The Definition of God

[Delphi]

God is often defined as having various extraordinary characteristics. Infinitely loving, all powerful, omniscient, the creator of the Universe, etc.

How can we know that this is indeed true? How can we verify such grandiose assertions? No greater claims could possibly be made!

Normally, we make definitions based on verifiable evidence and observation. For example, we define a giraffe as being a large four-legged grazing mammal with a long neck, hooves, a mouth, a tongue, teeth, and two eyes. We can rationally define a giraffe this way based on verifiable observation. We define a giraffe by going out and finding a giraffe, then defining it based on its attributes.

Yet somehow, God is defined in the opposite manner. We do not go out and find god and define it based on its attributes. Instead, we apply god's characteristics to him without ever observing god. Definitions seem to fabricated out of imagination. I find this extremely dubious.

It seems to me that we are applying these definitions to the concept of a god. We cannot verify nor falsify these attributes.

What is going on here?

[Delphi]

It seems that JLB32168 summed it up best. God's creative attributes are simply presupposed to be a fact.

If one assumes their presupposition to be true, there is no alternative option.

[dio9]

[Replying to post 8 by Kyrani99]

I understand what you mean. words cannot describe God because God is indescribable. Trying to describe God is like trying to see your own eyeball. The way I do it is with the world around us. Since God is the author the world resembles the creator . Like the songs of Dylan reflect Dylan. The creation reflects the creator. God is simply too much. There is something to learn about God everywhere we turn. It never ends. Have an experience with God yourself. The bible is full of stories about people having experiences with God. Here goes my definition, God is everything and God is you. you are a marvelous piece of work.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 16 by theStudent]



[center]Religiously Motivated Fallacious Reasoning:
Let me, ONCE AGAIN, explain my religiously motivated fallacious reasoning[/center]

Let me try to be clearer.

Every effect has a cause.

Except, I presume, God.
God doesn't have a cause. So, it's not every effect, it's every effect BUT the one thing you want to describe.. so cause doesn't have to DO with God. But keep talking about "cause".. because... well.. it doesn't apply to God.

When a person happens upon a house (effect), whether it be in a desert, or the sea, or in a tree, reasonably they conclude that the house was built by someone (cause).
Especially if the house is well designed and decorated - there is more to learn about its builder.

Or, we can have a nice chat with the builder as he is BUILDING.
Heck, if we promise a big enough donation, we could probably get an short interview with the DONALD.

When we happen upon well designed things in nature, reasonably we conclude that someone was the dsigner, or creator. And we learn something about the designer from the design in nature.

To say that something is well DESIGNED.. we would have to know that there is a DESIGNER.. but since you want to PROVE that there is a designer.. the argument is hopelessly circular. And almost comically so... it's just that the JOKE is on all of us. People who believe this nonsense are causing TROUBLE for the rest of us.

This is in line with true science.

No, the scientific methods that I am aware of don't INCLUDE question begging circular reasoning. Most scientific methods that I know of try to use CLEAR thinking.. not extremely muddled thinking.

Is this any clearer?

I do have to hand it to ya:
You make your extremely religiously motivated fallacious reasoning VERY clear.
None of it makes any SENSE.

Have to tell ya:
You've done a bang up job exposing your bad thinking. But you have done that over and over and over again. And then, you clarify it just in case we didn't get it all those other times.

Brilliant.
I couldn't do a better job myself.

Too bad you don't seem to be interested in the next step.
i.e. FIXING those errors.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 4 by theStudent]



[center]Religiously Motivated Fallacious Reasoning:

1. Assuming what one wants to prove exists.
2. Category Mistake: Attempting to prove the supernatural by way of nature.[/center]

Oh. Don't limit yourself. Keep going...
We observe the leaves, and dust, feathers and paper etc., being carried by the wind.
We observe objects with a certain weight falling when released - attributed to gravitation.
We observe the effects of magnetism, negative and positive charges of energy or electricity.... etc., etc., etc.

We can observe nature... a lot of nature... There is no question.
However, what you WANT to demonstrate is SUPERNATURAL.. trees and butterflies and so on are NOT supernatural. So, your examples don't apply. They are in a quite DIFFERENT category.

We see the effects of holy spirit on people's lives.

Correction:
Let's get real for a minute.. NOT EVERYONE "sees" the effects of the HS.
But I think it would be safe to say that SOME people do, as you appear to.

You make a category mistake when you assume that SOME people means ALL people.

I don't see the "effects of holy spirit". I'd have to assume first that there IS such a thing, that it can HAVE an effect, and that whatever "effect" you are talking about can't be caused by SOMETHING ELSE. Like.. parts of nature.

And I DON'T think that your "holy spirit" is in the same CATEGORY as trees and dust and feathers, UNLESS you are saying that the HS is some kind of natural material.
Which, so far, we have NOT observed. Nobel Prize waiting for that observation.

Imagine what GOOD the religiously motivated scientist would DO with the fame and fortune? But.. apparently, all these scientists don't LIKE to prove their HS actually exists. NOR do they like to promote their beliefs, OR give hundreds of thousands of dollars to some Christian CHARITY... too humble, I suppose? It's so nice that some Christians will say that something is TRUE because the authoritative Bible says that it's true. But, really, is that ALL the evidence they have?

Because, NORMALLY, when we say that something is "true", we can actually POINT to the "thing" at least. And the "effects" aren't quite as AMBIGUOUS as what is attributed to the supernatural.

HS?
Yeah, you believe it because the Bible says so.
And we all know... that in this sub-forum, the Bible IS authoritative.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 21 by Delphi]

It seems that JLB32168 summed it up best. God's creative attributes are simply presupposed to be a fact.

If one assumes their presupposition to be true, there is no alternative option.

Well, at least in churches and in this subforum, the Bible is authoritative.. apparently, that's all the evidence that many Christians require.

But in your opinion, you seem to agree with JLB.. and that to me is a stunning accomplishment. I can hardly ever agree with JLB. But aren't you being a little bit sneaky? .. Aren't you telling us that JLB is using circular thinking?

" I presuppose X, therefore, X is what I suppose and that's why I presuppose X. "


I'm just starting to read the thread..

I always wanted to know just what people mean by the word... It seems to me that there is a bit of disagreement about what it means. It's weird.... To many, "God" is a core belief... and yet, disagreements... but they still use the same word from the same authoritative Bible.

Seems to me that the Bible is authoritative to so many people, but .. they just can't agree on what it's an authority about... Maybe the Bible is authoritative about generating disagreements.. who knows?

[2timothy316]

So far all we know is living matter from non-living matter appears to be a scientific impossibility, seeing how it has never been observed nor can it be recreated in an experiment.

Could it be possible that simple inorganic chemistry gave rise to a simple molecule that was able to reproduce itself?

The odds of that are like 1 to the 10th power to the 10th power to the 20th power. Scientist have never made made a molecule from inorganic chemistry. So far, no it is not possible and I highly doubt it will. Problems include making a cell wall and of course creating a DNA strand from just plain chemicals. Scientist admit they are far off from even coming close.

Perhaps we cannot currently demonstrate how this happened, but does it not seem reasonable to think that the complexity of today's life came from simple origins?

But that is not how life comes into existence now. So why think it has ever been different? Is it a personal reason or really looking for what is true? The truth is there is not a single plant, animal, or even the smallest cell that has ever been observed coming from nothing. Something living has always come from something living. Period. So you'd be looking for something that has never been observed to happened but what we DO observe is the exact opposite. Life coming from life.

After all, we have little evidence of complexity springing into being without graduated steps.

Actually we have zero evidence of life coming about by graduated steps. There is no fossil record of the simplest cells doing this. It's the holy grail of evolution. It's what as know famously as the 'missing link' and it's still missing. Many scientist are starting to come around that the link doesn't exist.

Saying that this is a 'scientific impossibility' is a bold assertion.

It's not my assertion. It was asserted in the later half of the 19th century through many experiments and though many today don't want to believe it, no one has proven them wrong. Because no one has created life from nothing.
If you have time read, http://humansarefree.com/2013/12/9-scie ... ry-of.html

The burden of proof would then be shifted to you in order show that a form of simple proto-life could not possibly arise.

The burden of proof will stay on evolutionist to prove life coming from nothing. It's their theory but even Darwin knew that his theory could be tossed. Darwin didn't even know DNA existed when he came up with his theory.

Perhaps it is an unlikely chance event, or perhaps it is inevitable. The point is, we just don't know. One might be accused of constructing a god-of-the-gaps argument by inserting a divinity as an 'explanation'. No?

If concrete proof is your only answer then yes you might never know. However, there is a book that claims to be from God and there is nothing that claims to be from nothing. So it only makes sense to study everything in science and including the Bible to come up with a satisfying answer.

Also if your only concern are the accusations of people then get ready for a lifetime of fruitless people pleasing but few answers. Prove something to yourself and don't be concerned with what others think. No matter what you choose there will be someone that will not like what you believe. Since that is the case there is no reason to seek truth no matter where it leads you from both science and even the Bible. To dump one or both is robbing ourselves of information. I'm sure you have seen theist ignore very obvious facts, now honestly ask yourself are you doing it too?

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 26 by 2timothy316]



[center]Religiously Motivated Fallacious Religious Reasoning:
Forming a ratio on irrelevant data.[/center]

The odds of that are like 1 to the 10th power to the 10th power to the 20th power.

What an astronomically small ratio !!
Odd, I don't come to the same conclusion. I use other data.


Another way to establish those "odds" is to take a look at the universe, how many universes are there?

1.. as far as I can tell, just one.

So... what are the odds that we find ourselves in the universe where we find ourselves?

1, again, as far as I can tell, the chances of that are 1.
I happen to be in the universe the way that it is with a probability of 1.

So... lets take a look at that ratio:

The universe being the way that it is... 1
Me, in the universe being the way that it is ....1

That would be a 1 to 1 ratio. Or, 1:1 , OR 1/1, OR just 1.

Those ODDS don't seem QUITE so low now, do they?

"1" is not something ASTRONOMICALLY LOWER than 1.
Fun with numbers, right?

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 5 by 2timothy316]


[center]
Fallacious Religious Reasoning:
Unjustified accusation supported by way of dubious science lecture. [/center]

Note the bold in your post. Theory is not law. I see this mistake so many times. Calling a theory a law. They are not the same. One is proven and can be reproduced on demand. The other hasn't been proven it can be reproduced on demand.

Thanks for the science lecture.
I'm not sure you got the science part correct.

Could you please define just what you mean by "scientific theory" and "scientific law"?

How is your interlocutor conflating the two?
Because I do notice your accusation.

And please DO focus on the part where scientific theories cannot be proven and why they MUST be "proven on demand"?

I've never HEARD of such things.. perhaps some scientific source would be helpful to make your case?

So, nice CHARGE.. nice SCIENCE LECTURE... but are they in any way ACCURATE?

[Delphi]

The odds of that are like 1 to the 10th power to the 10th power to the 20th power.

Another repeated word about statistics: it is not possible to accurately determine the statistical probability of the unknown. We do not know what the first self-replicating molecule was, or what it was composed of. It may have been a single molecule, or a group of small molecules. However life began, it would have began simply. It is not possible to make a reasonable estimation of the odds if nobody knows what happened.

Don't forget that our ancient oceans would have contained a volume of 1x10 to the 24th power litres of water containing about 1x10 to the 49th power potential nucleotide chains. All of these potential replicators drift about simultaneously, drastically reducing the statistical odds of combining and replicating.

I am not talking about modern cells, but rather primitive proto-cells. Pre-life in the oceans is like working with a trillion test tubes on literally a global scale. The odds get even higher near hydrothermal vents and tide pools.

Amino acids and other organic compounds are ubiquitous on earth, and they even fall from the sky in meteorites so we know they are common. A molecular aggregate in the proper sequence would then be subject to selection pressures and evolution.

Bartel & Szostak's 1993 paper in Science showed that the complexity grew 7 million times greater in 5th generation cells than the randomized basic molecules of the first generation. Life from non life is not impossible, in fact it could be inevitable. Complexity from simplicity is common in our universe and it is the most likely scenario.

Or God-did-it. He is defined as The Creator after all.

[JLB32168]

It seems that JLB32168 summed it up best. God's creative attributes are simply presupposed to be a fact.

Yes, that’s one of the constraints of this board – that God is uncreated and everything else is created.

If one assumes their presupposition to be true, there is no alternative option.

Should the Christian have an alternative option – aside from “no God exists?� That question could be asked on another board where God’s existence isn’t a given.