How would one define a God?

[Tidus]

[font=Arial]How does one define exactly what a god is? Obviously, this isn't limited to just the Christian God. Can we use Science to define what a god is, and does this God need to follow or break certain scientific laws and/ or parameters? Does this being need to have done specific things or have the ability to do specific things, such as being a creator? Have created Earth? Have an array of super powers? What exactly defines what a god is? [/font]

[Divine Insight]

Can we use Science to define what a god is, and does this God need to follow or break certain scientific laws and/ or parameters?

For me the answer to this question is simultaneously yes and no. And rightfully so.

The very first thing that must be recognized is that human scientific knowledge is far from complete. It also isn't likely to be completed any time soon. In fact, it may not even be possible to ever have a completely coherent and finished scientific description of reality. At this point we really have no reason to believe that our knowledge of the nature of reality ever could be complete.

Having recognized this it's meaningless (from a scientific point of view) to even speak of something being "supernatural". That is a meaningless term in science because scientifically we can't say what constitutes "natural". Therefore to say that something is super-natural is a meaningless statement.

However, I do think that we can used our current knowledge of science to describe and define a God to some degree. But clearly we could not define God in its entirety simply because we do not have a complete picture of reality. If we actually had a complete scientific picture of reality maybe we could described God in detail.

Does this being need to have done specific things or have the ability to do specific things, such as being a creator?

Again, the answer is both yes and no. Yes, this being would need to have the ability to do specific things (like form the universe in which we experience physical existence).

No, it wouldn't necessarily need to be a "creator" in terms of creating things from nothing. In other words, the universe itself could simply be a manifestation of this God entity where nothing is being created but rather God itself is simply becoming manifest as the universe. This idea makes a lot of sense if we think of God as actually being some sort of mind, and we think of physical reality as being some sort of computer simulation that is being produced by this mind of God.

How God itself came to be is a whole other question. But then again, how anything at all came to be is no less challenging. So I'm not so sure that a mystical (or god-type) reality is any more or less mysterious than a pure materialistic reality. Both realities are equally absurd in terms of existence in the first place.

Have created Earth? Have an array of super powers?

I would personally dismiss questions of this sort as follows:

Having created the Earth?

My answer to this question is that God created the Earth precisely as science claims. The Earth is a result of the physics of the universe. And since God "created" the universe then God also created everything that is in the universe by default. (for the record I am not suggesting the Biblical God here)

Have an array of super powers?

I'm not sure what this would mean. It appears to me to be a question that basically views God as an egotistical independent deity similar to that of Zeus or Yahweh, etc.

I personally would not define God in that way.

What exactly defines what a god is?

The person who is imagining what God might be like.

No human actually knows what God is like. At least this is my personal belief.

Therefore if we wish to believe in a God we must imagine what we think God would be like.

I believe in a God intuitively, therefore I have an imagination of what God might be like. And I am quick to add that I actually have quite a few different ideas of what God might be like. I am also aware that none of them may be correct. In fact, I would actually be shocked if any of them were correct since they are all just guesses on my part. I think I would be amazingly lucky to have guessed the true nature of God with my limited imagination.

I also do not claim to know that any God exists. I simply believe in God intuitively.

I personally favor the Eastern Mystical approach to imagining what God might be like. There is much room for personal views in the Eastern mystical approach because that approach does not define God concretely. In fact, it is called "Mysticism" precisely because God is said to be a mystery. Defining God concretely is not important to the Eastern Mystics.

If you ask me to offer you intellectual evidence for why I think God is a valid concept I can't really give you much. I do have reasons to believe that a God exists but they are rather deep concepts and difficult to convey in a brief explanation. I also have no need, or desire to convince you that there is a God. So there is no motivation for me to spend time attempting to convince you. And this would be especially true if you were hostile to the idea. Why would I want to waste my time trying to explain to anyone how I think of God if they are dead set against the idea? That would be a waste of everyone's time.

My ultimate statement would be as follows:

For me, the idea of a purely secular materialistic reality is every bit as mysterious and absurd as a spiritual or mystical reality. In other words, I don't see where anything is gained by assuming that the universe is nothing other than a pure materialistic accident of some sort. That doesn't explain anything either. You still have the profound mystery of how anything got started or from whence it came.

Now I will grant you that imagining the existence of a God doesn't solve these problems either.

So what do we end up with? We end up with two possible scenarios, both or which are utterly absurd and defy explanation or logic.

Therefore I have two utterly absurd possibly realities before me.

One is that reality is an unexplained purely secular accident in which we came into being by accident, will live one very brief lifetime, and then die and that will be the end of things. Well, never know anything beyond that. In fact, once we are gone it may as well have never even happened at that point.

So yes, a purely secular materialistic accident could be the true nature of reality. But if it is true, it is extremely dull, uninteresting, and certainly not something worth dreaming about or hoping for.

On the other hand, if reality is spiritual and has some eternal quality where conscious awareness can continue on beyond this life, then this is indeed interesting at the very least. It's also fun to dream about and imagine.

So, in short, I have two possibilities before me. Both are equally absurd and neither can be explained. One is interesting and offers potential hope for an eternal future, the other is not.

So why choose to believe in the uninteresting one?

I think it should be obvious to anyone that choosing to believe in the more interesting possibility would be, well, more interesting.

So there you go.

[Neatras]

[Replying to post 2 by Divine Insight]

Having recognized this it's meaningless (from a scientific point of view) to even speak of something being "supernatural". That is a meaningless term in science because scientifically we can't say what constitutes "natural". Therefore to say that something is super-natural is a meaningless statement.

I am reluctant to agree. We created a 'model' using the scientific process that describes the nature of interactions in the universe as we observe them. This model can be nearer to 'truth' or further from 'truth' than other models posited in the past. But these models have defined parameters. Since we interact with the universe, but rely on the model for any logical certainty that we cause reactions in the natural world around us, it follows that our model's parameters should reflect what we've observed. In this way, we can decide that something is 'natural' because it falls into the parameters of our model. But this is not absolute or complete in any way. Even if it's not a possibility to know all that is 'natural' or all that is 'unnatural', it's still not meaningless to say that we have 'logical certainty' that an event will occur if the parameters and conditions are met.

If we encounter something that is clearly not within the parameters of our model, we adjust the model accordingly. When the boundaries are redefined and we understand the nature of whatever violated our parameters initially, we can declare that it is, in fact, 'natural'.

I am under the impression that it is NOT 'meaningless' to define all explainable things within the parameters of our existing 'model' of the universe as "natural".

[DanieltheDragon]

The very first thing that must be recognized is that human scientific knowledge is far from complete. It also isn't likely to be completed any time soon. In fact, it may not even be possible to ever have a completely coherent and finished scientific description of reality. At this point we really have no reason to believe that our knowledge of the nature of reality ever could be complete.

I am going to have to disagree with you here. This really is an argument from ignorance. I would venture to say that given enough time all things definable and observable in the universe can be discovered. Just because you can't imagine that we can right now does not mean that we can't possibly do it. Consider the singularity in computing. In approximately 35 years computing power will reach a singularity that exceeds human potential this is an intelligence far beyond what we can imagine. What happens then? and thats just in 35 years what about 100 1000 or even 1,000,000 years from now? Truthfully we can't know. BUt I would say it is possible we can complete a scientific description of reality.

/endrant

as far as define gods go I agree that stands to the individual I contend that hyper trans dimensional beings could be just as likely and powerful as any god we can imagine.

[McCulloch]

[Replying to post 1 by Tidus]

Isn't it absurd that the apologists for faith in the various gods ask us to consider evidence for the existence of God before providing a coherent definition of what they mean when they use the word God?

Not being lexicographers, most of us don't think as deeply as we might about how we define the words we use every day. In reality, the simplest way to define something is to say that anything sufficiently like one of those things is a horse. Obviously, we cannot define the word god that way. Another common and easy way to define something is by means of a subset. A horse is a mammal with certain characteristics. We cannot define the word god that way either.

Various cosmological arguments for god define the word god as being the logically necessary first cause. This also is unsatisfactory because God as most people actually understand the word means far more than the ultimate origin.

I would really like for some theist to say, "When I say God, what I mean is the ________, with the following attributes " in such a way as every ________ with those attributes is God and every ________ without all of those attributes is not God and that it can be shown that the set of all ________s is not empty.

[Divine Insight]

I am under the impression that it is NOT 'meaningless' to define all explainable things within the parameters of our existing 'model' of the universe as "natural".

And I never said that it wouldn't be meaningful. I said that it would be meaningless to refer to something as "supernatural" when we don't have a complete picture of what constitutes the natural.

I never said that it would be meaningless to refer to something as "natural".

In fact, you cover this very ideal in your following statement:

If we encounter something that is clearly not within the parameters of our model, we adjust the model accordingly. When the boundaries are redefined and we understand the nature of whatever violated our parameters initially, we can declare that it is, in fact, 'natural'.

That's exactly right.

And therefore anything that we think might be "supernatural" could ultimately turn out to actually be "natural" once we have a better understanding of how it works.

Moreover, my main point is that since science is "incomplete" and may potentially be forever "incomplete" it may be the case that some things we see will will never be able to explain. In those cases we can neither say whether they are "natural" or "supernatural" because once again, we ultimately have no clue what the truth of nature might be.

So while we can say what is "natural" in many cases, we can never really say that something is "supernatural". At best all we can say is that we can't understand why something is happening. That's the best we can do.

So the very term "supernatural" is a totally meaningless term in science.

[Divine Insight]

The very first thing that must be recognized is that human scientific knowledge is far from complete. It also isn't likely to be completed any time soon. In fact, it may not even be possible to ever have a completely coherent and finished scientific description of reality. At this point we really have no reason to believe that our knowledge of the nature of reality ever could be complete.

I am going to have to disagree with you here. This really is an argument from ignorance.

Why would you say that this is an argument from ignorance? Science itself is currently indicating to us through the scientific theory of Quantum Mechanics, (specifically the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle and the concept of complementarity) there there are indeed aspects of reality that will forever be beyond our ability to define or know with certainty.

Therefore science itself is telling us that it will indeed be impossible for us to ever obtain knowledge beyond this. Yet here you are suggesting that you think this might be possible. In total contradiction to what science is actually telling us.

I would venture to say that given enough time all things definable and observable in the universe can be discovered.

But why would you venture to say that? There is nothing in science that supports this conclusion. Apparently all you are doing here is expressing a personal hope and dream that cannot even be backed up by any known science.

How is that not an argument from ignorance?

Where is there anything in science that suggests that humans should be able to describe and understand the nature of reality in its entirety? As I pointed out above, our current scientific theories actually predict just the opposite.

Just because you can't imagine that we can right now does not mean that we can't possibly do it. Consider the singularity in computing. In approximately 35 years computing power will reach a singularity that exceeds human potential this is an intelligence far beyond what we can imagine. What happens then? and thats just in 35 years what about 100 1000 or even 1,000,000 years from now? Truthfully we can't know. BUt I would say it is possible we can complete a scientific description of reality.

But your reasoning isn't compatible with the Scientific predictions of the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle and the principle of complementarity.

The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle isn't saying that we simply lack information. On the contrary it explicitly states mathematically that it wouldn't matter how much information we have, it's simply impossible to determine the state of matter under certain situations.

It's not due to a lack of knowledge or creativity on our part. This is a fundamental property of nature according to Quantum Mechanics.

The idea that we can surpass Quantum Mechanics, is actually an unscientific hope and dream. It is a dream that is based entirely upon the hope that the predictions of Quantum Mechanics are themselves incorrect and/or mistaken in some way.

So the idea that we can eventually gain a full understanding of nature is not in anyway indicated or implied by our current scientific knowledge.

Your argument that we will have far better computers in the future that may even be able to surpass human abilities, does not imply that we should be able to defeat the Heisenberg uncertainty principle or understand that nature or complementarity in detail. Because that problem isn't even a problem of a limitation of knowledge. It's a problem of the fundamental nature of reality.

If the Heisenberg Uncertainty and the principle of complementarity are true, then we have absolutely no reason to believe that any amount of information or creative thinking will solve this problem.

I'm not saying that we can't have the hopes and dreams that maybe someday we could discover a way to move beyond this. Or that the fundamental principles of QM might someday be recognized to be wrong.

But what I am saying is that currently we have absolutely no scientific reason to believe that this should be the case.

So what you are offering is really nothing more than unscientific hopes and dreams. Those dreams may or may not come true, but there is no science today that supports that they should come true.

So those hopes and dreams are not scientific.

[Neatras]

[Replying to post 6 by Divine Insight]

Looks like I jumped on a point that wasn't being made. My apologies. I suppose I took the inverse of what you actually said and attempted to mirror it so I could argue against it. Since we're in agreement, and nobody's come up to refute it, all's well that ends well.

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 7 by Divine Insight]

Why would you say that this is an argument from ignorance? Science itself is currently indicating to us through the scientific theory of Quantum Mechanics, (specifically the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle and the concept of complementarity) there there are indeed aspects of reality that will forever be beyond our ability to define or know with certainty.

Therefore science itself is telling us that it will indeed be impossible for us to ever obtain knowledge beyond this. Yet here you are suggesting that you think this might be possible. In total contradiction to what science is actually telling us.

That is based off of our current skill set. Who knows what will be possible 1,000 years from now let alone 1,000,000?

I am not saying we as we exist now but later generations it could be possible. It is an argument from ignorance because you are saying we can't know because I can't prove to you that we can. When your right I cannot prove that what I am saying is possible but that does not mean it lies outside the realm of possibility.

You say science indicates this but science is limited based on our current understanding. So yes I would agree currently we do not possess the ability to understand the universe in its entirety for the forseable future but this does not mean a more advanced and evolved entity cannot utilize science to achieve this in the future.

Your right in for the most part but I disagree in concluding what is achieveable by future generations.

[Divine Insight]

Isn't it absurd that the apologists for faith in the various gods ask us to consider evidence for the existence of God before providing a coherent definition of what they mean when they use the word God?

I agree. Anyone who wishes to discuss the concept of a "God" should have a functional and comprehensible definition of what they mean by that term.

And this is especially true if they are "apologists" who are asking other people to believe in their faith.

However, in the intercourse of philosophy where philosophers are discussing the concept of "God" then there should be a sincere attempt by all participating philosopher to at least try to understand what the other philosophers are suggesting. As opposed to constantly attempting to defeat the ideas before they have even been properly described.

Not being lexicographers, most of us don't think as deeply as we might about how we define the words we use every day. In reality, the simplest way to define something is to say that anything sufficiently like one of those things is a horse.

I think it is true that we really have no choice as humans to speak in terms of concepts that we, as humans, can indeed identify with and comprehend. Otherwise we would be attempting to use ideas that are incomprehensible and thus meaningless.

This becomes quite tricky when attempting to convey ideas about a "God" who would certainly be incomprehensible to the human mind in detail. Therefore we have no choice but to offer analogies that represent lesser ideas just to reach a concept that is comprehensible. This is an obvious problem when attempting to describe something that is supposedly far greater than the human mind is capable of fully comprehending (which is what any God should certainly be).

Obviously, we cannot define the word god that way.

Actually I think that is the only way to go about it in a comprehensible way. Especially if we wish to discuss this topic on an "intuitive level". But as I have pointed out above, this requires analogies that are necessarily going to be flawed and less than perfect. Thus this opens the door for "naysayers" to quickly jump on the flaws of the analogies rather than trying to sincerely understand the bigger picture that is actually intended.

Another common and easy way to define something is by means of a subset. A horse is a mammal with certain characteristics. We cannot define the word god that way either.

This approach can be quite tricky. To begin with any attempt to use this approach as a mean of "intuitive" communication will most likely result in an act of futility. The reason being that the very concept of a "Set" is ultimately defined mathematically in a very complex and non-intuitive discipline of Set Theory.

Also to use Set Theory properly does indeed end with mathematical extremism where symbolic logic becomes the final result. We end up with formal logical statements like those proposed by Godel and others where intuition becomes extremely obscure. There are also problems with assumed premises, etc, that also require acceptance on blind faith by those who are considering these formal logical statements.

On a personal note, I actually have personal problems with formal set theory, and so I wouldn't even be interested in using that as a tool for discussing a concept such as "God".

Various cosmological arguments for god define the word god as being the logically necessary first cause. This also is unsatisfactory because God as most people actually understand the word means far more than the ultimate origin.

I agree very simple definitions like that aren't definitions at all but rather just a very weak attempt to try to get out from having to define the God concept.

I would really like for some theist to say, "When I say God, what I mean is the ________, with the following attributes " in such a way as every ________ with those attributes is God and every ________ without all of those attributes is not God and that it can be shown that the set of all ________s is not empty.

This is an interesting challenge. I was going to try to fill in your blanks with my idea of God. However, the actual form of your statement would lead to confusion and produce misleading results.

But just for the record here is how I would attempt to begin to fill in your blanks.

"When I say God, what I mean is the mind that creates or manifests the illusion of physical realitywith the following attributes "

And then to discuss the attributes of this mind would require a major thesis.

But that would be my starting point. In short, I am ultimately defining God in terms of being a "mind", or "computing entity".

Going back to your previous comments this would be defining God in terms of something we already have a working concept of. So this brings it into the realm of intuitive comprehension. You can intuitively comprehend what a mind or computer would be. There is no need for me to define this in stems of sets or subsets of anything.

Of course, if you are an extreme skeptic hostile to the very concept of a God, you could instantly start demanding that I "explain" how such a mind could exist, or from whence it came, etc, etc, etc.

But at that point you are no longer interested in hearing the idea, instead you are basically asking me to "explain" everything that can possibly be known about "God", which IMHO, is utterly absurd. Especially when I'm not claiming to actually know that this entity exists, nor am I claiming that you should necessarily believe it exists either.

All I'm doing at this point is attempting to give a very rough intuitively analogy of how I think of "God". An analogy that can be understood intuitively in concept, even if not in terms of every scientific principle of how, or why such a mind could exist. To ask me to explain how and why a God exists is simply asking far too much of me.

I can't even explain how and why a pure secular materialistic universe can exist. Can you?

I know that Lawrence Krauss thinks he can, but in truth he cheats like hell. He's assuming that the principles of Quantum Mechanics preexist the universe, and he hasn't explained how that can be the case. So he's no further ahead.

In fact, I would go further and suggest that this mysterious Quantum Realm, is indeed the "mind of God". And so Lawrence Krauss and I are starting from precisely the same starting point. Moreover, the only difference between us is that I focuse on this mystic mind being the entity that creates physical reality via its thoughts, whilst Lawrence Krauss is simply explaning from a scientific point of view precisely what thoughts this God is actually thinking.

If it's God's thoughts that create the universe, then science is nothing other than a description of the thoughts that God is having.

in such a way as every ________ with those attributes is God and every ________ without all of those attributes is not God and that it can be shown that the set of all ________s is not empty.

This second part of your request is indeed an attempt to put this into a form of Set Theory that is trying to get at the idea of precisely what is contained within the set.

In other words, here you are asking for a description of the members of this set containing the "God Object".

This is a bit more difficult to fill in your blanks here partly because there is no need to even define what is "not" God. In this context.

The best I could do with it is as follows:

in such a way as every mind that creates and manifests a physical reality with those attributes is a God and every [b]?????[/b] without all of those attributes is not God and that it can be shown that the set of all minds that create and manifest a physical reality" is not empty.[/quote]

The first part is simply to insert my definition of God.

The second part is filled with ????? because it's meaningless to describe what is "not" God in this context. If God is a mind that is becoming manifest as the physical universe through pure thought, then how is it even meaningful to speak of objects or entities that are "not" God. Such an entity would supposedly be something that exists in its own right (not as a manifestation of God) and does not have the ability to create a reality via pure thought.

I see no reason to suspect that any such things exist. As far as I can see, in this paradigm only the "God(s)" would exist. And there may be more than one. In other words there could be many of these mysterious minds dreaming up all manner of realities totally independent from each other. Or maybe there is only one. To even speculate on that is meaningless.

The final part of your request is to show that this set is not empty.

Well, "If this concept of God is True", then clear this set is not empty since our universe itself is at least one example of this set in action.

~~~

Now if you are a skeptic seeking proof there is nothing I can do for you. I cannot prove that this concept of God is real. All I can do is offer definitions and potential scientific explanations within the confines of our current scientific knowledge. None of which will prove that such a mind actually exists.

I cannot prove that God (by my definition) exists, and for this reason I confess to ultimately being agnostic.

My only complaint in return to anyone who is suggesting that reality is nothing other than a purely random materialistic accident is to say to them "Prove it".

And if they can't prove their speculation and I can't prove mine, then we are in the very same boat.

And I claim that this is indeed precisely the case.

I don't ask them to prove their speculations to me, and I would ask for the same respect in return.

That's my stance on this deeply philosophical question.