Can You define God?

I'm not sure why you still think putting it in capitals makes the existence of the supernatural-creator-being (AKA god) you believe in any more likely to exist than any other conceivable yet "unknowable" entity.....

This is tautologically true of anything. Why you and jar keep repeating it about GOD baffles me. I either exist or I don't. You either exist or you don't. Brad Pitt either exists or he doesn't. JINKY the giant purple ethereal squirrel eiether exists or he doesn't. So what?What is the point you are making with this pointlessly recited tautology? Are you suggesting that if something either exists or it doesn't then there is a 50-50 chance either way? If so - That is just bonkers!!!! The evidence pertaining to the human ability and proclivity to invent such things as compared to the evidence that such things are even a possibility beyond philosophical conjecture. The simple (yet essentially inarguable) basis that evidenced conclusions are more likely to be correct than un-evidenced ones. Do we need to go any further than that?Phat there is no much fabled "absence of evidence" here. All human claims are made in the context of human history, psychology and culture. And no claim of any supernatural-creator-superbeing has ever been correct yet. Simply retreating into vaguety isn't an answer to this failed hypothesis except for those who just can't let go. Indeed we know there are many reasons why humans are deeply inclined towards such erroneaous explanations and notions. Can you explain to me what an idea without concept even means? Because you seem to be claiming to believe in something without having any concept of what it is you believe in. And that is absurd. I don't have a problem with that. I have a problem with people denying that this is a concept.....Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Then let me enlighten you with yet another common definition:

quote:

---

1. Of or relating to existence outside the natural world.
2. Attributed to a power that seems to violate or go beyond natural forces.
3. Of or relating to a deity.
4. Of or relating to the immediate exercise of divine power; miraculous.

---

Which would make him supernatural. It generally is one of the qualifications for being a god. I am well acquainted with the fact that you impose your personal beliefs on discussions in the form of self-serving definitions - Yes Well my lack of supernatural abilities would seem to be a rather fatal flaw in my quest for godly status.

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......

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'....?

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.

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.

The clue is in the definition of supernatural. I suggest you look it up. But in case you can't for some reason I'll lend you a hand:

quote:

---

1.of, pertaining to, or being above or beyond what is natural; unexplainable by natural law or phenomena; abnormal.
2. of, pertaining to, characteristic of, or attributed to God or a deity.

---

Do you now understand why Voldermort qualifies as supernatural but Miss Marple (for example) doesn't?Both are fictional but only one is supernatural.If you disagree could you reveal what definition of supernatural it is you are applying here?

Well he can in the sense that nobody can stop him doing it. But if he wants to actually communicate with other people they have to know what the hell he is talking about. And given that the thing he believes in is apparently "unknowable" it is debatable (to say the least) that he knows what he is talking about himself, never mind when he is expressing these thoughts to anyone else.In truth I am rapidly beginning to think that jar has created such a tangled web of inter-dependent personal definitions that coherent conversation with him is nothing but superficially possible.A Christian who thinks the Christian god is a fabrication. A theist who believes in a supernatural entity that isn't a god. Definitions of of god, God and GOD that are nothing other than personal beliefs and assumptions imposed in the form of something else. A use of the term "supernatural" that apparently only applies to this GOD that really exists as opposed to those other non-supernatural gods.....etc.The guy is practically talking in tongues whilst approximating English closely enough to make superficial sense. He defines his genuinely supernatural GOD as that which is real rather than being one of those other made-up-non-supernatural-gods.But why is this concept worthy of any more merit, consideration or credence than any "unknowable" entity I can conceive of and put forward as real?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Says the man who asserts that the object of his own belief "IS supernatural...." In what sense is your conclusion here anything other than an assertion? The obvious conclusion here is that this is exactly what you are doing. You are making up god(s). Then you are making up definitions to distinguish the object of your belief from all those other false-gods. How can the definition of supernatural be worthless in assessing whether something (e.g. the fictional entity Voldermort) qualifies as supernatural?What definition of supernatural are you applying such that GOD does qualify but Thor, Zeus and Voldermort don't?Is this yet another case of you taking a commonly defined term and redefining it for your own purposes?Dude you need to create your own dictionary of personal terminology.....

If you agree that there is no reasoned argument to give this GOD concept any more merit, consideration or credence than any other "unknowable" entity I can conceive of and that your only reason for doing so is your own personal irrational belief - Why are you arguing with me?

Shock news!!!!Theist concludes ALL other gods are false interpretations of the one true god he believes in!!!!!How unoriginal.....

Sure. It's the map territory thing. So we have - GOD is the reality. All those other gods/Gods are just flawed interpretations of GOD. So the object of your belief is the one true GOD. Not one of those other-human-construct-gods. Yours is the real deal. The truth upon which those other flawed interpretations are based.In short - All those other gods are false interpretations of the one true god, sorry I mean GOD, that you believe in.....Like I said - It's depressingly unoriginal of you.