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?

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 57 by JLB32168]




[center]MEOW.. the catty drivel [/center]

I don't take opinions as facts.

I’m going to cut through all of the catty drivel on opinion v. facts since it does nothing to address the topic.

Asking you if you are talking about facts or opinions is "catty drivel" to you?

Is that a concession that you don't really know the difference between an opinion and a fact? Wouldn't that have an impact how we are to consider your future posts?

[OnceConvinced]

This comment is petty and high-schoolesque and contributes nothing to furthering the discussion.

I’m going to cut through all of the catty drivel on opinion v. facts since it does nothing to address the topic.

No – not at all – I think I’ve spent much more time with this nonsense than what it deserved

Moderator Warning


Comments such as these are insulting and uncivil. Please keep your derogatory comments about other members to yourself.

Please review our Rules.

______________

Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[OnceConvinced]

[Replying to post 57 by JLB32168]




[center]MEOW.. the catty drivel [/center]

I don't take opinions as facts.

I’m going to cut through all of the catty drivel on opinion v. facts since it does nothing to address the topic.

Asking you if you are talking about facts or opinions is "catty drivel" to you?

Is that a concession that you don't really know the difference between an opinion and a fact? Wouldn't that have an impact how we are to consider your future posts?

Moderator Comment

Posts like this don't really help the situation.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[JLB32168]

If you think that the sun is a moral agent, fine.

I never said that the sun was a moral agent. I said that moral agency isn’t germane to the analogy. Are you saying that God being a moral agent while the sun isn’t somehow changes the fact that the sun burns some people but gives light to others? Or are you saying that God’s being a moral agent and the sun not being one invalidates the analogy. I’m betting it’s the latter.

What is the relevance of the known similarities to the similarity inferred in the conclusion? Assuming God is real, which may be done on this board, the conclusion being inferred is that how people experience God’s energies, or how they experience the Sun energies, lies solely upon the person’s actions – where s/he goes in relation to God/the Sun. The second addresses the degree of relevant or dissimilarity between God and the Sun, the point upon which your argument is founded. That God has moral agency, but the sun does not, is irrelevant to the question of how one experiences God’s or the Sun’s energies. Instead, it’s your red herring.

And the other fallacious reasoning that I spotted in your post is that you seem to be quite comfortable with YOUR opinions, but not so much at all with consenting opinions.

I said that you were entitled to your opinion. That you feel it isn’t sufficient enough praise of your opinion is your affair.

In my opinion ( and I might be wrong ) is that you present your opinions as facts . . .

This is the first time I’ve ever heard a person say that stating theology is equivalent to stating fact. Since I clarified what I thought should have been obvious – that theology involves teaching on entities whose existence is taken by faith and therefore can’t be fact – then your opinion (i.e. that I think my theology is fact) is founded upon something that you know is untrue since you've been informed otherwise. If you wish to maintain something you know is untrue then be my guest - just refrain from speculating about the credibility of other posters.

Concluding “You’re entitled to your opinion� means “I’m stating fact� is complimented by calling it beyond absurd.

[dio9]

[Replying to Delphi]

Zen masters would answer your question by hitting you with a stick. Asking what God is. Come on. God can't be described with words.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 64 by JLB32168]



[center]
Blastcat's goals of debates:

• 1. Achieving clarity
  2. Learning
  3. Agreements

[/center]

If you think that the sun is a moral agent, fine.

I never said that the sun was a moral agent. I said that moral agency isn’t germane to the analogy.

Thanks for the clarification.

Are you saying that God being a moral agent while the sun isn’t somehow changes the fact that the sun burns some people but gives light to others?

No.
But I don't think that we can call the sun "good" or "evil", unless it is a moral agent.

Or are you saying that God’s being a moral agent and the sun not being one invalidates the analogy. I’m betting it’s the latter.

I don't agree.
Maybe I can try to explain again:

You wrote:

"It’d be ridiculous of us to claim that the sun was a monster set on tormenting these poor vampires with sadistic glee, after all – the sun can’t just stop being the sun and doing what it does."

IF the sun can't be evil, or think, can't be a moral agent, I agree that it can't be considered a "monster". It could only be considered to be "morally neutral".

As you say, it's just "doing what it does."

So, in your analogy, is God the same as that?
Can the God be good, or evil, can God think, can God be a moral agent? If so, it can be considered a monster. But NOT morally neutral.

God could NOT be considered a monster if God, like the sun, can't think, can't decide, can't love, hate, have moral values, punish or reward.

Are you saying that God can't do any of the above?
I'd be surprised, but I learn new things every day.

What is the relevance of the known similarities to the similarity inferred in the conclusion?

God kills on purpose, the sun doesn't kill on purpose.
I think we both agree that the sun CAN'T HAVE a purpose.

Assuming God is real, which may be done on this board, the conclusion being inferred is that how people experience God’s energies, or how they experience the Sun energies, lies solely upon the person’s actions – where s/he goes in relation to God/the Sun.

A few questions to help me understand that last statement:

• 1. Is it your opinion that God doesn't have anything to do with his own actions?
  2. Is it your opinion that God's "energies" is experienced by everyone?
  3. Is it your opinion that the effect of the sun's energy depends on our experience of it?
  4. Are you saying that the sun is a god when you write God/the Sun ?

The second addresses the degree of relevant or dissimilarity between God and the Sun, the point upon which your argument is founded. That God has moral agency, but the sun does not, is irrelevant to the question of how one experiences God’s or the Sun’s energies. Instead, it’s your red herring.

I wasn't trying to lay down a red herring, at least, that wasn't my intention.
Sorry if it looks that way to you. Ask me anything that you want, I will gladly try to be as clear to you as I possibly can.

Before I can adequately respond to your statement, I will need some clarifications :

• 1. Are you saying that in your example, the vampire's experience is what determines the effect of the sun's energy?
  2. Are you saying that God, being God has no choice but to act how he acts?
  Whatever God does, it's not his fault, because he has no free will, whereas, humans do? Could you elaborate on your actual opinion, if not?
  3. Could you elaborate on how experience of the sun's energy and God's energy are similar?

And the other fallacious reasoning that I spotted in your post is that you seem to be quite comfortable with YOUR opinions, but not so much at all with consenting opinions.

I said that you were entitled to your opinion. That you feel it isn’t sufficient enough praise of your opinion is your affair.

First off, as hard as I might try, the phrase "I said that you were entitled to your opinion. " does not seem to me as any kind of praise.

Secondly, the phrase stops the conversation in it's tracks. After someone tells me something like that... I usually know that my interlocutor can't or won't consider the opinion. Which to me, indicates that the person isn't as comfortable with my opinions as his own for some reason.

Therefore, you have provided more evidence for my point by that response.

On a side note:
I think that when I read my statement, I think I made a bit of a mistake.
When I say that you are using fallacious reasoning when you are more comfortable with your own opinions than the opinions of others, it isn't fallacious reasoning, but perhaps, a CONSEQUENCE of fallacious reasoning.

Please forgive my error.
I will keep trying to debate as honestly and as clearly as I can.
But the Blastcat not be perfect.

Meow.

It really does seem to me that you aren't comfortable with consenting opinions.
But since we must expect consenting opinions in honest debate, I find that a bit odd.

I suppose that some people have a lower tolerance for disagreements and the fine art of debating them. I suspect that this might be the case with you. The terseness of the comment "You are entitled to your opinion" is a tip off.

It implies to me that you don't happen to AGREE with my opinion. But it's not clear, if you do or if you don't. I appreciate CLARITY in debates. And your statement is rather vague concerning my opinion.

It also could be interpreted that you don't care to DISCUSS that opinion of mine. It COULD be also interpreted as a signal that you don't consider my opinion WORTHY of your consideration. I can't tell, the statement is unclear as to that as well.

It could be interpreted as a PUT DOWN of my opinion, you see. I can't really tell. I would have to guess.

It's best to be clear in my opinion.
It saves a lot of precious time.

If you don't agree with an opinion, that's fine. You see, I'm comfortable with people's opinions that don't match my own. But it seems to me that GUESSING that you aren't quite as comfortable with other people's opinions than I am is reasonable.

Now, correct me if I am wrong about that.
Corrections are how I learn. But please, do try to be as clear as possible.

And in debates, learning is one of my primary GOALS.

In fact, I find Christian/Atheist debates to be in NEED of more agreements. To me, agreements is another goal in debates. Let's try to bring people TOGETHER, and not more APART.. I think that people are apart ENOUGH already. Finding agreements is TOUGH work, but I think, a worthy goal.

I usually make a big DEAL when a Christian agrees with me on something major.
I make it "headline news".

Oh, and by the way, you are entitled to your opinions about my opinions.
I hope that you can agree with that.

At this juncture, I will gladly grab onto ANY kind of an agreement.
I would consider that to be "a start".

In my opinion ( and I might be wrong ) is that you present your opinions as facts . . .

This is the first time I’ve ever heard a person say that stating theology is equivalent to stating fact.

Good for you !!
There's always a first time.

But I didn't actually make a factual statement, I expressed my opinion ( Which I stated could be WRONG, by the way )

I am entitled to my opinions. And I am entitled to be wrong.
And if proven wrong, I am entitled to correct myself.
That's how I learn.


So, just to be as clear as possible:

• When you are explaining your theology, are you stating FACTS, or are you stating your OPINIONS?

I think it's an important distinction.
Because we are entitled to our opinions.

We have to prove facts.

Since I clarified what I thought should have been obvious – that theology involves teaching on entities whose existence is taken by faith and therefore can’t be fact – then your opinion (i.e. that I think my theology is fact) is founded upon something that you know is untrue since you've been informed otherwise.

If you don't mind, I'd rather NOT be called a liar !!

Secondly, do you suppose that what is obvious to YOURSELF, is also just as obvious to everyone else? Please, if you have a fact that you find OBVIOUS that I am MISSING, be so kind as to RELATE the fact to me. I love to learn new things.

Thirdly, thank you for the clarification. I think it's an important one. When you say :

"theology involves teaching on entities whose existence is taken by faith and therefore can’t be fact "

I will take it to mean, that in your opinion, theology isn't about facts, but opinions, instead. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong about that. Now, your statement has implications, of course.

If someone in a theology board claims that their theology is somehow a FACT, they must be incorrect, according to what you consider so obvious. Is that a correct interpretation of your position?

I'd like to help your theological opinions be as clear as possible.
That's how I best LEARN theology.

Clarity is a shinning goal for me in my quest to further my education.
I hope that you can agree.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 65 by dio9]



[center]
Fallacious Religious Reasoning:
When attempting to describe "God", words can't be used.
( Maybe sticks can.)[/center]

Zen masters would answer your question by hitting you with a stick. Asking what God is. Come on. God can't be described with words.

Can God be described with a stick?

Are you saying that there can BE no description of what is so believed in all over the world called "God"?

[Talishi]

[Replying to Delphi]

Zen masters would answer your question by hitting you with a stick. Asking what God is. Come on. God can't be described with words.

Talishi's Razor: That which can't be described with words can be ignored on a forum comprised solely of words.

[dio9]

[Replying to Blastcat]

Right there can be no description.

[hoghead1]

[Replying to post 68 by Talishi]

Traditional or classical theism centered on the via negative (negative way or negative theology) the notion that finite, creaturely attributes cannot be ascribed to God. Therefore, as St. Thomas Aquinas (Thomas) says, we can know only what God isn't, not what God is. The Christian mystical tradition also centered on the ineffability of God. Dionysius, or Pseudo-Dionysius, having stripped God every and all creaturely attributed, including, reason, intelligence, imagination, soul, change, growth, movement, etc., argued we cannot even attribute "being" to God, as "being" is a creaturely attribute. The problem, however, is that it is not enough just to say you believe in God in some undefined, predicateless X. You have to say what kind of God you belief in, grant God a character, say something affirmative about God. Atheists, for example, are fond of pointing to Thomas and saying he is essentially an atheist, as he is in effect saying God is a meaningless term, refers to nothing. After all, Meister Eckhart (1260-1328) a major Christian mystic, did define God as The Nothing. Therefore, it is interesting to observe that mystics end up being quite lavish in their description of God. Pseudo-Dionysius presents what he considers his "affirmative theology" or way, in which he ends up saying God is all that there is. Thomas insisted that all knowing is analogous knowing, so that we can know of God only via drawing out analogies between God and ourselves. Meister Eckhart seems to anticipate modern-day panentheism (not to be confused with pantheism), the notion that the universe is ontologically part of the being of God, that the universe is perhaps best thought of as the body of God.

Now, whether you agree with those of us who profess panentheism isn't the point here. Rather, my point is that we are all compelled to say something affirmative about God, if teh term is to have any real meaning for us.