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?
The Definition of God
Moderator: Moderators
Post #181
[Replying to post 174 by Delphi]
I agree with your general theme. I would throw some qualifiers in here and there, however.
Your statement "There is no universally agreed upon definition of a god" needs some qualifiers. There are, in fact, cross-cultural uniformities that need to be taken into consideration. For example, the God or the gods are view as supreme beings, that is, living on the highest plane of existence, capable of feats way beyond that of mere mortals. The other uniformity is that it we humans and the gods can interact, each having an impact on the other. There distinction between polytheism and monotheism is often too sharply drawn. Polytheistic systems can easily swing over into monotheism, as is the case with Hinduism. Monotheistic systems can easily swing over into polytheism, as is the case with Christianity and the Trinity. Also, religions do borrow from one another.
Having so said, I am still puzzled where you want the discussion to go. We can't cover everything. We need to boil it down. I initially assumed you wanted to focus upon the Judeo-Christian concept of God and focus on teh justification for why certain attributes are attributed to God, what was the traditional logic of perfection and where might we go with it today. I am mostly prepared to do that. Would that be OK?
I agree with your general theme. I would throw some qualifiers in here and there, however.
Your statement "There is no universally agreed upon definition of a god" needs some qualifiers. There are, in fact, cross-cultural uniformities that need to be taken into consideration. For example, the God or the gods are view as supreme beings, that is, living on the highest plane of existence, capable of feats way beyond that of mere mortals. The other uniformity is that it we humans and the gods can interact, each having an impact on the other. There distinction between polytheism and monotheism is often too sharply drawn. Polytheistic systems can easily swing over into monotheism, as is the case with Hinduism. Monotheistic systems can easily swing over into polytheism, as is the case with Christianity and the Trinity. Also, religions do borrow from one another.
Having so said, I am still puzzled where you want the discussion to go. We can't cover everything. We need to boil it down. I initially assumed you wanted to focus upon the Judeo-Christian concept of God and focus on teh justification for why certain attributes are attributed to God, what was the traditional logic of perfection and where might we go with it today. I am mostly prepared to do that. Would that be OK?
Post #182
[Replying to post 177 by Blastcat]
I'd really love to continue this discussion about Batman. I really would. I have personal reasons. I and a co-author wrote and published, via a legit publisher, a novel about a zany railroad. Enjoyed but very small sales. Anyhoo, one main character is a superheroine named Hogger Annie. You have your Batman, I have my Hogger Annie. The commercials have Flo, and I have Hogger Annie. And of course, I spend time fantasizing what would happen if the novel were made into a movie, what actress would best play the role, best define the Hogger. Demi Moore? Naw, not big enough. Definitely not Flo, etc. Also, I have a strong background in classical music and have given a fair amount of attention to modern productions of Wagner's operas where everything is redefined in modern-day terms, that is, no period settings or costumes, everything today. However, all this is pushing us way off track. So let's get back to the OP and to God.
My point is that the standard, working definition of God is the supreme being. Defining God as any way other than supreme just isn't going to work and just creates confusion. For example, some physicists started using the term the term the God particle. And more than one has regretted so doing. All that did was create great confusion, led to people claiming physics has seen God, discovered God etc. More than one physicists has wisely recommended dropping the term, and rightly so. So I recommend we stick with the dictionary.
I'd really love to continue this discussion about Batman. I really would. I have personal reasons. I and a co-author wrote and published, via a legit publisher, a novel about a zany railroad. Enjoyed but very small sales. Anyhoo, one main character is a superheroine named Hogger Annie. You have your Batman, I have my Hogger Annie. The commercials have Flo, and I have Hogger Annie. And of course, I spend time fantasizing what would happen if the novel were made into a movie, what actress would best play the role, best define the Hogger. Demi Moore? Naw, not big enough. Definitely not Flo, etc. Also, I have a strong background in classical music and have given a fair amount of attention to modern productions of Wagner's operas where everything is redefined in modern-day terms, that is, no period settings or costumes, everything today. However, all this is pushing us way off track. So let's get back to the OP and to God.
My point is that the standard, working definition of God is the supreme being. Defining God as any way other than supreme just isn't going to work and just creates confusion. For example, some physicists started using the term the term the God particle. And more than one has regretted so doing. All that did was create great confusion, led to people claiming physics has seen God, discovered God etc. More than one physicists has wisely recommended dropping the term, and rightly so. So I recommend we stick with the dictionary.
Post #183
[Replying to post 178 by polonius.advice]
Interesting, but could you be a bit more specific how this relates to the OP?
Interesting, but could you be a bit more specific how this relates to the OP?
Post #184
How does a polytheistic Hinduism "easily swing over into monotheism"? I am not aware of this or why this would happen.hoghead1 wrote:Polytheistic systems can easily swing over into monotheism, as is the case with Hinduism. Monotheistic systems can easily swing over into polytheism, as is the case with Christianity and the Trinity.
Please define what this "swing" means. I am confused.
Frankly, I think that I have heard the most relevant definitions of God that could be proposed. I am still here, and I aspire to embrace good reasons to believe what is actually true.hoghead1 wrote: Having so said, I am still puzzled where you want the discussion to go. We can't cover everything. We need to boil it down. I initially assumed you wanted to focus upon the Judeo-Christian concept of God and focus on teh justification for why certain attributes are attributed to God, what was the traditional logic of perfection and where might we go with it today. I am mostly prepared to do that. Would that be OK?
You have been wonderful to talk with, hoghead in Fairbanks! I appreciate your obvious expertise in the subject. But I fear that this thread is quickly growing boring to others.
Post #185
[Replying to Delphi]
Well, if you feel the thread is boring, and given that you did set it up, then feel free to establish a new one. I'm not bored with it, but if others are, I can roll with that, too.
By "swing," I mean turn into. For example, Hinduism has many gods, true. Yet some forms of Hinduism argue there are all but manifestations of one divine energy. One God appearing n many forms. Aristotle s spoke of teh Unmoved Mover, then said there were 44 or 55.
But since you are bored with the topic, I'll stop here.
Well, if you feel the thread is boring, and given that you did set it up, then feel free to establish a new one. I'm not bored with it, but if others are, I can roll with that, too.
By "swing," I mean turn into. For example, Hinduism has many gods, true. Yet some forms of Hinduism argue there are all but manifestations of one divine energy. One God appearing n many forms. Aristotle s spoke of teh Unmoved Mover, then said there were 44 or 55.
But since you are bored with the topic, I'll stop here.
Post #186
[Replying to Delphi]
The Upanishads clearly move polytheistic Hinduism toward One God called Brahman and what is really neat the presence of divinity in the human soul theorizing A direct relationship between God and humanity.
The Upanishads clearly move polytheistic Hinduism toward One God called Brahman and what is really neat the presence of divinity in the human soul theorizing A direct relationship between God and humanity.
-
JLB32168
Re: The Definition of God
Post #187Well . . . the Bible says, “Love your neighbor as yourself.� I suppose one can say that the interpretation “Love your neighbor as yourself� isn’t what the Bible says, but what do I know?Blastcat wrote:Thinking that interpretations of the Bible are what the Bible SAYS.
Okay – so “Love your neighbor as yourself� is the product of psychotic wizardry. Gotcha.Blastcat wrote:I define "God" as a psychotic, evil wizard of some kind.
Okay – well I’m telling you that most scientists believe that all created energy, that some of the energy cooled and became matter and that both came from a singularity that was most likely eternal; therefore, something can be uncreated while creating. If you take issue with science then you’re no different that the Bible-thumping YEC in my eyes – not that you should care, of course.Blastcat wrote:Well, I am not "most physicists". I am Blastcat, and I only presume to be speaking for THAT cat.
Since God is the only absolute, meaning that morality isn’t, then God can do no wrong since He defines the two.Blastcat wrote: WOW . a morally perfect "God" has to "amend" his ways?
As for the rest of your stuff on how odious you think God is, you’re entitled to your opinion. I realize that’s a facile dismissal of your opinion but I’m cool with that. That you might not be cool with it is something with which I simply cannot be bothered.
Re: The Definition of God
Post #188I would like to politely keep quiet, but ridiculous statements like these drive me crazy.JLB32168 wrote: Since God is the only absolute, meaning that morality isn’t, then God can do no wrong since He defines the two.
In the one sentence above, you made four assertions:
1. God is the only absolute
2. Morality is NOT absolute
3. God can do no wrong
4. God defines morality
This is a fantastical series of declarations. These are unsubstantiated godly attributes.
By what method of inquiry did you come to these conclusions? How can a dumbass like myself verify that these attributes are indeed true?
Should we merely adopt your axioms and assumptions about God's qualities, or can an inquisitive person somehow verify that these are true in some way?
Surely, you want to tell us the truth, JLB32168 and you would not want to deliberately lie.
-
JLB32168
Re: The Definition of God
Post #189Okay – so logic bothers you. I can’t help that.Delphi wrote:I would like to politely keep quiet, but ridiculous statements like these drive me crazy.
If moral actions are defined as “that which comports with God’s will� then if God commanded men to wear chickens on their heads then wearing a chicken on your head would be a virtuous action. There’s nothing fantastical about it. [p1]“Moral� is “that which comports with God’s will.� [p2] It is God’s will that wo/men be faithful to their spouses in word, thought, and deed; therefore, [c] it is moral for wo/men to be faithful to their spouses in word, thought, and deed and immoral to fail in any of those respects.
The method of inquiry I used was the application of a logical syllogism. On this board, I don’t need to verify God’s existence. If you want that then take your argument to the appropriate board – Christian Apologetics; furthermore, to accuse people of lying (willful, malicious intent to deceive) when they clearly believe what they believe in good faith, is just crass.
Re: The Definition of God
Post #190[Replying to post 187 by JLB32168]
[center]Fallacious Religious Reasoning:
Thinking that interpretations of the Bible are what the Bible SAYS.
Part Three: Missing the point.[/center]
You are missing the point.
When I make an accusation of Fallacious Religious Reasoning, I back it up, explain it and usually, ask questions so that you can help me understand what YOU are talking about, and why you think it.
In this case, specifically, you miss the point that when we read a text, we have to INTERPRET it for it to make sense.
In the case of "Love Thy Neighbor as thyself" , you might imagine that what it means to you has to mean the very same to everyone else. That's the Religiously Motivated Fallacious Reasoning that I'm talking about.
The fact that you have fallen into the same trap means that you aren't understanding the point much at all. We can and indeed HAVE to interpret "Love thy neighbor". Interpretations of a text is not the text itself.
You don't seem to get that.. and that's why I wrote " Fallacious Religious Reasoning" .
Someone could interpret the "love thy neighbor" passage to mean that he can treat people the way HE likes to be treated. And those people don't have a say if THEY like to be treated that way at all... I think that would be rather poor but POSSIBLE interpretation of the text.
You don't seem to even understand the point about how we MUST INTERPRET language. Language difficulties are REALLY a huge problem with apologetics. ( at least in this forum, anyway.. it always seems to be SUCH a problem )
Interpretations are NOT the same as what is BEING interpreted.
To think so is using fallacious reasoning.
And you once again prove my POINT, and you don't even seem to be aware.
[center]Fallacious Religious Reasoning:
Thinking that interpretations of the Bible are what the Bible SAYS.
Part Three: Missing the point.[/center]
Blastcat wrote:Thinking that interpretations of the Bible are what the Bible SAYS.
One thing that you don't seem to know is what I was referring to.JLB32168 wrote:
Well . . . the Bible says, “Love your neighbor as yourself.� I suppose one can say that the interpretation “Love your neighbor as yourself� isn’t what the Bible says, but what do I know?
You are missing the point.
When I make an accusation of Fallacious Religious Reasoning, I back it up, explain it and usually, ask questions so that you can help me understand what YOU are talking about, and why you think it.
In this case, specifically, you miss the point that when we read a text, we have to INTERPRET it for it to make sense.
In the case of "Love Thy Neighbor as thyself" , you might imagine that what it means to you has to mean the very same to everyone else. That's the Religiously Motivated Fallacious Reasoning that I'm talking about.
The fact that you have fallen into the same trap means that you aren't understanding the point much at all. We can and indeed HAVE to interpret "Love thy neighbor". Interpretations of a text is not the text itself.
You don't seem to get that.. and that's why I wrote " Fallacious Religious Reasoning" .
Someone could interpret the "love thy neighbor" passage to mean that he can treat people the way HE likes to be treated. And those people don't have a say if THEY like to be treated that way at all... I think that would be rather poor but POSSIBLE interpretation of the text.
You don't seem to even understand the point about how we MUST INTERPRET language. Language difficulties are REALLY a huge problem with apologetics. ( at least in this forum, anyway.. it always seems to be SUCH a problem )
Interpretations are NOT the same as what is BEING interpreted.
To think so is using fallacious reasoning.
And you once again prove my POINT, and you don't even seem to be aware.
