Define God

[Heyo]

I was thinking of the blind men with the elephant when I wrote that comment. We are all just looking at the same thing but have different assumptions of what it is.

Are you? Like the blind men, you don't know that. The blind men could have come to the same statements if there were multiple elephants or even multiple different animals. And unlike you, the blind men have the advantage that the elephant is real, i.e. they could verify the experiences of the others if they step over.

Each opinion is important to understand and it takes a good listener to create a reality from many sources. Without disagreement we might never get to a concise conclusion.

The blind men can get to a concise conclusion. Theists can't. And most of them know because they have given up to even try. When was the last time you heard about two religions or even denominations having had a debate with the result that they all joined?

 

[Heyo]

I think to have the whole definition, one should read the whole Bible

What about the Qur'an, the Bhagavad Gita, the Vedas, the Edda? They also believe in gods.

 

[Heyo]

A different answer for me this time:

Two theists, three definitions.

 

[firedragon]

As the title says.

Include qualities, accomplishments, responsibilities, attributes, etc. if any of these apply.

The Islamic conception of God.

1. Singular.
2. Absolute/Cause
3. Not a child, nor will have children
4. Not like anything/unfathomable for humans/necessary being

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

As the title says.

Include qualities, accomplishments, responsibilities, attributes, etc. if any of these apply.

"God" with a capital "G"?

God is the creator-god of certain monotheistic religions, primarily the Abrahamic religions.

Edit: I don't consider any "qualities, accomplishments, responsibilities, attributes, etc." beyond that to be part of the definition.

 

[stvdv]

That sounds so complicated.

Thanks

When I reread it this morning I thought "probably too complicated for some".

In short:
God means Consciousness, the substratum of everything. The white screen on which the movie called "life" is projected. Everything is consciousness, only consciousness is real (as in never changing). All forms are not real, they always change

 

[stvdv]

OK. Now you're happy.

Depends on POV

I wish you a happy day

 

[Moonjuice]

What are you basing these characteristics on?

You mean how did I form my opinion of the definition of God? I suppose the same way people form opinions on anything, I'm using the information I have gained over my entire life.

I have the same opinion of all 2,500 or so non-existent gods that have been invented, sacrificed to, prayed to and worshiped for thousands of years. Monotheists would probably agree with me on that definition, with respect to 2,499 of those nonexistent gods they also do not believe exist. To me the evidence suggests that all 2,500 or so gods fall under the same definition. I simply apply the reasoning consistently to all supernatural claims, not showing any favoritism based on biases, family tradition, geography, demographics, or wishful thinking. Of course, we all have to admit that it is possible that Poseidon actually controls the ocean and all the creatures in it, so there is always room for logic and reason to lead you astray.

 

[firedragon]

The blind men can get to a concise conclusion. Theists can't. And most of them know because they have given up to even try. When was the last time you heard about two religions or even denominations having had a debate with the result that they all joined?

Just out of boyish curiosity, why should they?

 

[Heyo]

Just out of boyish curiosity, why should they?

@Jacob Samuelson thinks there is only one god and that by comparing notes believers might come to know its attributes. If that was true, they should try to unite. That they don't is evidence that they don't believe in a single (and knowable) god (despite proclaiming so). Every church leader is more interested in defending his position than in the truth.
I'm only aware of one example of two denominations becoming one: the Unitarian Universalists.

 

[viole]

As the title says.

Include qualities, accomplishments, responsibilities, attributes, etc. if any of these apply.

God is like the singularity, a moniker for what we do not know. Problems start when somebody claims that what we do not know has a Son that "died" for our sins, or some other equivalent stuff.

Ciao

- viole

 

[firedragon]

@Jacob Samuelson thinks there is only one god and that by comparing notes believers might come to know its attributes. If that was true, they should try to unite. That they don't is evidence that they don't believe in a single (and knowable) god (despite proclaiming so). Every church leader is more interested in defending his position than in the truth.
I'm only aware of one example of two denominations becoming one: the Unitarian Universalists.

You see, when you say "they should try to unite" you are using it to show that billions of people on one side, and another billion on another. But you are looking at the fringe who may have united. Why should numbers be your criteria for truths? In what world, with what logic is that valid?

 

[Heyo]

You see, when you say "they should try to unite" you are using it to show that billions of people on one side, and another billion on another. But you are looking at the fringe who may have united. Why should numbers be your criteria for truths? In what world, with what logic is that valid?

In the world of science. When scientists have a problem understanding a thing, they have symposiums where they debate their hypothesis and present evidence. Eventually they reach consensus.
When theists have a problem of understanding (god), they split up into two groups, each one proclaiming loudly that they have the truth (and occasionally try to kill the others).

 

[Vinayaka]

For me, God remains a mystery, for It is beyond the intellect. Any attempt at defining, since defining is within the intellect, will be futile. But those who wish to make an attempt, go ahead.

 

[firedragon]

In the world of science. When scientists have a problem understanding a thing, they have symposiums where they debate their hypothesis and present evidence. Eventually they reach consensus.
When theists have a problem of understanding (god), they split up into two groups, each one proclaiming loudly that they have the truth (and occasionally try to kill the others).

Yeah. But this is not science and you are wrong about science. They dont work with truths. Also you are making a religion out of science which some call scientism. It's irrelevant. By speaking about killing others etc you are just trying to bring in red herrings and you are just trying to demonise them.

 

[The Hammer]

You experience experience? That's all you can say?

That's all I care to say.

You seem to have missed the point of my original post.

I already stated I wasn't defining it as there is no point, since others merely want to pick it apart.

 

[Jacob Samuelson]

Are you? Like the blind men, you don't know that. The blind men could have come to the same statements if there were multiple elephants or even multiple different animals. And unlike you, the blind men have the advantage that the elephant is real, i.e. they could verify the experiences of the others if they step over.

The blind men can get to a concise conclusion. Theists can't. And most of them know because they have given up to even try. When was the last time you heard about two religions or even denominations having had a debate with the result that they all joined?

I can feel your frustration. Again the goal is not to get to an agreement in all things, In that, I agree with you is impossible for separating denominations. The goal is rather to personally take what you know from every point of view and form an image that allows you to perceive the whole picture. As long as you don't just give up and just not even care. In that case, why even bother responding in the first place. Me responding to your disagreements help me understand a little bit more every time and that is why I enjoy responding not to think I am right and you are wrong.

 

[Mister Emu]

@Jacob Samuelson thinks there is only one god and that by comparing notes believers might come to know its attributes. If that was true, they should try to unite. That they don't is evidence that they don't believe in a single (and knowable) god (despite proclaiming so). Every church leader is more interested in defending his position than in the truth.
I'm only aware of one example of two denominations becoming one: the Unitarian Universalists.

You are conflating more than one concept, having a debate, that debate having a conclusive result, everyone at that debate accepting the result and everyone who espouse the beliefs debated accepting the result of that debate.

The faults you decry aren't limited to theology either, but exist within any theoretical mental discipline.

Finally, I believe that if you were to look at the history of, say, the Catholic Church there are many instances of debated coming to real conclusions that were widely accepted by proponents of each side of the debate. Also, a history of reconciliation of Churches, perhaps not in whole, but nonetheless groups coming back together.

 

[Heyo]

I can feel your frustration.

Frustration? No. I just describe my observations. I accept them and have drawn my conclusion (which is Agnosticism).

Again the goal is not to get to an agreement in all things, In that, I agree with you is impossible for separating denominations. The goal is rather to personally take what you know from every point of view and form an image that allows you to perceive the whole picture.

For me that whole picture is that those god(s) anyone believes in aren't (and maybe can't be) known objectively. So maybe everyone is describing a different thing and not the elephant - or there is no elephant in the first place.

 

[Jacob Samuelson]

Frustration? No. I just describe my observations. I accept them and have drawn my conclusion (which is Agnosticism).
For me that whole picture is that those god(s) anyone believes in aren't (and maybe can't be) known objectively. So maybe everyone is describing a different thing and not the elephant - or there is no elephant in the first place.

But you can't know that for sure, as you are a blind man with us. Can you really conclude that no one knows what they are talking about. Can you really dismiss all realities as impossibilities? You might be right that most people are just lying to themselves to make them feel like they are important or found something new. But in the end it sounds like you are just want to sit it out and wait for what ever animal it is to kill you or make a sound of existence, or die waiting for no sound at all. Which is very agnostic of you so I can't blame you. But I know blindness is not part of my creation. I may see things blurry as an infant barely coming out of his mothers womb can't see very well, but as soon as I get used to the light, my creation is meant to see and see God for what He is, warning others of other carnivorous animals that want to get them closer to eat them. Teaching others that they aren't really blind, they are just afraid of opening their eyes in the first place.