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?

[Talishi]

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.

No mystique here. We also define a black hole as a region of space where the escape velocity exceeds the speed of light, without ever having observed a black hole.

[Delphi]

Gods and black holes are very different hypotheses.

One of these exert physical forces on our Universe that are verifiable, predictable, measurable and is in complete alignment with Einstein's general theory of relativity. -- and one of them...not so much.

[theStudent]

[Replying to post 1 by Delphi]

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.

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 see the effects of holy spirit on people's lives.
The truthfulness and reliability of the Bible is another evidence of the effects of holy spirit.
The creation - nature's marvels give undeniable evidence of the power of holy spirit.
And that's not the end of it, but I'll stop there.

(Genesis 1:1, 2) 1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and desolate, and there was darkness upon the surface of the watery deep, and God’s active force was moving about over the surface of the waters.

(Romans 1:18-23) 18 For God’s wrath is being revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who are suppressing the truth in an unrighteous way, 19 because what may be known about God is clearly evident among them, for God made it clear to them. 20 For his invisible qualities are clearly seen from the world’s creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made, even his eternal power and Godship, so that they are inexcusable. 21 For although they knew God, they did not glorify him as God nor did they thank him, but they became empty-headed in their reasonings and their senseless hearts became darkened. 22 Although claiming they were wise, they became foolish 23 and turned the glory of the incorruptible God into something like the image of corruptible man and birds and four-footed creatures and reptiles.

[2timothy316]

Gods and black holes are very different hypotheses.

One of these exert physical forces on our Universe that are verifiable, predictable, measurable and is in complete alignment with Einstein's general theory of relativity. -- and one of them is not.

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.

A blackhole or singularity, has never been observed. So when you say 'complete alignment' that's not entirely true. Most of what science has 'measured' is still a theory and not law. We do not completely know what a blackhole does.

So really, God and singularities are not that different if a person is truly following the scientific method. Right now neither are fully understood and neither have been actually observed. We have many arrows that point to a creator and we have many arrows that point to that blackholes exist. Yet either have been fully examined by humans. Blackholes have never been measured, predicted or verified.

"Men believe what what they prefer." - Francis Bacon

[wiploc]

... 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.

A theory is an explained law. The law of gravity is that things fall down. The theory of gravity is that things fall down because all matter attracts all other matter in proportion to its mass and in inverse proportion to the square of its distance.

The law of evolution is that new species turn up, and they seem a lot like other species that were around at the time they turned up. The theory of evolution is that new species arise from existing species because of natural selective pressures and inexact reproduction.

To call something iffy because it is a "theory" is quite misleading. The theory of evolution has so much explanatory usefulness, and has been tested in so absurdly many ways, that it has to be considered one of the most robust theories going. To the extent that we can know anything, we know this.

A blackhole or singularity, has never been observed.

You don't want to conflate those. As an example, the whole universe may be a black hole, but it clearly isn't a singularity.

...
So really, God and singularities are not that different if a person is truly following the scientific method. Right now neither are fully understood and neither have been actually observed. We have many arrows that point to a creator and we have many arrows that point to that blackholes exist. Yet either have been fully examined by humans. Blackholes have never been measured, predicted or verified.

You have many arrows that point to a creator? You can be famous if you show us a reasonable one.

If theists had good arguments, they wouldn't rely exclusively on terrible ones. And yet they do rely on things like Pascal's wager, lame arguments that shouldn't fool a child.

It is reasonable to conclude, then, that you don't have any "arrows" that would withstand scrutiny.

"Men believe what what they prefer." - Francis Bacon

Pot, meet kettle.

[Hawkins]

Gods and black holes are very different hypotheses.

One of these exert physical forces on our Universe that are verifiable, predictable, measurable and is in complete alignment with Einstein's general theory of relativity. -- and one of them...not so much.

Any history written 2000 years ago is not verifiable. Does human history exist or not?

Basically, human history are the human accounts of witnessing inviting your faith to believe, or there's no history at all.

Religions are in a similar fashion however history is about a reality we can comprehend but religion is about a supernatural claim that lies outside our knowledge to reach.

History is a witnessing of things we can comprehend, religions are the same witnessing in nature but about something we cannot fully comprehend. That's it, unless you mean to say that nothing can exist outside our comprehension or whatever lying outside the reach of our existing knowledge cannot exist.

[Kyrani99]

Moderator removed one-line, non-contributing post. Kindly refrain from making posts that contribute nothing to debate and/or simply express agreement / disagreement or make other frivolous remarks.

For complementing or agreeing use the "Like" function or the MGP button. For anything else use PM.

[2timothy316]

... 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.

A theory is an explained law. The law of gravity is that things fall down. The theory of gravity is that things fall down because all matter attracts all other matter in proportion to its mass and in inverse proportion to the square of its distance.

The law of evolution is that new species turn up, and they seem a lot like other species that were around at the time they turned up. The theory of evolution is that new species arise from existing species because of natural selective pressures and inexact reproduction.

To call something iffy because it is a "theory" is quite misleading. The theory of evolution has so much explanatory usefulness, and has been tested in so absurdly many ways, that it has to be considered one of the most robust theories going. To the extent that we can know anything, we know this.

A blackhole or singularity, has never been observed.

You don't want to conflate those. As an example, the whole universe may be a black hole, but it clearly isn't a singularity.

...
So really, God and singularities are not that different if a person is truly following the scientific method. Right now neither are fully understood and neither have been actually observed. We have many arrows that point to a creator and we have many arrows that point to that blackholes exist. Yet either have been fully examined by humans. Blackholes have never been measured, predicted or verified.

You have many arrows that point to a creator? You can be famous if you show us a reasonable one.

If theists had good arguments, they wouldn't rely exclusively on terrible ones. And yet they do rely on things like Pascal's wager, lame arguments that shouldn't fool a child.

It is reasonable to conclude, then, that you don't have any "arrows" that would withstand scrutiny.

"Men believe what what they prefer." - Francis Bacon

Pot, meet kettle.

Nice to meet you Kettle.

Please read, http://science.kennesaw.edu/~rmatson/3380theory.html


If you really understood the scientfic method then you'd know you really don't have a law until it is mathematically proven without a doubt. So mathematically prove there is or isn't a creator. I'll save you some time, there isn't one...yet. Until you can prove mathematically there is no creator you have a theory which is really nothing, just opinions. As far as arrows that there is a creator, mankind existing is a huge arrow. The chances that mankind came into existence accidentally is 1 in 10 to the power of 10 to the power of 320. You couldn't write that number down, because you'd have to write a zero on every atom on the universe and there aren't enough atoms in the universe to write on. You don't have to accept that arrow but oh well.

[Delphi]

To define God is to deny God.

This is a very curious statement. I am not sure that I understand what you mean. Could you please elaborate?