Why Doesn't Anyone Know What A God Is?

[DavidLeon]

Debate Question: What is a god? Why is it that no one seems to understand the simple concept of god anymore? Hopefully what I will do here is demonstrate why no one seems to know what a god is by demonstrating what exactly a god is. Hopefully.

[Willum]

[Replying to DavidLeon in post #160]

No, your supposed to say you don't know whether the thing is imaginary or not.

No, that would be the answer of a fool.

"A saint told me there are people who live on the Sun, we can't detect them because it is so hot and energetic there. I don't know whether it is true or not."

That is the answer of a fool.
Virgin births, global floods, talking snakes and donkeys, belief in all these things without evidence or reason, is belief in fairy tales, unless there is some evidence to the contrary.

[bluegreenearth]

No, your supposed to say you don't know whether the thing is imaginary or not.

If I can imagine it but have no justification for believing it actually exists in reality, then I know it is at least imaginary. If I can imagine it and then demonstrate it actually exists in reality, then it is more that just something I'm imagining. So, I'm supposed to say that I don't know whether the thing I'm imagining actually exists in reality or not.

I've told you that the words for spirit can be translated as breath, wind, mental inclination or spirit creatures. If you see a newspaper moving across the parking lot what is moving it?

As I previously indicated, almost any experience could be labeled as spiritual.

[DavidLeon]

No, your supposed to say you don't know whether the thing is imaginary or not.

If I can imagine it but have no justification for believing it actually exists in reality, then I know it is at least imaginary. If I can imagine it and then demonstrate it actually exists in reality, then it is more that just something I'm imagining. So, I'm supposed to say that I don't know whether the thing actually exists in reality or not.

Do you?

I've told you that the words for spirit can be translated as breath, wind, mental inclination or spirit creatures. If you see a newspaper moving across the parking lot what is moving it?

As I previously indicated, almost any experience could be labeled as spiritual.

You didn't answer the question. It wasn't a spiritual question. The point is that you separate the spiritual from the material.

[Willum]

[Replying to DavidLeon in post #163]

If you see a newspaper moving across the parking lot what is moving it?

As I previously indicated, almost any experience could be labeled as spiritual.

You didn't answer the question. It wasn't a spiritual question. The point is that you separate the spiritual from the material.

We can see the sky being blue, because of nitrogen and oxygen in the atmosphere. We can smell. We can hear. We can even see oxygen and nitrogen if we lower their temperature.

Water vapour is invisible under most circumstances.
Magnetic fields.
All these things are quantifiable and repeatable.

How, on this side of the 1800's do you think the invisible wind argument is a valid one?
The only thing one cannot do this for is things that don't exist.
Like Jehovah.
Unless I am wrong, and you have another non-quantifiable thing to compare to Jehovah - other than Zeus or Santa, or projected powers of phallic symbols, etc..

[bluegreenearth]

No, your supposed to say you don't know whether the thing is imaginary or not.

If I can imagine it but have no justification for believing it actually exists in reality, then I know it is at least imaginary. If I can imagine it and then demonstrate it actually exists in reality, then it is more that just something I'm imagining. So, I'm supposed to say that I don't know whether the thing actually exists in reality or not.

Do you?

Yes, I will say that I don't know whether the imagined thing actually exists in reality or not.

I've told you that the words for spirit can be translated as breath, wind, mental inclination or spirit creatures. If you see a newspaper moving across the parking lot what is moving it?

As I previously indicated, almost any experience could be labeled as spiritual.

You didn't answer the question. It wasn't a spiritual question. The point is that you separate the spiritual from the material.

I don't necessarily separate all spiritual claims from the material. If someone wants to define a particular material experience as being a spiritual experience, that is perfectly acceptable in my opinion as long as they don't overstate their case.

[DavidLeon]

Yes, I will say that I don't know whether the imagined thing actually exists in reality or not.

Excuse me if you've already stated, but for clarification could you explain what your conclusion that the thing is imagined is based upon?

I don't necessarily separate all spiritual claims from the material. If someone wants to define a particular material experience as being a spiritual experience, that is perfectly acceptable in my opinion as long as they don't overstate their case.

Have you still not answered the question due to your opinion that I have overstated the case? You made the statement that "If it is an unseen force, then couldn't someone mistakenly attribute it as the cause of observed results that were actually caused by something else?" I gave three examples of this not being the case. Wind, breath and mental inclination. Of course it is possible that an unseen force could be mistakenly attributed to something else, but it isn't necessarily so. Wind, breath and mental inclination can be attributed to the material world whereas spirit being would most likely be attributed to the spirit.

I use the term spiritual in a manner which differs from a broad perspective. Have you ever heard someone say something like 'That's a smart looking car.' or 'That's a sexy car.' The word spiritual is used like that. Hippie communes, Oprah Winfrey. I think it amounts to a philosophical or psychological implication. Not that that is wrong, but perhaps overused without a real connection to those things. The mental and emotional can be spiritual but the common use of the word in the proper context is seldom meant or understood. An invisible force that produces visible results. The wind blew the newspaper across the parking lot.

[Goat]

Debate Question: What is a god? Why is it that no one seems to understand the simple concept of god anymore? Hopefully what I will do here is demonstrate why no one seems to know what a god is by demonstrating what exactly a god is. Hopefully.

In your opinion, what is God? Can you define God in terms that are more than just conceptual, or by defining actions that God is supposed to have done? Can you define what the substance of God is in terms that are universally understood, and are not merely metaphyisical or actions that are alleged?

[bluegreenearth]

Yes, I will say that I don't know whether the imagined thing actually exists in reality or not.

Excuse me if you've already stated, but for clarification could you explain what your conclusion that the thing is imagined is based upon?

I concluded the thing is imagined because I can imagine it. For instance, I can imagine a red apple. The red apple I'm imagining is imaginary but based on a thing that has been demonstrated to actually exist in reality. Alternatively, I can imagine a blue apple. The blue apple I'm imagining is imaginary but, as far as I know, hasn't yet been demonstrated to actually exist in reality. So, I don't know if an imaginary blue apple actually exists in reality or not.

I don't necessarily separate all spiritual claims from the material. If someone wants to define a particular material experience as being a spiritual experience, that is perfectly acceptable in my opinion as long as they don't overstate their case.

Have you still not answered the question due to your opinion that I have overstated the case? You made the statement that "If it is an unseen force, then couldn't someone mistakenly attribute it as the cause of observed results that were actually caused by something else?" I gave three examples of this not being the case. Wind, breath and mental inclination. Of course it is possible that an unseen force could be mistakenly attributed to something else, but it isn't necessarily so. Wind, breath and mental inclination can be attributed to the material world whereas spirit being would most likely be attributed to the spirit.

I use the term spiritual in a manner which differs from a broad perspective. Have you ever heard someone say something like 'That's a smart looking car.' or 'That's a sexy car.' The word spiritual is used like that. Hippie communes, Oprah Winfrey. I think it amounts to a philosophical or psychological implication. Not that that is wrong, but perhaps overused without a real connection to those things. The mental and emotional can be spiritual but the common use of the word in the proper context is seldom meant or understood. An invisible force that produces visible results. The wind blew the newspaper across the parking lot.

I was confused about what you were trying to ask me. Yes, there are examples of unseen forces like the wind, magnetism, and gravity that I know with a high level of confidence can cause particular events to occur. Of course, just because I have a high level of confidence, it doesn't necessarily mean I am absolutely correct in my attribution. Let's say I'm 99.9% confident that the newspaper moving across the parking lot is being blown by an invisible force known as the wind. However, if an invisible goblin is actually deliberately pushing the newspaper across the parking lot, then attributing the event to the wind would be incorrect in that case.

[Willum]

[Replying to Goat in post #167]

In your opinion, what is God?

I can save you some trouble, he believes a god is anything people believe are gods. You will see aspirations to toilet seats, phallic symbols and such as having magic powers as he will claim they are gods - to some, in addition to what is vaguely-traditionally considered divine. Not him, of course, he thinks people who worship gods other than whichever one he believes in, are fools...
He thinks the god he believes in is the real one. It is not clear which god he believes in, that is to say which version of Jehovah he believes in, and he seems to think keeping whether he believes in the one that controls storms, the one that needs ram sacrifices, the one afraid of iron, or perhaps the omnipotent Christian version, he seems to think keeping which one he believes in, close to the chest, does not allow us to think his god is anything more than a particular variation of an imaginary version with the name "Jehovah," only he believes in.

If you find the above confusing, I am sorry.
Some people think vagueness is the path to truth.

Thus far he has been unable to refute the simple definition:
Gods are imaginary beings (including toilet seats some people he alleges people worship), venerated by a culture.

Kind regards,

[DavidLeon]

I concluded the thing is imagined because I can imagine it. For instance, I can imagine a red apple. The red apple I'm imagining is imaginary but based on a thing that has been demonstrated to actually exist in reality. Alternatively, I can imagine a blue apple. The blue apple I'm imagining is imaginary but, as far as I know, hasn't yet been demonstrated to actually exist in reality. So, I don't know if an imaginary blue apple actually exists in reality or not.

You are concluding, to the best of your ability and experience, that something is imagined because you personally can only imagine it. Unless, someone who is a scientist says something which you similarly can only imagine and haven't experienced it is imagined. But if a respected scientific journal says it then you determine it is real, is that correct?

Yes, there are examples of unseen forces like the wind, magnetism, and gravity that I know with a high level of confidence can cause particular events to occur. Of course, just because I have a high level of confidence, it doesn't necessarily mean I am absolutely correct in my attribution. Let's say I'm 99.9% confident that the newspaper moving across the parking lot is being blown by an invisible force known as the wind. However, if an invisible goblin is actually deliberately pushing the newspaper across the parking lot, then attributing the event to the wind would be incorrect in that case.

Yes. So, you're 99.9% sure we were not created by a highly intelligent spirit being, Jehovah, as the Bible contends? It's interesting in that, from what I gather you are not at all open to the possibility. I don't mean you are not open to it intellectually, I mean that if God existed but left the discovery of his existence entirely up to faith you would be prevented from being open to it in any real sense as opposed to purely intellectual. I wonder if this is a learned predisposition or if there might be some other factors. In a spiritual sense you are spiritually cut off. Spiritually dead.