Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

Define God

Page 3 of 4 [ 56 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

kraftiekortie
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 4 Feb 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 87,510
Location: Queens, NYC

25 Jul 2016, 6:39 pm

God is what you make of God.



adifferentname
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2008
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,885

25 Jul 2016, 6:52 pm

AspieUtah wrote:
Jesus is quoted as saying


Hearsay.



AspE
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Dec 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,114

25 Jul 2016, 8:34 pm

AspieUtah wrote:
I am surprised no one went to the source of the most accurate and most succinct definition of God. Jesus is quoted as saying "God is a spirit." Some within Judaism describe God similarly. Simple. More people should consider the ramifications. But, this simple description is too often missed by others.

And, not only have many atheists talked mistakenly about an "old man with a white beard floating in the clouds, and playing a harp" got it wrong, so too, have many theists of a variety of faiths done so, too.

Are you saying God can't appear like an old man with a white beard floating in the clouds, playing a harp? What's the difference between that and a spirit? They are both a magic man.



drlaugh
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Dec 2015
Posts: 3,360

25 Jul 2016, 8:46 pm

Try prayer and meditation.

You may find a satisfactory answer.

Or keep putting out
Shiny Shiny hooks and baits.

May you be at peace on and off line.

Shalom,

me also known as
Zvii 8)


_________________
Still too old to know it all


anagram
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Nov 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,433
Location: 4 Nov 2012

25 Jul 2016, 9:39 pm

AspieUtah wrote:
I am sorry to have disrupted the echo chamber in here.

yes, now that you've mentioned it, i see how everybody here was agreeing on every single point all along, and only waiting for you to arrive so we could spitefully single you out, so you could complain about it without giving any contribution to the topic other than saying "i'm right and you guys are all wrong, isn't it obvious?" while barely even explaining what you mean to begin with. and now everybody is happy :D

i have shocking news for you. not all conversations that touch on religious subjects are a debate of believers versus nonbelievers 8O :!:


_________________
404


redrobin62
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Apr 2012
Age: 62
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,009
Location: Seattle, WA

26 Jul 2016, 9:31 am

Jainism says there is no creator God. The universe always was and always will be, no beginning and no end, therefore it could not have been created by an unseen force.

Jainism does say, however, that anyone can be a god through the right practices. God, in the Jain sense, is a perfect being who is pure knowledge, is in pure bliss, free from all karmic bondage which weighs down the souls of men and, unfortunately, cannot communicate with man. In other words, don't pray to the gods because they can't hear you anyway.


_________________
One Day At A Time.
His first book: http://www.amazon.com/Wetland-Other-Sto ... B00E0NVTL2
His second book: https://www.amazon.com/COMMONER-VAGABON ... oks&sr=1-2
His blog: http://seattlewordsmith.wordpress.com/


Anachron
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 2 Mar 2015
Posts: 431
Location: Within & Beyond

26 Jul 2016, 9:49 am

God [ɡäd] noun. 1. Human Potential



shlaifu
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 May 2014
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,659

26 Jul 2016, 11:33 am

redrobin62 wrote:
Jainism says there is no creator God. The universe always was and always will be, no beginning and no end, therefore it could not have been created by an unseen force.

Jainism does say, however, that anyone can be a god through the right practices. God, in the Jain sense, is a perfect being who is pure knowledge, is in pure bliss, free from all karmic bondage which weighs down the souls of men and, unfortunately, cannot communicate with man. In other words, don't pray to the gods because they can't hear you anyway.



Yeeeah. But that is more like the enlightened in buddhism. Just because they use the word "god".... I guess you can add it as a sidenote into the definition, but most other religions deal with god as some superpower, and most have some stories around that superpower.
I'd even want to say: god has to be supernatural, otherwise some particle physicist will be able to manipulate god at some point, putting himself above god.
And that, probably even jainism cluldn't deal with.
But happily, all those religions were invented when the world was a magical place, and not so much an incredibly complex one.


_________________
I can read facial expressions. I did the test.


untilwereturn
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 1 Aug 2014
Age: 53
Gender: Male
Posts: 386
Location: Tennessee

26 Jul 2016, 11:45 am

The Presbyterian Westminster Shorter Catechism (1647) has a pretty succinct answer to the question:

Q4: What is God?
A4: God is a Spirit, infinite, eternal, and unchangeable, in his being, wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness, and truth.

Interestingly, I had to memorize that answer for a systematic theology class back in my days as a Pentecostal. I don't know that anyone has come up with a better short answer to the question (certainly none among present day evangelicals).

Another good answer came from Anselm, who argued that God is that the greater than which cannot be conceived. We can conceive of a Big Bang, which means the universe in all its complexity is still less than its Creator.



anagram
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Nov 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,433
Location: 4 Nov 2012

26 Jul 2016, 1:09 pm

untilwereturn wrote:
Another good answer came from Anselm, who argued that God is that the greater than which cannot be conceived. We can conceive of a Big Bang, which means the universe in all its complexity is still less than its Creator.

now this sounds like a rather universal definition that makes a lot of sense to me. except for the narrative implication ("creator"), which is religion-specific, but which doesn't take away from the universality of the concept anyway in my opinion

i often think of metaphysics in terms of gödel's incompleteness theorems. from that perspective, "god" can be elegantly seen as everything beyond the axiom layer of whatever (inevitably limited) conceptualization of physics we currently have. the indescribable essence of all that can be observed

which, by definition, exists (mathematically proven). but also, by definition, cannot be comprehended. if it is eventually comprehended, then there's always something else beyond it

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6de ... s_theorems


_________________
404


untilwereturn
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 1 Aug 2014
Age: 53
Gender: Male
Posts: 386
Location: Tennessee

26 Jul 2016, 1:44 pm

anagram wrote:
untilwereturn wrote:
Another good answer came from Anselm, who argued that God is that the greater than which cannot be conceived. We can conceive of a Big Bang, which means the universe in all its complexity is still less than its Creator.

now this sounds like a rather universal definition that makes a lot of sense to me. except for the narrative implication ("creator"), which is religion-specific, but which doesn't take away from the universality of the concept anyway in my opinion

i often think of metaphysics in terms of gödel's incompleteness theorems. from that perspective, "god" can be elegantly seen as everything beyond the axiom layer of whatever (inevitably limited) conceptualization of physics we currently have. the indescribable essence of all that can be observed

which, by definition, exists (mathematically proven). but also, by definition, cannot be comprehended. if it is eventually comprehended, then there's always something else beyond it

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6de ... s_theorems


The Creator explanation was, of course, my own commentary on Anselm's ontological argument - not that I think he would have disagreed as a fellow Christian theologian. :) As a Christian, I have nothing of meaning to offer to the discussion that isn't religion-specific. I'm not just a generic theist, but a monotheist. And more specifically, a Trinitarian. So my answer to the original question was couched in that context.



anagram
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Nov 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,433
Location: 4 Nov 2012

26 Jul 2016, 2:36 pm

untilwereturn wrote:
As a Christian, I have nothing of meaning to offer to the discussion that isn't religion-specific.

i think that's the point where you're mistaken :)

that was just one small semantic detail, which adds meaning particular to your view, without taking away any meaning that isn't particular to your view. so i think your contribution is perfectly valid and meaningful regardless of religion


_________________
404


shlaifu
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 May 2014
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,659

26 Jul 2016, 3:04 pm

anagram wrote:
untilwereturn wrote:
Another good answer came from Anselm, who argued that God is that the greater than which cannot be conceived. We can conceive of a Big Bang, which means the universe in all its complexity is still less than its Creator.

now this sounds like a rather universal definition that makes a lot of sense to me. except for the narrative implication ("creator"), which is religion-specific, but which doesn't take away from the universality of the concept anyway in my opinion

i often think of metaphysics in terms of gödel's incompleteness theorems. from that perspective, "god" can be elegantly seen as everything beyond the axiom layer of whatever (inevitably limited) conceptualization of physics we currently have. the indescribable essence of all that can be observed

which, by definition, exists (mathematically proven). but also, by definition, cannot be comprehended. if it is eventually comprehended, then there's always something else beyond it

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6de ... s_theorems



I call theist cop-out on that.
a self-referential definition by exlcusion is as meaningless as "this sentence is false". A perfectly well formed argument, and entirely meaningless.
"if you can think it, it is, by definition, not god".

"sky fairy" is a minimum requirement. cut the "sentient" if you want.


_________________
I can read facial expressions. I did the test.


anagram
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Nov 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,433
Location: 4 Nov 2012

26 Jul 2016, 3:39 pm

i don't remember if you've stated your position before, but i'm assuming you're either a "pure atheist" or looking for rationale to be one

shlaifu wrote:
I call theist cop-out on that.

that's the thing. my only established position is that i reject the authoritativeness of all dogma. and pure atheism itself is dogma

you have an unprovable theory that you firmly believe in. all that can be logically inferred about it is that it can't be proven. and that's what god is all about. faith. and that is also what pure atheism is all about. faith

refuting or rejecting the authoritativeness of a religion, or questioning the virtues of its real-world implications, or simply not subscribing to it, is something that makes perfect sense. every single person is inevitably not-subscribing to innumerable doctrines anyway, so it's just a matter of having an active point of view in regard to a particular matter instead of a passive one. but opposing it on grounds that it defends something unprovable and presenting atheism as the logical alternative is a huge irony


_________________
404


shlaifu
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 May 2014
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,659

26 Jul 2016, 3:55 pm

anagram wrote:
i don't remember if you've stated your position before, but i'm assuming you're either a "pure atheist" or looking for rationale to be one

shlaifu wrote:
I call theist cop-out on that.

that's the thing. my only established position is that i reject the authoritativeness of all dogma. and pure atheism itself is dogma

you have an unprovable theory that you firmly believe in. all that can be logically inferred about it is that it can't be proven. and that's what god is all about. faith. and that is also what pure atheism is all about. faith

refuting or rejecting the authoritativeness of a religion, or questioning the virtues of its real-world implications, or simply not subscribing to it, is something that makes perfect sense. every single person is inevitably not-subscribing to innumerable doctrines anyway, so it's just a matter of having an active point of view in regard to a particular matter instead of a passive one. but opposing it on grounds that it defends something unprovable and presenting atheism as the logical alternative is a huge irony


nah, I'm an agnostic, with heavy atheist tendencies, but no real conviction.
But the question was to define god, and I think this broad defintion by exlusion, or definition by logical paradoxon, is both meaningless and unsatisfying.
hence my approach to god by thinking of what the concept needs to include for it to hold the meaning that it has, which would be: not being of this world, but being able to act in this world without being constrained by its laws.

it's going to be hard to find a definition if you reject a "dogma", i.e. a definition.


_________________
I can read facial expressions. I did the test.


Last edited by shlaifu on 26 Jul 2016, 4:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Lantylam
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 1 Jul 2016
Age: 66
Gender: Male
Posts: 756

26 Jul 2016, 3:59 pm

Christians are also atheists... about the approximately 3500 other gods that humans have invented. I'm just atheist about one more god than they are. There is no evidence for the existence of Zeus, Thor, Odin etc nor the Christian god. Similarly I'm atheist about unicorns and fairies. I'll quite happily change that stance if presented with realistic empirical evidence to the contrary. Until then I see no problem calling myself an atheist.