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?

[JLB32168]

Perhaps it would save you some time if you ASKED me to clarify, instead of TELLING me what you think I'm saying like that.

In other words, I guessed correctly so any clarification was unnecessary.

Other than that, I get that you really, really dislike God. I’m just not sure why I should care. That’s why I didn’t read the rest of what you said. #1 – There are unnecessary hits of the return key that only make for laborious reading. #2 – I have a pretty good idea of what you would have said and have little interest in pursuing a conversation on it.

I apologize if you put a lot of thought into the rest.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 201 by JLB32168]




[center]
Fallacious Religious Reasoning:
Thinking that interpretations of the Bible are what the Bible SAYS.
Part Eight: Not knowing why one should even care to read what others write[/center]

Other than that, I get that you really, really dislike God.

Your guess is really, really wrong.

AGAIN.

Even when I repeatedly tell you that I do NOT feel anything at all about your "God". To me, this god is a story book character very much like Lord Voldermort is in Harry Potter.

I’m just not sure why I should care.

I can't tell you why you should care about honest debates, either.
Some people don't.

That’s why I didn’t read the rest of what you said.

Too many hits on the return key, in your opinion?

#1 – There are unnecessary hits of the return key that only make for laborious reading.

They be necessary to Blastcat !!

#2 – I have a pretty good idea of what you would have said and have little interest in pursuing a conversation on it.

I apologize if you put a lot of thought into the rest.

Some people find reading very laborious, indeed.

[Delphi]

How about a new Socratic thought experiment explaining the definition of a hypothetical brick bridge. A bridge that crosses a rocky stream.. A bridge that does not preclude or assume the existence of gods nor batmans…

Person 1 – “As a basic definition I would define a bridge as being a structured formation that allows a path to cross above an obstacle.�

Person 2 – “No. I would further define a bridge as an infinitely structured formation that allows an infinitely wide path to cross an infinitely expansive obstacle.�

Person 1 – “Why would one include these additional attributes?�

Person 2 – “These attributes are part of the definition of a bridge.�

Person 1 – “How can we verify whether your additional attributes to my definition of a bridge are actually correct?�

Person 2 – “It is defined that way.�

Person 1 – “Oh. You define it that way. Ok. It now seems that the definition has not been agreed upon. How do we agree which is the most accurate definition?�

Person 2 – “It is defined that way. An infinite bridge is a logical assumption.�

Person 1 – “I do not agree with this ‘logical assumption’. Should we just not simply go out and observe the bridge? Then ascribe its definition upon what we agree to be true?�

Person 2 – “But it is counterintuitive to assume that an imperfect bridge could possibly exist.�

Person 1 – “I do not assume that a perfect bridge must possibly exist.�

Person 2 – “I do. You are obviously wrong.�


I am having fun here, while trying to show the logical inconsistencies that may also apply to the attributes of any particular point of view. I just want to know what's actually true! And what you guys think!

[onewithhim]

[Replying to post 203 by Delphi]

How about you responding to my post #179?

[Delphi]

[Replying to post 204 by onewithhim]

The reason I have not replied is because it seems to me that you are inadvertently derailing the original conversation.

Back in post #142, you inexplicably bring up evolution and altruism. I answered that both are inconsequential to the matter at hand. Perhaps another thread would allow us to explore these topics in greater detail.

But I will answer your #179 post if you insist.

How are colors necessary for our survival? As I said, colorblind people get along. "Greatly helpful" is not on the table here.

In this modern age, polychromatic vision is not necessary for human survival. You are absolutely correct about that.

There are people who are quadriplegic without the use of limbs, but they can also survive thanks to wheelchairs, technology, medical science, and assistance from other humans. A few hundred years ago, such a disability would have been an early death sentence.

I appreciate functioning limbs, and trichromatic vision. I'm not sure what your point is.

You argue against altruism. What besides this attribute could explain the existence of the ability to see in color at all?

Altruism is a very useful aspect of survival for social groups in the animal kingdom (such as humans). I'm all for altruism.

Altruism means caring about others. Benefiting others in your group at one's own expense in order to further the prosperity of the group as a whole. This makes perfect sense to me!

What does not make sense to me is why you think benefiting others has anything at all to do with color vision.

I don't know what you are driving at.

We COULD get along without arms or legs or vision (or taste), so why do we have these things?

Why don't we have 6 eyes? Or wings? Or additional gills for breathing underwater?

Evolutionary biology shows that we evolved from bilaterally symmetrical tetrapod ancestors. Limbs and vision helped them survive. If they died out, we would not be here to talk about it.

[onewithhim]

[Replying to post 204 by onewithhim]

The reason I have not replied is because it seems to me that you are inadvertently derailing the original conversation.

Back in post #142, you inexplicably bring up evolution and altruism. I answered that both are inconsequential to the matter at hand. Perhaps another thread would allow us to explore these topics in greater detail.

But I will answer your #179 post if you insist.

How are colors necessary for our survival? As I said, colorblind people get along. "Greatly helpful" is not on the table here.

In this modern age, polychromatic vision is not necessary for human survival. You are absolutely correct about that.

There are people who are quadriplegic without the use of limbs, but they can also survive thanks to wheelchairs, technology, medical science, and assistance from other humans. A few hundred years ago, such a disability would have been an early death sentence.

I appreciate functioning limbs, and trichromatic vision. I'm not sure what your point is.

You argue against altruism. What besides this attribute could explain the existence of the ability to see in color at all?

Altruism is a very useful aspect of survival for social groups in the animal kingdom (such as humans). I'm all for altruism.

Altruism means caring about others. Benefiting others in your group at one's own expense in order to further the prosperity of the group as a whole. This makes perfect sense to me!

What does not make sense to me is why you think benefiting others has anything at all to do with color vision.

I don't know what you are driving at.

We COULD get along without arms or legs or vision (or taste), so why do we have these things?

Why don't we have 6 eyes? Or wings? Or additional gills for breathing underwater?

Evolutionary biology shows that we evolved from bilaterally symmetrical tetrapod ancestors. Limbs and vision helped them survive. If they died out, we would not be here to talk about it.

Evolutionary biology's defenders say that the process of evolution relies totally on simply what the organism needs to survive, isn't that so? My point has been that the things I mentioned are not necessary for survival. Without altruistic intelligence, there would be no need for seeing colors, even having arms, and certainly no need for the variety of things to eat or the endless varieties of plants and animals. I am trying to make the point that "God" (which is the topic under discussion) exists and he cares about the happiness of his human creation.

[Delphi]

Without altruistic intelligence, there would be no need for seeing colors, even having arms, and certainly no need for the variety of things to eat or the endless varieties of plants and animals.

We, as humans are able to distinguish one color from another.

So what?

What the fuck does "altruistic intelligence" mean?

Do you know what altruism means, my dear onewithhim?

[Delphi]

I am trying to make the point that "God" (which is the topic under discussion) exists and he cares about the happiness of his human creation.

Seriously, how do you know this?


1, that god exists.

2, that god created.

3, that god cares.

[onewithhim]

I am trying to make the point that "God" (which is the topic under discussion) exists and he cares about the happiness of his human creation.

Seriously, how do you know this?


1, that god exists.

2, that god created.

3, that god cares.

That was precisely what I was showing when I brought up the facts about the complexity, variety, and UNNECESSARY FOR SURVIVAL aspects of our planet and its living creatures.

That you can't see that is beyond my comprehension.

[Elijah John]

Without altruistic intelligence, there would be no need for seeing colors, even having arms, and certainly no need for the variety of things to eat or the endless varieties of plants and animals.

We, as humans are able to distinguish one color from another.

So what?

What the fuck does "altruistic intelligence" mean?

Do you know what altruism means, my dear onewithhim?

Moderator Warning


Your use of the "f" word is a violation of forum rules. Foul language is not permited here. Plus your post is sarcastic, condescending and uncivil.


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.