Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   A Working Definition of God
Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 84 of 332 (200435)
04-19-2005 3:10 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by mike the wiz
04-19-2005 3:06 PM


Re: He got my laugh button
*tips hat*

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by mike the wiz, posted 04-19-2005 3:06 PM mike the wiz has not replied

Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 120 of 332 (200670)
04-20-2005 10:04 AM
Reply to: Message 89 by Mr. Ex Nihilo
04-19-2005 6:35 PM


Re: Dans clever creation
When I speak of love, I'm speaking of a divine love that is willing to sacrifice itself in order that others may live.
Which brings us back to the question... this love is what people are talking about when they say God exists? Seems a bit... abstract? Might there be something more specific and concrete we can get at?
But the point is: If one continues to request a simple definition of God without reference to people, then others may be confused when the one who requests these simple definitions always by default takes their defintion and proceeds to compare it to actual or fictional people.Acts 17:22-24 NIV writes:
For what it's worth, I have no problem with saying "Hey, God is unknowable. Deal with it."
Just as long as we all write that one down for the next time someone starts a thread proclaiming how obvious it is that God's right there in front of us. (As folks have done on this thread.)
I could certainly see that if you are looking for a solidly material reason for his death.
More something other than what I already know... that this man died. Similarly, when people say "God is the creator of the universe!", I can only really respond with, "Um... okay, what's God?" If they repeat "the creator of the universe!", then they're just telling me that the creator of the universe is the creator of the universe. And... well, I already know that the universe is here.
Does that make sense? I'm not sure.
Well...I suppose when one looks on the most rational and logical physical level, when one talks about a spirit they are usually refering to a mood or inspiration or even mentality that one operate in.
Based on a reply I gave above, by Judeo-Christian definition, God is the spiritual substrate...
This is interesting metaphor, but is it wholly different from Faith's earlier Shadow King description?
If I were lost in a city and stopped to ask someone for directions, they might reply, "You need to go that way." or "You need to go North."
I gotta tell ya... maybe it's just me, but my reaction would be to blink, say "yeah, thanks" and go ask someone who could give better directions.
I don't mean to piss you off, MD, because you really have been the only one on this thread who seems to be willing to elaborate and get a definition out there. So if I have, I apologize. You haven't been here long, so this is as good a time as any to find out that I'm a smarmy ass sometimes. Doesn't mean I don't have a serious point; it's just kinda how I do things. Offense is rarely meant.
All that being said, I hope you don't actually cease involvement with the thread. You're bringing a touch of class to things.
This message has been edited by [Dan's Clever Alias], 04-20-2005 09:20 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by Mr. Ex Nihilo, posted 04-19-2005 6:35 PM Mr. Ex Nihilo has not replied

Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 122 of 332 (200672)
04-20-2005 10:10 AM
Reply to: Message 100 by Faith
04-19-2005 9:52 PM


Re: What is this thread about anyway?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
This message has been edited by [Dan's Clever Alias], 04-20-2005 09:21 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by Faith, posted 04-19-2005 9:52 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 127 by Faith, posted 04-20-2005 10:52 AM Dan Carroll has replied
 Message 146 by nator, posted 04-21-2005 12:04 AM Dan Carroll has replied

Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 123 of 332 (200673)
04-20-2005 10:16 AM
Reply to: Message 108 by Mammuthus
04-20-2005 3:19 AM


Either that or Dr. Strange is waaaay more powerful than I gave him credit for...
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by Mammuthus, posted 04-20-2005 3:19 AM Mammuthus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 125 by Mammuthus, posted 04-20-2005 10:22 AM Dan Carroll has not replied

Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 124 of 332 (200675)
04-20-2005 10:19 AM
Reply to: Message 116 by clpMINI
04-20-2005 9:04 AM


Re: Definition of God
Whatever it is better To Be, than Not To Be, god would be the most possible.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by clpMINI, posted 04-20-2005 9:04 AM clpMINI has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 129 by clpMINI, posted 04-20-2005 11:14 AM Dan Carroll has replied

Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 131 of 332 (200682)
04-20-2005 11:27 AM
Reply to: Message 127 by Faith
04-20-2005 10:52 AM


Re: What is this thread about anyway?
You don't want anything about his actions, so that automatically limits it.
Again... if you can tell me what a "God" is, I'm happy to then move on to what this specific one does.
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.
Well clearly, if the definitions offered are crap, it's my fault.
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?
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?"
Where do you come from? Some black hole?
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.
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?
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by Faith, posted 04-20-2005 10:52 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 135 by Faith, posted 04-20-2005 12:28 PM Dan Carroll has not replied

Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 132 of 332 (200685)
04-20-2005 11:31 AM
Reply to: Message 129 by clpMINI
04-20-2005 11:14 AM


Re: Definition of God
Yeah its subjective, but I think just about everyhing else your going to get will be subjective as well
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by clpMINI, posted 04-20-2005 11:14 AM clpMINI has not replied

Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 173 of 332 (200904)
04-21-2005 9:07 AM
Reply to: Message 146 by nator
04-21-2005 12:04 AM


Re: What is this thread about anyway?
Your powers only work, a la The Invisible Boy, when nobody is looking.
That would explain the poor reception at the YWCA...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 146 by nator, posted 04-21-2005 12:04 AM nator has not replied

Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 174 of 332 (200905)
04-21-2005 9:09 AM
Reply to: Message 139 by Mr. Ex Nihilo
04-20-2005 5:00 PM


Magisterium -
Your post requires a little more response time than a quick bang-out during work. Thanks for putting the effort in... I'll get my response to you soon.
Edit: never mind, there it is below...
This message has been edited by [Dan's Clever Alias], 04-21-2005 09:22 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by Mr. Ex Nihilo, posted 04-20-2005 5:00 PM Mr. Ex Nihilo has not replied

Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 175 of 332 (200906)
04-21-2005 9:15 AM
Reply to: Message 140 by mike the wiz
04-20-2005 6:22 PM


He wants us to bend over backward in a futile effort to define God, knowing that God must be - if he is real, pretty unfathomable and thereby the atheist knows that we will at best produce a hundred defintions from the bible that will make us look like a bunch of incoherent nonsense in a bid to meet their criteria.
And of course, if you're incoherent, it's my fault.
As always Mike, you're pure comedy gold. Don't ever change.
This message has been edited by [Dan's Clever Alias], 04-21-2005 08:19 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by mike the wiz, posted 04-20-2005 6:22 PM mike the wiz has not replied

Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 176 of 332 (200916)
04-21-2005 10:22 AM
Reply to: Message 139 by Mr. Ex Nihilo
04-20-2005 5:00 PM


But, to be fair to Dan's Clever Alias' initial question, we need to first present a basic working definition of God -- like a spirutal matrix or over-arching pattern which DCA can then compare and contrast against the claims of the evidence within nature that supposedly point toward God's existence.
Crimney, thank you. This seems to be the basic idea that Mike and Faith have been missing. As I said in the first post, "If we're going to be asking whether or not it exists, we might as well start by deciding exactly what it is we're wondering about."
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.
Okay, the re-cap's over, let's get on with the post...
I started before saying that God is love. But, to be more precise, it seems to me that God is actually the substance of that which is good (and that evil is the absense of God) -- or, stating it in the negative, that God is the absense of evil.
I'm actually really enjoying the metaphors you've been using over the course of this thread. But can we take things in a more concrete direction? There are many, many things on this planet that can be described as at least posessing an absence of evil, but I doubt they're what you're referring to here.
In order to see an example of this within the real world, look to the very theoretical nature of mathematics itself. Many will tell you that mathematics exists independantly of reality -- they realise that pure maths exists independently of the observable universe.
Can you clarify? Because the only way I know this to be true is in the same way as language... ie, there is no objective Fact Of The Universe that says that what I'm drinking as I write this is called "coffee". We just choose to assign that name to it.
I guess the Greek concept of the Logos could also be invoked here as well. In this sense, the Logos is believed to be the Supreme Will undergirding all of creation, the reason for all existence.
The Logos business goes on for a while, but I'm just quoting this part for my response to save space... you seem to be elaborating for the sake of clarifying what you mean by "spiritual substrate", without really specifying what it is about this spiritual substrate that makes it identifiable.
Does that make sense? I can clarify if need be.
God would be like a divine eternal law of physics which is very sentient and aware, nearly omniscient, nearly omnipotent, and fully omnibenevolent.
For what it's worth, I have absolutely no problem with this as a definition for God. Although I would personally not assign consciousness to it, because at that level, can you even really use the word "consciousness" in any recognizable sense?
An ex-girlfriend of mine defined God like this... she said that if you step back from the Earth, and look at everything... all the people, all the cars, all the aardvarks, down to every cell in every body and every stapler and everything else, and every sound wave bouncing through the air, and freakin' everything... then stepped back more and saw the whole of it in the galaxy... then in the universe... then back one more step and saw the whole of it laced through time... that thing you saw could reasonably be called "God".
I'll part company with you for the same pedantic reason I parted company with her on the subject... once we're defining God, essentially, as "the way things are", then what need do we have of the word "God"?
It seems to me that God would percieve evil as an inperceptible "void" that he cannot see into. This doesn't mean that he wouldn't be aware of a person who "sins" for lack of better words. Rather, as his love radiates otuward. it would be like a radar signal bouncing off all things good on both a phsycial and spiritual level.
I'm not going to touch this section with a ten-foot pole, for the simple reason that defining objective morality will take even longer than defining God, result in more petty fights, and probably just wind up turning into Yet Another Homosexuality Thread.
Just wanted you to know, it's not that it's not interesting... it just seems a bit off-topic. More along the lines of "once we nail down what he is, let's move on to what he does/how he interacts with us."
I believe that the ability to genuinnely forgive and really love your enemies is the most powerful and perplexing force humanity has ever faced.
Belief in God aside, can't say I disagree with you there.
Although I do find that a really good dick joke works just as well as forgiveness in some situations.
In seriousness though, wouldn't these just be statements on power and forgiveness that apply to any living being? The don't seem especially God-specific.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by Mr. Ex Nihilo, posted 04-20-2005 5:00 PM Mr. Ex Nihilo has not replied

Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 181 of 332 (200938)
04-21-2005 1:44 PM
Reply to: Message 180 by New Cat's Eye
04-21-2005 1:26 PM


It just moves the goalposts to "what divine being"?
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.
Even if we lop all these off by saying God is a divine being other than human, then we really haven't defined anything. What kind of being is it if it's not human?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 180 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-21-2005 1:26 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 192 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-21-2005 7:17 PM Dan Carroll has replied

Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 195 of 332 (201138)
04-22-2005 9:52 AM
Reply to: Message 192 by New Cat's Eye
04-21-2005 7:17 PM


God: The supreme divine being.
Sounds a bit like splitting hairs. He can't be The divine being, because it's demonstrable that there are others.
But I don't think you're looking for a definition, you could easily find that on dictionary.com.
Not a satisfactory one. I honestly think the English language has been pretty slipshod on defining this word. There seems to be a general assumption in the culture of, "C'mon, you know what God is!"
Reminds me of the System of a Down song Science
As a side note, I'm going to have Strong Bad singing "The System is Down" in my head all day. Thanks truckloads.
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
Fair deal, and I hope your faith has a good influence on your life.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 192 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-21-2005 7:17 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 196 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-22-2005 10:01 AM Dan Carroll has replied

Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 197 of 332 (201145)
04-22-2005 10:04 AM
Reply to: Message 196 by New Cat's Eye
04-22-2005 10:01 AM


Adding supreme to the definition seperates him from the others you consider to also be divine.
Problem being, "supreme" is also not an objective term. What are the standards for supremacy, here?
And while we're at it, we still have that vague "being" term, leaving us with not much besides a couple modifiers on an undefined life form of some kind.
This message has been edited by [Dan's Clever Alias], 04-22-2005 09:05 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 196 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-22-2005 10:01 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 198 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-22-2005 10:41 AM Dan Carroll has not replied

Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 256 of 332 (201527)
04-23-2005 4:48 PM
Reply to: Message 223 by Percy
04-22-2005 9:08 PM


It's Dan's thread - if he thinks this aspect is off-topic that's okay with me.
No, fine by me. The definitions of God seem to have generally settled into, "God is a subjective experience, not an objective reality."
My phrasing it that way will probably re-spark commentary on the subject, but in the meantime, your guys' conversation is interesting. Run with it!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 223 by Percy, posted 04-22-2005 9:08 PM Percy 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