This forum is in permanent archive mode. Our new active community can be found here.

Define "God"

edited November 2008 in Everything Else
I've been reading lately about theological noncognitivism and verificationism. The basic premises of these philosophies are that God as a label is meaningless, and that terms applied to God can't be independently verified; therefore talking about "God" is meaningless.

Scrym have embargoed religious discussions about proving or disproving God until someone successfully addresses the Flying Spaghetti Monster question. But I think, in accordance with the aforementioned philosophies, that the strictures should be even more confining. Not only should believers answer the FSM dilemma, but they should first be forced to offer a definition of God that withstands critical thinking.

So I invite you, believers - be you Christians, Muslims, Jews, followers of the Great Spirit, Hindus, or otherwise - please define what you mean by "God." This is an academic exercise. It is not intended to be a trap. I just want to see what it is you really believe, and if it's quantifiable in any way.

I will say this: It's irrational to claim that you believe in a God that cannot be understood. To say that God is ineffable or that it exists on a plane so different from our own that he cannot be described... well, that type of an answer is a real cop-out. Seeking cover under the umbrella of that answer raises the question of how you know it to be so.

So describe for me, if you will, what is God.
«134

Comments

  • Whatever I need god to be at that moment to fit my agenda. May also be paradoxical, inconsistent, self-contradicting and impossible/illogical.
  • I'm looking for real answers. I'm also hoping there will be a modicum of respect in this thread for both sides. I've been hungry for some real, deep conversation lately, and the forum has been too intellectually quiet.
  • If you are religious, and you define god as something that defies comprehension, then you've just defeated yourself. If god defies comprehension, then how do you know that you aren't supposed to eat pork? How do you know you are supposed to go church on Sunday and pray to it? A god that is incomprehensible is the same as no god at all. If you can't understand it, you can't possibly factor it into any decision making process. Any influence it may or may not have on the universe is effectively arbitrary.

    If you define god as something comprehensible, then you've really got two options.

    One option is to equate god with something that is understood. For example, you could say that god is love, or that god is free will. In that case, you're sort of making something akin to a no true Scotsman argument. In the same way that someone might say baseball isn't a sport, football is a sport! You're saying sadness isn't god, love is god! You're just using language to try to add emotional power to a philosophical and emotional concept.

    If you define god as anything else comprehensible, the flying spaghetti monster will come to get you. God is an invisible humanoid being? God is a who was crucified in Rome? God is an "energy" that permeates life? God is a personal god, aka your imaginary friend. God is a snake with 40 heads? Thank you, come again.
  • God is a magic space being that can be a dick sometimes but usually is cool.
  • God is a magic space being that can be a dick sometimes but usually is cool.
    I love you, Railith, but this statement is really unhelpful. What is magic? What is a space-being? The words are really very empty.
  • edited November 2008
    What is magic? What is a space-being? The words are really very empty.
    I define magic as being able to do something or doing something that I can not comprehend. If you believe the traditional interpretation of God as a being that created everything, then we don't really know how it did it. Science tells us that the big bang probably happened can all matter in the universe was in a single point, but I honestly don't know how all matter got there. I can only assume some unknown process or "magic" caused it to happen. God being a dick is my own personal justification of why bad things happen in the world. Terrible shit happening is one of the major problems with people to justify in their own personal belief system. This is epically true when you consider that most modern people consider God as a benevolent being instead of being a dick hole like some of the old pantheons of gods. Space being is just my generic term for beings that I consider beyond understanding.

    If you want me to further clarify then keep on posting. My vidergames are patching, and I'm bored.
    Post edited by Railith on
  • As someone who has been religious for most of his life and who lives with a religious family, through my observation and experience, it seems to me that "God" is a personal God. He's someone outside the world who is not susceptible to the troubles which plague us. He's a security blanket that you can carry around forever without fear of being laughed at. He lets you dispel all those scary things the mean people in the white coats are telling you about how you being here was random chance and that everything else beautiful in this world could have just as easily not have been. He listens to you and seems to understand that you tried your best. He coddles you and holds you tight, letting you know that you don't have to worry; No matter what happens, He'll always love you.

    While I don't believe in God myself, I can see how this sort of figure would be appealing to have.
  • I love you, Railith, but this statement is really unhelpful. What is magic? What is a space-being? The words are really very empty.
    What is love? Baby, don't hurt me.
  • I define magic as being able to do something or doing something that I can not comprehend.
    If you can't comprehend it, how can you define it?
  • Comprehend is probably the wrong word. I think understand may work better. An example that might help is that a person understands that they can send a text message on their phone to someone else. They do not understand how the message got to the other phone, but they understand that the message was sent. To them it is "magic" that the message traveled between the two phones.
  • edited November 2008
    I define magic as being able to do something or doing something that I can not comprehend.
    If you can't comprehend it, how can you define it?
    In the same way you do with theoretical physics.
    Post edited by Omnutia on
  • In the same way you do with theoretical physics.
    We comprehend theoretical physics very well. We might not always understand why something works, but we can see that it does through the math. We understand the effects. We can even demonstrate them.

    But magic doesn't have any real meaning. It's a god-of-the-gaps word. It means any nebulous thing to which another label does not apply.

    God is much the same, according to the verificationists.
  • Comprehend is probably the wrong word. I think understand may work better. An example that might help is that a person understands that they can send a text message on their phone to someone else. They do not understand how the message got to the other phone, but they understand that the message was sent. To them it is "magic" that the message traveled between the two phones.
    Yes, this is very much true that sufficiently advanced technology is effectively magic to people who don't understand it. When it comes to god, though, you have the question of whether or not it is possible to understand it. There is a difference between something that you do not comprehend, and something that is impossible to comprehend.

    A text message, while most people do not fully understand it, is comprehensible. There are people who exist who do understand it. With sufficient study, most people can come to understand it as well. The argument for god is that it is incomprehensible. That is no matter what you do, it is impossible to understand it. If god were comprehensible, as opposed to simply being not yet comprehended, then we could subject it to scientific processes, and the FSM comes into play. If god were incomprehensible, then as I said before, it is a completely arbitrary existence that can not have any influence on any decision making process.

    I know that feels like a false dichotomy, but it's just a real dichotomy. Maybe someone could argue that god is partially comprehensible. Somehow we understand that it wants us to pray, but we don't understand other parts. Well, maybe that part you don't understand actually is just manipulating you, and praying is bad? You don't know. If god is in any part incomprehensible, then it is effectively incomprehensible in its entirety.

    Just to drive that point home. Imagine if you are playing a board game. However, one of the rules of the board game is a secret. You have the whole rule book, but one rule is missing. In that case, any decision you make in the game is arbitrary. Let's say the first rule in the game says that whoever has the most money wins. Well, the secret rule could actually say to disregard that rule, and actually whoever has the least money wins.

    For humans an incomprehensible god existing is effectively identical to no god existing. A comprehensible god, existing or not, is no different than a flying spaghetti monster.
  • Scott, while I agree with what you are saying. I think your working against the "spirit" of this thread. From the way I see it Jason is having people try and define their "version" of god and then asking questions that clarify or deepen their answer. Your just stepping on people's answers, exactly what I believe Jason was trying not to do.
  • For me, god is everything. I am god, you are god, everything is all part of god. I find the usage of the label "God" to be misleading, as it is unlike other religions. It does not hate, it does not bring judgment, it just is. There are no books written about "him", you don't pray to "him", but god is still there. It is only a label; the way I believe in god is unlike any other religion, in the the meaning often attributed to the word god is different to what I actually believe in. The FSM argument does not quite work, because I am assigning who god is to something tangible - the universe - and not a magic being in the sky.
  • For me, god is everything. I am god, you are god, everything is all part of god. I find the usage of the label "God" to be misleading, as it is unlike other religions. It does not hate, it does not bring judgment, it just is. There are no books written about "him", you don't pray to "him", but god is still there. It is only a label; the way I believe in god is unlike any other religion, in the the meaning often attributed to the word god is different to what I actually believe in. The FSM argument does not quite work, because I am assigning who god is to something tangible - the universe - and not a magic being in the sky.
    Then you are effectively saying there is no god?
  • Then you are effectively saying there is no god?
    I have no religion. I think the whole notion of a god like in Christianity and other religions is all hocus pocus, and if that is what you define as god, then I do not believe in him.
  • edited November 2008
    Would it count if I said god exists as a figment of peoples imagination? Much like dragons, only dragons are indisputably real.
    Post edited by Omnutia on
  • I believe that God is an idea created by humans in order to try to rationalize our existence with irrational proof. We made up a magical being in the sky so that we could hide from the fact that we are both insignificant in the grand scheme of the universe and utterly without a reason to exist. But, we do exist and so we should stop bitching about why, and start enjoying life for what it is.

    Just a thought and what I personally believe.
  • Problem with that: Religion = Power.
  • Mysticism is based upon that God is inside of you, and to define it is the greatest question of life. I go with that.
  • edited November 2008
    I thought that knowledge = power?
    Post edited by Sloth on
  • edited November 2008
    Different kinda power.
    You can either be the wisest hermit in the world or have a devout cult who will do your every bidding. Which do you choose?
    By wisest, I do not mean infinitely wise.
    Post edited by Omnutia on
  • edited November 2008
    The cult. I've always wanted to be the Pope.

    Actually, would Catholicism count as a cult?
    Post edited by Sloth on
  • The FSM argument does not quite work, because I am assigning who god is to something tangible - the universe - and not a magic being in the sky.
    In that case, there's no reason to use the word "god" at all, because it doesn't differentiate anything. If you say that "god is the universe," then all you're saying is simply "the universe is." Using the word god is wholly unnecessary and conveys nothing.
  • Actually, would Catholicism count as a cult?
    No, cults are defined as religious organizations that have exclusivity in their communities and are initially secretive about what they actually believe. This is why Scientology is a cult and Catholicism is not.
  • edited November 2008
    Nevermind, it was a stupid question. (edited for stupidity)
    Post edited by Sloth on
  • Wouldn't "cult" be a term under the umbrella term "religion"? Cults are inherently religious, yet not all religions are inherently "cultish".

    In terms of irrational beliefs, though, they're about the same.

    Also, I would like to hear more of what religious people believe. I have arguments with my dad sometimes about religion, and he constantly makes the "'Real' Christians [Scotsmen] don't actually believe in a magical sky-man; that would be crazy!" argument. When I try to get him to define "god", he basically makes the "natural energy" argument. Suffice to say, this is somewhat infuriating.
  • In that case, there's no reason to use the word "god" at all, because it doesn't differentiate anything. If you say that "god is the universe," then all you're saying is simply "the universe is." Using the word god is wholly unnecessary and conveys nothing.
    It conveys nothing, and is wholly unnecessary, but that is what I define.
  • For me, god is everything. I am god, you are god, everything is all part of god. I find the usage of the label "God" to be misleading, as it is unlike other religions. It does not hate, it does not bring judgment, it just is. There are no books written about "him", you don't pray to "him", but god is still there. It is only a label; the way I believe in god is unlike any other religion, in the the meaning often attributed to the word god is different to what I actually believe in. The FSM argument does not quite work, because I am assigning who god is to something tangible - the universe - and not a magic being in the sky.
    There is a religion for that. It's called Pantheism
This discussion has been closed.