Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Can You define God?
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 211 of 318 (675527)
10-12-2012 6:41 AM
Reply to: Message 208 by jar
10-11-2012 7:39 PM


Re: GOD is NOT a god
jar writes:
Well, I've answered all these questions many times in this thread...
That's debatable. But what you most certainly haven't done is provide the definition of 'supernatural' that you are applying in order to conclude that only your GOD qualifies.
Straggler writes:
Can you give me an example of a god or a God that isn't supernatural or doesn't have supernatural abilities?
jar writes:
All of the Gods or gods.
What definition of supernatural are you applying such that GOD does qualify but Thor, Zeus, Yahweh, Allah, Vishnu and Voldermort don't?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 208 by jar, posted 10-11-2012 7:39 PM jar has seen this message but not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(2)
Message 213 of 318 (675545)
10-12-2012 10:29 AM
Reply to: Message 212 by jar
10-12-2012 9:57 AM


Re: HOLD THE PRESS
jar writes:
The other God(s) and god(s) are not flawed interpretations, they are the best interpretations a people made based on their culture and society.
A distinction without a difference.
jar writes:
I believe that any God or god that we can discuss, define or describe is almost certainly not GOD.
Yes. I get that. You are putting forward GOD as the ultimate god of the ultimate gap. The gap that is the concept of god itself.
jar writes:
What GOD is, an entity, a group, a committee, a force, an essence... I honestly have no idea.
How can you believe in the existence of something without having any idea what it is?
And is there any reason at all to give this GOD concept any more merit, consideration or credence than any other "unknowable" entity I can conceive of or is your reason for doing so entirely personal irrational belief?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 212 by jar, posted 10-12-2012 9:57 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 214 by jar, posted 10-12-2012 10:34 AM Straggler has replied
 Message 217 by Phat, posted 10-12-2012 11:38 AM Straggler has replied
 Message 303 by Phat, posted 02-06-2014 12:44 AM Straggler has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 215 of 318 (675552)
10-12-2012 11:09 AM
Reply to: Message 214 by jar
10-12-2012 10:34 AM


Re: HOLD THE PRESS
So when you make these fact-like proclamations such as "GOD is NOT a god" are you merely expressing an "unreasonable, illogical and irrational" belief?
When you say that Yahweh (or indeed any other god) is NOT a supernatural being are you merely expressing an "unreasonable, illogical and irrational" belief?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 214 by jar, posted 10-12-2012 10:34 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 216 by jar, posted 10-12-2012 11:28 AM Straggler has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 218 of 318 (675558)
10-12-2012 11:53 AM
Reply to: Message 216 by jar
10-12-2012 11:28 AM


Re: HOLD THE PRESS
The only reason you have given for inventing your own definitions is to express the "nuance" of your beliefs.
Beliefs which you describe as "unreasonable, illogical and irrational".
So it should hardly come as any surprise that these definitions result in the incoherent web of tangled thought we have seen from you in this thread.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 216 by jar, posted 10-12-2012 11:28 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 219 by jar, posted 10-12-2012 11:58 AM Straggler has replied
 Message 220 by Phat, posted 10-12-2012 12:04 PM Straggler has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(2)
Message 222 of 318 (675564)
10-12-2012 12:11 PM
Reply to: Message 217 by Phat
10-12-2012 11:38 AM


The Ultimate God of The Ultimate Gap
Straggler writes:
How can you believe in the existence of something without having any idea what it is?
Phat writes:
this is where the IF comes in.
IF what?
This idea that you can have a concept so undefined that it is utterly immune from any critical analysis whilst still being defined enough to be coherently believed in is self-serving nonsense. The only sane response to such a non-concept is to be ignostic.
ignostic (plural ignostics)
1. one who holds to ignosticism.
2. one who requires a definition of the term God or Gods as without sensible definition they find theism incoherent and thus non-cognitive.
ignostic - Wiktionary
If you want to talk about "unknowables" - Fine. We all agree that there unknowns and I suspect we can all agree that there are very probably unknowables. But when you start imposing your theistic inclinations on top we are no longer talking about "unknowns". We are talking about those things we commonly call "gods".
Phat writes:
What you don't seem to get is that the difference between GOD, if GOD exists and all of the others is that the others have a cultural identity.
All concepts have a "cultural identity". If you believe otherwise you are simply in denial. This thing you are calling GOD is simply the logical consequence of the god of the gaps. As science and knowledge expand to make gods shrink into ever smaller gaps believers such as yourself look for a niche. An unknowable. And what provides a better place to plant your unknowable god than in the ultimate gap. The gap that is the human notion of god itself!!!
This notion of GOD is very very much a product of our scientific age.
Phat writes:
There is no logical "winner" in any debate between a believer and an unbeliever. Logic cannot trump belief, nor can belief trump logic. It is a classic stalemate.
When the believer in question starts inventing self-serving definitions and then stating these as if they were facts despite contradicting both themselves and common definitions of the same terms - I will quite legitimately object.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 217 by Phat, posted 10-12-2012 11:38 AM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 224 by Phat, posted 10-12-2012 12:17 PM Straggler has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 225 of 318 (675568)
10-12-2012 12:19 PM
Reply to: Message 220 by Phat
10-12-2012 12:04 PM


Re: Nuances
We could start by agreeing to use the English language rather than inventing a bunch of self-serving definitions that are contradictory and merely reflections of (self-confessed "unreasonable, illogical and irrational") personal beliefs.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 220 by Phat, posted 10-12-2012 12:04 PM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 233 by Phat, posted 10-12-2012 5:33 PM Straggler has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 226 of 318 (675569)
10-12-2012 12:21 PM
Reply to: Message 224 by Phat
10-12-2012 12:17 PM


Re: The Ultimate God of The Ultimate Gap
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 224 by Phat, posted 10-12-2012 12:17 PM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 227 by Phat, posted 10-12-2012 12:25 PM Straggler has replied
 Message 232 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-12-2012 1:01 PM Straggler has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 228 of 318 (675571)
10-12-2012 12:30 PM
Reply to: Message 219 by jar
10-12-2012 11:58 AM


Re: HOLD THE PRESS
jar writes:
You are of course free to believe that
I believe that because that is what you told me.
jar writes:
I define and used those terms, GOD, God and god for the exact reason of the nuance.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 219 by jar, posted 10-12-2012 11:58 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 230 by jar, posted 10-12-2012 12:37 PM Straggler has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 229 of 318 (675572)
10-12-2012 12:34 PM
Reply to: Message 227 by Phat
10-12-2012 12:25 PM


Re: The Ultimate God of The Ultimate Gap
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....?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 227 by Phat, posted 10-12-2012 12:25 PM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 231 by Phat, posted 10-12-2012 12:37 PM Straggler has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 235 of 318 (675611)
10-13-2012 7:14 AM
Reply to: Message 230 by jar
10-12-2012 12:37 PM


Re: HOLD THE PRESS
jar writes:
The nuance is a conclusion based on reason, logic and rationality.
Dude - That is what they all say!!
But a term without definition is a term without meaning. Literally meaningless.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 230 by jar, posted 10-12-2012 12:37 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 240 by jar, posted 10-13-2012 10:23 AM Straggler has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(3)
Message 236 of 318 (675612)
10-13-2012 7:16 AM
Reply to: Message 232 by New Cat's Eye
10-12-2012 1:01 PM


Re: The Ultimate God of The Ultimate Gap
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 232 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-12-2012 1:01 PM New Cat's Eye has seen this message but not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 237 of 318 (675613)
10-13-2012 7:24 AM
Reply to: Message 231 by Phat
10-12-2012 12:37 PM


Re: The Ultimate God of The Ultimate Gap
Phat writes:
Well..I don't like the term Hobbit, since Hobbit has been somewhat culturally defined.
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"....?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 231 by Phat, posted 10-12-2012 12:37 PM Phat has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 238 of 318 (675614)
10-13-2012 7:26 AM
Reply to: Message 233 by Phat
10-12-2012 5:33 PM


Why not use the term "unknown" to refer to unknowns?
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 - No
That 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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 233 by Phat, posted 10-12-2012 5:33 PM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 239 by Phat, posted 10-13-2012 7:42 AM Straggler has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 243 of 318 (675722)
10-15-2012 8:41 AM
Reply to: Message 239 by Phat
10-13-2012 7:42 AM


Re: Why not use the term "unknown" to refer to unknowns?
Phat writes:
Not a chance?
How do you go from me saying "absolutely no reason" to hearing "Not a chance"....?
It is philosophically possible that immaterial unicorns exist and I would put your unknowable GOD in that same category.
Phat writes:
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.
What do you mean by "such a concept"...? Are we talking about a recognisably godly concept? Or are we talking about a concept which is completely devoid of attribute and definition? A concept X.
If the latter I see no possible way of having a cogent discussion about an X.
Phat writes:
Why is this unjustifiable?
Because you can't legitimately hide behind a mask of complete ambiguity whilst covertly defining "unknowns" as things which are recognisably godly by any conventional definition and about which we have a great deal of evidence in the form of human psychology.
Phat writes:
So lets delve further.
If you want to know what I consider to be evidence - As a starting point anything which demonstrably results in conclusions which are superior to those obtained by blind random chance.
Is that so unreasonable?
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 239 by Phat, posted 10-13-2012 7:42 AM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(2)
Message 244 of 318 (675724)
10-15-2012 8:46 AM
Reply to: Message 240 by jar
10-13-2012 10:23 AM


What Is GOD?
Like so many pet theories yours is just one personalised self-serving definition layered on top of the next. Throw in some conflation with conventional meaning and we have the recipe for the superficially-coherent-sounding nonsense that we see before us. And at the root of this morass of definitional mayhem is this chameleon-like notion you call GOD.
GOD. A thing which on one hand is completely undefined and devoid of any attributes. A term which when it suits you is, in a very literal sense, completely and utterly meaningless.
And yet despite this insistence that the term has no definition. most of the time when discussing this thing you implicitly imbue this thing with some very conventional godliness. We have the fact that this term is spelt G-O-D with all the conceptual baggage that entails. We have the fact that you are talking about it in a thread titled Can You Define God?. We have the fact that you persistently class this thing in the same company as gods and God(s). We have your personal belief that this thing is the ‘creator of all that is seen and unseen’. We have your insistence that belief in this GOD thing qualifies one as a theist (despite it not being a god). We have your assertion that any knowledge of this thing can only come after death. And we have your re-definition of the term supernatural such that GOD and GOD alone (i.e. not Thor or Voldermort or demons or anything else one can conceive of) qualifies as supernatural.
So on one hand we have a term with no meaning about which any belief or discussion is incoherent and completely lacking in cogency. And on the other we have an entity which suffers from all the same problems as all those other gods you dismiss as obvious human constructions. Except you have defined yours as NOT one of those.
Your position is a confused spot somewhere between a rock and a hard place.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 240 by jar, posted 10-13-2012 10:23 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 245 by jar, posted 10-15-2012 9:47 AM Straggler has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024