Can You define God?

I might well be wrong. But for now, it's the best I can do.

But what are you doing?It's not that it's wrong, it's that you're not really saying anything that can be right or wrong. It's just a mess of words with no direction or real point.- Oni

Okay, I have no problem if that is what you think.

When it comes to subjective beliefs, there is no absolute right or wrong involved. The criteria is not 100% empirical.

Can you give me an example of a god or a God that isn't supernatural or doesn't have supernatural abilities?(Note - As usual one is forced to adopt your terminology and thus implicitly your assumptions when discussing these things with you. But there remains absolutely nothing to distinguish the supernatural creator -aka GOD - you happen to believe in from any of the other such beings you have described as "unlikely" except for some capital letters and your own personal inclinations dressed up as definitions)

How do you know this?Or are you just stating a personal belief dressed up as a definition again?

The question of whether something exists or not is not the same as asking whether one prefers red to blue. So what subjective belief are we talking about here?And the question of defining the term god (or GOD or squirrel or paperclip or electron or whatever) isn't just a subjective free-for-all either.The entire point of definitions is to be objective. Unless a definition leads to common conceptual use of terminology there is absolutely no point to it. I'm not sure what being "100% empirical" has to do with defining things or the absurd idea that one can believe in the existence of something without having any notion of what it is one believes in the existence of!!!But the thing is you do believe in something. The concept you have described is that of an unknowable-unimaginable-supernatural-hyperintelligent-creator-being. It's vague. But it is sufficiently defined to be subjected to critical consideration.And critical consideration leads inexorably to us asking why this "thing" is worthy of any more credence or consideration than any other "unknowable" entity I could put forward.A question to which I have yet to see an answer......

All of the Gods or gods.The difference is between belief or assertion and actuality.That's both the difference and the problem.As long as I am simply human and existing within this world I can't even imagine anyway to test something that really was supernatural. We can test to determine if something is not supernatural but I see no way to determine that something really is supernatural.Which also should answer your next post GOD, if GOD exists would really be supernatural, not because you or I believe or assert or claim that it is supernatural but rather because it IS supernatural.

I am bewildered as to how Thor or Zeus or Yahweh, as commonly described, can be considered anything other than supernatural beings. Can you explain how they are not? How do you know that GOD "IS supernatural" except by means of some human constructed definitions pertaining to necessarily imagined notions such as 'existing outside of nature'....?

I think I've answered that several times for you but I'm willing to try again.The answer is the difference between actually being the thing and simply being asserted to be the thing; the difference between the map and the territory.Yahweh is a good example; Yahweh changes and evolves over time as human ideas about gods evolve but throughout most of that evolution, even in the relatively late example of the god found in Genesis 1, we still see human characteristics. The much older god found in Genesis 2&3 is far more like a King or Prince, powerful, commanding powerful servants, able to pass decrees and enforce them. But it still creates by hand, is learning on the job, can be fearful and unsure, compassionate but stern.Thor and Zeus and Yahweh are human constructs, caricatures, attempts to explain the (at the time) unexplainable.All the Gods and gods are just that, human attempts to explain the unexplainable.But GOD, if GOD exists, would be the reality.

This doesn't preclude them from being supernatural beings though does it? You still haven't explained how Thor or Zeus or Yahweh, as commonly described, can be considered anything other than supernatural beings. Since when does does being supernatural correspond to being an actuality? It is perfectly possible to be both supernatural and fictional. E.g. Voldermort. It isn't possible to even a attempt a map of a territory that is defined as "unknowable"...... And this GOD you speak of is no different. The unexplained observable phenomenon in question is human belief in the existence of gods. And your proposed answer to this phenomenon is that there really is something (which you are calling GOD) which is the source of these beliefs. Yours is just the ultimate god of the ultimate gap. The gap that is the concept of god itself. You can’t legitimately just define the object of your belief into existence jar. Yours is just a god of the gaps with knobs on. However else you seek to define it.

Of course you can and humans are very good at it, we just make shit up or try to describe it in terms of things we can know.As I have said, I see no way to determine if something IS supernatural as long as I am simply a living human.I am open to suggestions though.

Do you agree that Voldermort is a fictional supernatural being? Well by looking at the entity/concept in question and comparing it's attributes to the definition of supernatural.

I agree that Voldermort is a fictional character that has been labeled as being supernatural.But I also have absolutely no idea what real supernatural is or means.

Why not? IIRC, He only asserts possible existence, anyway. Edited by Phat, : No reason given.