Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,809 Year: 4,066/9,624 Month: 937/974 Week: 264/286 Day: 25/46 Hour: 2/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   A Working Definition of God
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 180 of 332 (200936)
04-21-2005 1:26 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Dan Carroll
04-14-2005 9:39 AM


What was wrong with the definition in message #10?
God: The name of the divine being.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Dan Carroll, posted 04-14-2005 9:39 AM Dan Carroll has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 181 by Dan Carroll, posted 04-21-2005 1:44 PM New Cat's Eye has replied
 Message 183 by dsv, posted 04-21-2005 2:06 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 192 of 332 (200993)
04-21-2005 7:17 PM
Reply to: Message 181 by Dan Carroll
04-21-2005 1:44 PM


A priest could be considered a divine being. Depending on what you consider divine, so could anyone else. In all seriousness, I consider my girlfriend a divine being. I consider artists to be divine beings.
The definition is not that God is a divine being. Its that God is the divine being. A priest, or any other person (except for one) couldn't be considered the divine being. How about this definition...
God: The supreme divine being.
But I don't think you're looking for a definition, you could easily find that on dictionary.com. I think you're looking for a description. To describe god with objective evidence is impossible. God isn't objectively observable. People experience god from within and each person's interpretaion and description of god is different.
God isn't objectively observable. This is the where science fails.
Reminds me of the System of a Down song Science
SoaD writes:
Making two possibilities a reality, Predicting the future of things we all know, Fighting off the diseased programming
of centuries. Science fails to recognize the single most potent element of human existence, (its) letting the reigns go to the unfolding, (it) is faith
If you think tht nothing exists that can't be descibed scientifically then you are blindly following science just as fundamentalists blindly follow the bible.
I saw this after I started typing
Dan writes:
I'm absolutely sure I've said it before, but here it is again... if anybody wants to believe in an abstract, subjective, unknowable God, then knock yourself out. However, if someone is going to say that God is an objective fact, with mountains of evidence supporting its existence, then they need to, at the very least, tell us what this objective thing is.
I agree. You can't say that god is an objective fact. I don't think he wants to be either. If he was then belief in him would be default and would be worth less. If he wanted everyone to believe because it was obvious and irrefutable then he could've just made some robots for that. I think he wanted to make people that have free will and can believe or not and that have faith in him, which makes the faith worth more or, as SoaD wrote, the most potent element of human existance

This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by Dan Carroll, posted 04-21-2005 1:44 PM Dan Carroll has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 195 by Dan Carroll, posted 04-22-2005 9:52 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 196 of 332 (201144)
04-22-2005 10:01 AM
Reply to: Message 195 by Dan Carroll
04-22-2005 9:52 AM


Sounds a bit like splitting hairs. He can't be The divine being, because it's demonstrable that there are others.
what?, like your priest example?...like you said...
Depending on what you consider divine
Adding supreme to the definition seperates him from the others you consider to also be divine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 195 by Dan Carroll, posted 04-22-2005 9:52 AM Dan Carroll has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 197 by Dan Carroll, posted 04-22-2005 10:04 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 198 of 332 (201162)
04-22-2005 10:41 AM
Reply to: Message 197 by Dan Carroll
04-22-2005 10:04 AM


leaving us with not much besides a couple modifiers on an undefined life form of some kind.
yeah...I think thats about as far as you're gonna get. But, as far as a definition goes, I think it works.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 197 by Dan Carroll, posted 04-22-2005 10:04 AM Dan Carroll has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024