Can You define God?

Pretty much. But it also boils down to saying "You don't know what you're talking about when you talk about 'God either"In essence you can't believe-in, communicate about or indeed have any coherent thoughts regarding a non-concept.It's like asking: Do you believe in X?Where X is something. Or not. Maybe.

So if we said that X, if X exists...we would then have to turn X into something before we could discuss it, right?Thats what I think is the distinction between GOD and God, according to jar. Or maybe he can correct me....

I believe that because that is what you told me. So you are inventing terminology to express the "nuance" of beliefs which you describe as "unreasonable, illogical and irrational".It really shouldn't therefore come as any surprise that these definitions result in the incoherent web of tangled thought we have seen from you in this thread.Given the basis of these definitions it is practically inevitable.

If GOD is X why are you giving it the name G-O-D and talking about it in a thread that relates to defining the term "God".A genuine X, a genuine absolute unknown, would have no more association with gods than with hobbits.How about instead of GOD you use the term HOBBIT to refer to the object of your belief? Why not? If it really is as undefined as you seem to be suggesting....?

Again, in the very message you quote I pointed out that "But as I pointed out above, it is only the belief that GOD does exist that I find unreasonable, illogical and irrational, the rest is reasoned I think."The nuance is a conclusion based on reason, logic and rationality.

Well..I don't like the term Hobbit, since Hobbit has been somewhat culturally defined.Although I suppose that even by giving it the term X I brought the concept into human conceptualization. My point is that the concept/belief itself is by definition beyond,above, or outside of human conceptualization. In which case you might argue that there is no point discussing it. And yet we are.....

Holy shit you just said that you can't believe in cheese!

ok, lets discuss the terms so far.lets see...we have
GOD
God
god
and I added
X=GOD
and then which ones did you have?

Aww, shit.Y'all just makin' it up as ya go.Who ya think yer foolin'?Don't let that pantie wedgie ruin your dinner.

Dude - That is what they all say!!But a term without definition is a term without meaning. Literally meaningless.

I don't see how concept X, defined as unknowable in this thread, could possibly be cheese.Cheese, as I understand the term, is a rather well defined concept and my views on the existence of cheese are thus rather clear.However if you wish to further confront your own ontological battle with cheese, to discuss further your previously proclaimed agnosticism towards the existence of cheese, I suggest you start a new thread.A thread called "Does cheese exist?" I look forward to it.

But the term "god" hasn't? Do you not see the double standard at play here?If this thing you are talking about literally has no conceptual meaning why use a word to describe it which very much does have meaning?

quote:

---

1. God
a. A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions.
b. The force, effect, or a manifestation or aspect of this being.
2. A being of supernatural powers or attributes, believed in and worshiped by a people, especially a male deity thought to control some part of nature or reality.

---

Why not call this thing you speak of "X" or even (radical suggestion) "unknown"....?

Well my radical suggestion here is to use the term "unknowns" to refer to things which are unknown. Then I think a meaningful conversation could be had and that it would go something like the following:Phat: Do you believe in the existence of unknowns?
Straggler: Yes. It would be arrogant, foolish and unrealistic of us to claim to know everything.
Phat: Do you believe in the existence of unknowables?
Straggler: I think it very possible that there are things which the human mind is unable to comprehend
Phat: Do you believe in the existence of unknowables which can be meaningfully described as gods?
Straggler: Once you start imbuing unknown things with attributes such as being a supernatural creative conscious intelligence that can only be known after death you are unjustifiably imposing your own anthropomorphic wishful thinking into the mix. There is absolutely no reason to think any unknowns will possess these attributes and every reason to think you are simply inventing things in order to fulfil your own very human needs. So in short - NoThat would be the basis for a sensible conversation. But this insane idea that we can discuss something when neither one of us has the first clue what it is because it is literally anything we can or probably cannot conceive of - Is just absurd.Edited by Straggler, : Spellin innit.

In that case I agree. On a personal level, I still prefer the terminology, GOD or in my case, Father...but X will do or even "unknown" or unknowable if we are jointly discussing such a concept. Why is this unjustifiable? And as faqr as stirring "thinking" into the mix, what else can possibly be stirred into this "mix" to which you refer? Not a chance? No IFs ? In Rahvins POTM post (nominated by you) in which he said to me

quote:

---

I pointed out that you are "communing" only within your own head, and you responded effectively that it can be good to let people talk to imaginary friends.

---

He basically says the same thing that you just said. So lets delve further. Edited by Phat, : sharpened argument

Again, quote mining seldom has value.The full post that you quote mined was:

quote:

---

Again, in the very message you quote I pointed out that "But as I pointed out above, it is only the belief that GOD does exist that I find unreasonable, illogical and irrational, the rest is reasoned I think."

​

The nuance is a conclusion based on reason, logic and rationality.

---

First, you have been complaining that only I have been defining GOD, God and god as separate concepts so I really doubt that is what they all say and I doubt that even the majority of theists admit that their belief in GOD or God or god is illogical, unreasonable and irrational so I'm somewhat confused by you claiming that the quote above is what they all say.But defining things is often difficult as the robotics folk have found. Even human have a hard time with many concepts, some simply can't be defined in words at all and so mathematics are used as a better approximation.But in an attempt to help you understand I have provided definitions of the three terms I use, of GOD, God(s) and god(s) and I will repeat it yet again to see if it helps you.The Nuance is one of detail, our definition of god(s) has the highest level of detail. For example the god found in the Genesis 2&3 stories is very human, makes mud figures, is sometimes unsure, sometimes fearful, works by trial and error but also very compassionate and approachable. The god found in Genesis 1 on the other hand is never unsure, creates by an act of will alone but apart from the creation, aloof and distant.The next level, that of God(s) is less well defined, for example the Christian God could be said to be an amalgam of all the various god(s) found in the Old Testament with the addition of the attributes of the Jesus character and something referred to as the Holy Spirit.But the actual thing, the GOD, if GOD exists is unlikely to be anything like any of the descriptions humans have invented. It is unlikely to be human centric or Christian centric or Buddhist centric or Hindu centric or like anything we really imagine. We are limited by being human, by being animals existing on this world in these societies and cultures. We create caricatures based on what we can experience.As long as we are but human, I doubt we will be able to do a much better job of defining GOD beyond stating that GOD is most likely unlike any of the God(s) or god(s) we've defined.