Can You define God?

Hi Straggler! I just did a quick search on that term, "ignostic". One definition that I saw was this:

quote:

---

Ignosticism is the position that, before we can have a meaningful conversation about "God", we have to adequately define "God". Since most given descriptors of "God" are muddled, self-contradictory, linguistically empty, etc, it's pointless to talk about it at all. Basically the position boils down to saying "I don't know what you're talking about when you talk about 'God'".

---

Does that definition agree with you?

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....

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.....

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?

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

If I have heard the argument correctly, Straggler maintains that simply by using the word, GOD, we have already begun to describe an unknowable. We have already began to assign certain characteristics to the concept X. Im thinking that what his argument is is that X remains in question, as if we ourselves were writing the problem. In other words, imagine a math test with one question. (On a blank page) Define X.Perhaps some think that the question, as it relates to the topic, is better stated as Can You Define X?Others would argue that it makes no sense to begin the argument by stating that X, if X exists=X. They may argue a case for the non existence of X. Which is fine and dandy, but then would come the question of why they are participating in this thread. Why participate in a thread where X is discussed when you see no need for X?

OK, first we have to approach each discussion/argument/philosophical exchange with a framework.Logically, the starting post in any topic is the initial framework of a discussion.Thus...Post#1:

quote:

---

As humans,we like to understand things. We feel the need to put them into some type of category, to name them. This has been a good thing for our species in many circumstances but in the case of God the ability to define or even name him is an impossibility. Yet that does not mean that it is not worth the attempt to gain some understanding of what God is, only that we must understand before we begin that defining something limits that something, and describing something often gets confused with defining something. You try to define your love of someone by describing why you love them. You attempt to define the sky by describing its properties,etc. So based on this,can you define God? Some if most would say that God is good, merciful, just, loving, and all powerful. All of these are words to describe him. It doesn't make them untrue, it simply avoided the bigger challenge, and that is defining him.

---

So a couple of questions.If concept X is devoid of attribute and definition, (in which case the topic would be Can You Define X) we then have a discussion which can go several ways. If discussing it with a proponent of X, one who wishes X to have a definition, we can prove to them that X has no definition, but even by discussing X, we have given it an attribute...namely a proposal for X to exist or a proposal for x not to exist. Jar claims that since X is an unknown, and a belief, then the biblical concept of I Am that I am means that X could itself be a proposal for its own existence. Thus, IF X exists is a valid premise, no?Additionally, you may see no point to discussing concept X, yet jar or I may in fact see a point to discussing it. Further, since all three of us are in this discussion, as well as others, the idea that it is moot to discuss GOD seems irrelevant.

And I would argue that the very fact that humans continually discuss both things that we can define and things we can't we are by virtue of being in the discussion acknowledging the value of either GOD, X, or IF. Do you understand my assertion?

We have three "God" topics in high rotation, chiefly because I like talking about such things. I have to discipline myself, however, and sort the data as to which topic should be addressed by what specific criteria. That's expected and acceptable.I would argue that in any philosophical discussion, people learn more from disagreement than they do from agreement. Buzsaw always talks about the "sheeple" and yet talks reverently of the Shepherd (or whom he defines as the Shepherd.) You and he always disagree, but I would argue that he has learned more from you having disagreed with him than it would have been had you agreed. Same with me. You and I go way back. And then there is our friend from across the pond...Mr. Straggler! Do you agree with my assertion that GOD (by definitional consensus) is desiring communion with humans or is aware of our minds, wills, and emotions so as to be familiar with us or would you argue that definitional consensus has not yet been reached?I would argue the latter, seeing that if GOD exists then not enough information has been established to even form a full definition, much less a consensus. (apologies to Jesus, whom makes communion a possibility)And no, I cannot define God. The God whom I would want has the following characteristics.

Understands the feelings of every living thing that possesses feelings.

Not at all jealous, though hopefully protective...like a good parent who runs behind the bicycle once the training wheels come off in case of a need to catch a falling child.

​

Creator of all seen and unseen, (this still allows for natural observable processes like evolution and various cosmological theoretics.)

​

Desires communion with humans when we become capable of such an event...which we are not yet ready.

​

Edited by Phat, : changed subtitle

​

Edited by Phat, : changed thrust of argument/assertion with the understanding that I might be wrong.

​

Edited by Phat, : added

Start a thread on it. The reason we can talk about GOD,BLOP,or X is that one of us put it out there. So does this mean that the Final answer is that NO, we cannot define GOD?

Summary: BLOP and BLOP alone IS hubuluteral. Because it too was put forth.I propose X. Any conclusions, objections or definitions?

thus, I could say that X, if X exists is meaningful.For you, X="what" or X=something. Thats what you essentially just said.

Good question.Lets break your sentence down further. First, we will remove the words without definition. Thus we are left with:How do you know alone IS?Edited by Phat, : No reason given.

Its not absurd at all. YOU are the one who proposed it, after all.How do you know that alone(All One) is?So all we need do is define alone. Then we need to ask how we know that it is.

True, since by definition, supernatural is "of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe". there is no way we can ever determine these types of things. Does that make the very word theoretical? While I agree with this statement, perhaps some people imagine their God to be quite natural, similar to Barbara Eden on I dream of Jeannie Do you mean you, jar? Or you, Phat? Or perhaps you think that "you" is inclusive. Can we list anything now known as a tangible fact that is by definition supernatural? No. You are entitled to exclusive beliefs. Beliefs by definition cannot be inclusive. hmmmm. this is getting funny!