It is very difficult to discuss topics such as religious belief without first having adequately defined 'god'. Yet, I see very little discussion attempting to do so. Did I simply miss the boat and everyone else has a perfect understanding of what we talk about when we refer to 'god'? If not, I'd love to hear some others ideas on what 'god' means.
Definition of God
- Thread starter Jabur
- Start date
-
- Tags
- definition god
jimtron
Illuminator
My definition: likely non-existent.
Definition of God?
Depends on which god you mean. One of a protestant persuasion, a catholic god, a jewish one, allah, or one of the hindu gods. Not to mention one of the gods of the innumerable small religions around the world. You might come up with a definition that encompasses all of those, but I don't see any use of such a definition.
Depends on which god you mean. One of a protestant persuasion, a catholic god, a jewish one, allah, or one of the hindu gods. Not to mention one of the gods of the innumerable small religions around the world. You might come up with a definition that encompasses all of those, but I don't see any use of such a definition.
God = Santa for adults
(Benevolent father figure, universally knows when we are good or bad, rewards good, punishes bad, able to perform miracles)
SRW
Master Poster
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2001
- Messages
- 2,903
According to dictionary.com I am god. and least by #5
5. A very handsome man.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=god
(Well at least my wife thinks so) or did 20 years ago.
5. A very handsome man.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=god
(Well at least my wife thinks so) or did 20 years ago.
Can we even define things in terms of omnipotent (omniscient etc), without completely losing any worth it might have had?
Why not?
If you study the old norse (or germanic) gods, you'll find that they were far from omnipotent. But they were Gods.
TobiasTheViking
Resident Viking Autist
- Joined
- Jun 25, 2005
- Messages
- 6,925
Sorry.. are you saying that atheists are religious?
No, by religious view I meant view on religion, not a genaral view of things that's religious. Atheism may have some aspects that resembles religion, but I'm not a part of the "atheism is a religion" fraction, I want to make that very clear.TobiasTheCommie said:
TobiasTheViking
Resident Viking Autist
- Joined
- Jun 25, 2005
- Messages
- 6,925
Ahh, good good.
So, i, as an atheist. need a definition for Gunderscored before i can say i don't believe in him..
hm, i'm not sure i would agree with that. but.
I don't believe in any being (supernatural or not) that can be omnipotent.
I don't believe in any being (supernatural or not) that can be omniscent.
if such a being existed(which i don't believe), i don't believe it could be all good. With perfect moral.
I still don't see why i need a definition.
Gunderscored is a supernatural being(else why call him/her/it god?), and i don't believe in any supernatural beings.
So, should i also have a definition for supernatural ready?
Supernatural as in not existing in nature.
Anything that doesn't exist, i don't believe in, god doesnt' exist, hence i don't believe in god.
Should I have a definition of everything I don't think exists? That's a rather tall order.
TobiasTheCommie said:
You think you can refute something for which you have no definition? In that case, you can refute anything if you're just ignorant enough. Besides, it's obvious from your post that you have a definition - you presume God to be a supernatural and perhaps omnipotent/omniscient/good instance, which gives you enough material to refute the concept in your eyes. However, it's not that simple.
You may think the concept of God is very clear. It is not. Think about that what Hawking said: "Yes, I do [believe in God], if by God you mean the embodiment of the laws that govern the universe."
Don't you believe in the laws that govern the universe?
You may think this concept is too unclear, unnecessary and far from the general view of God, and I may agree, but it is still clear that for anyone to have a opinion on something worth to listen to, they must also have a definition.
If you don't have a definition of a word, it might refer to something that obviously exists - so yes, if you have a concept you want to refute, you must have a defintion.to.by said:
TobiasTheViking
Resident Viking Autist
- Joined
- Jun 25, 2005
- Messages
- 6,925
Ehm, i think you missunderstand who have the burden of proof here.
It is NOT my job to refute the existance of god(or anything). It is for the people who believe in it to proof it does exist.
Actually, i had many definitions, not just one. For all the definitions of god i find and say "i don't believe in god per that definition", someone would be able to pop up and say "AHA, but what about THIS definition", hence, it is not my job to define which god i don't believe in, since there is an infinite amount of definitions for god.
And there you did it.. asked "AHA, what about THIS definition".
What Hawking is saying here is "i believe in the natural world, if god is the natural world, then i believe in god, because god is nothing more, and nothing less, than the natural world".. in which case we come back to my question from my previous post.
Then why call him/her/it god?
If god is only the universe, then the word universe is a much better description of the concept than god.
If god is only the universe, then god is not all good, nor all powerfull... then why call the universe god.
Sorry, doesn't work.
Sure i do. i fail to see the relevance.
If i say i don't believe in god, then it is implicit that i mean "i don't believe in any supernatural being".
Should i then have to mention ALL the supernatural beings that don't exist?
Sorry, no, it doesn't work that way.
again, it is not my job to refute it, it is the believers job to prove it.
drfrank
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Nov 24, 2005
- Messages
- 445
Good post, Tobias 
Of course, if you define God as my mobile phone then I have no problem in believing in it. However, since most definitions of God is as some nebulous supernatural being floating around that physically intervenes in the Universe at the behest of prayers, there really is not a shred of evidence for this (JRM take note).
As a consequence, this kind of God is equivalid (is that a word? it is now!) with the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
Just like teddy bears, everyone's concept of God is slightly different so as to bring them maximum happiness.
Of course, if you define God as my mobile phone then I have no problem in believing in it. However, since most definitions of God is as some nebulous supernatural being floating around that physically intervenes in the Universe at the behest of prayers, there really is not a shred of evidence for this (JRM take note).
As a consequence, this kind of God is equivalid (is that a word? it is now!) with the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
Just like teddy bears, everyone's concept of God is slightly different so as to bring them maximum happiness.
Tricky
Briefly immortal
A complete definition of God would have to explain all of His characteristics, like whether he punishes sinners or is jealous or knocks up virgins etc. That is why it is so hard to discuss God without stating (in some detail) what you mean by the term.
But if you need a short definition, I'd go with "the creator of the universe". That seems to be common to most religions.
But if you need a short definition, I'd go with "the creator of the universe". That seems to be common to most religions.
Tricky - in fact although a common attribute to the Islamic, Christian and Jewish God if you think about it it isn't that common an attribute. Many religions have more then one god and even the "big cheese" god in their pantheons may not have been the creator (Greek, Norse and Egyptian all spring to mind as counter examples).
Tricky
Briefly immortal
True, but I'm talking about the big "G" God. I think the way the OP question was phrased, it implies a monotheistic God.
Most of the popular religions today (excluding Buddhism, which may or may not be a religion) have a creator-of-the-universe story. But not all. However, my sound-bite definition is meant to simplify the terminology. Obviously, it is no good for an in-depth discussion of God.