man] glory in his riches: But let him that glories glory in this, that he understands and knows me, that I [am] the LORD which exercise lovingkindness, judgment, and righteousness, in the earth: for in these [things] I delight, saith the LORD.Phl 3:10 That I may know him, and the power of his resurrection, and the fellowship of his sufferings, being made conformable unto his death;1John 5:20 And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true...The following is by Arthur Pink, in his Preface to his book The Attributes of God :"The foundation of all true knowledge of God must be a clear mental apprehension of his perfections as revealed in Holy Scripture. An unknown God can neither be trusted, served, nor worshipped..."Something more than a theoretical knowledge of God is needed by us. God is only truly known in the soul as we yield ourselves to Him, submit to His authority, and regulate all the details of our lives by His holy precepts and commandments. 'Then shall we know, if we follow on to know the Lord' (Hosea 6:3). 'If any man will do His will, he shall know' (John 7:17). 'The people who know their God shall be strong.' (Daniel 11:32)."This message has been edited by Faith, 04-20-2005 11:19 AM

We are simply not communicating, so since you seem to be getting something out of what Magisterium is saying, and he's doing a good job, I'm going to drop out of the discussion for now.