Probably either one if I tried hard enough.
We can conceive of logically incoherent things. Many optical illusions take advantage of this fact.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Does God exist?
- Thread starter Autodidact
- Start date
We can conceive of logically incoherent things. Many optical illusions take advantage of this fact.
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
I agree with 9/10 that if we're going to figure out whether something exists, we need to first define what it is. Not your personal God, but the word "God" in general. What criteria distinguishes a god from other things?
Elliot says: It seems to me the simplest definition of God (thank you, Mr. William of Ockham) is 'Creator'. That seems too simple to me, because doesn't it include every painter and chef in the world?
Evelyonion says: "A super-natural intelligence and/or creator" I say we would then need to say what we mean by "super-natural."
My definition is: A powerful creative being who cannot be perceived with any physical sense.
What do people think of these definitions? I'm trying to define the word "god" itself, not a specific God. What do people mean when they use this word? What do they all have in common? How can we tell whether a specific entity/being meets the definition or not?
Remember, a definition is neither a name nor an example. A useful definition is a set of criteria for determining whether something fits in the category or not.
Thoughts?
Elliot says: It seems to me the simplest definition of God (thank you, Mr. William of Ockham) is 'Creator'. That seems too simple to me, because doesn't it include every painter and chef in the world?
Evelyonion says: "A super-natural intelligence and/or creator" I say we would then need to say what we mean by "super-natural."
My definition is: A powerful creative being who cannot be perceived with any physical sense.
What do people think of these definitions? I'm trying to define the word "god" itself, not a specific God. What do people mean when they use this word? What do they all have in common? How can we tell whether a specific entity/being meets the definition or not?
Remember, a definition is neither a name nor an example. A useful definition is a set of criteria for determining whether something fits in the category or not.
Thoughts?
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
I don't think so, I think it only means it's possible to conceive of it.
I never find this sort of approach helpful. What's the name for this kind of thinking? It doesn't resonate with me at all, from Aquinas to today.
PolyHedral
Superabacus Mystic
True, but what I meant to say is that if a concept of how the universe works isn't logically incoherent, then it is possible. (since it isn't restricted by physics) Though I should probably add it also can't contradict any existing evidence.
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
Or do people not think defining "God" is a good first step?
PolyHedral
Superabacus Mystic
It is, but nobody's been able to do it very well so far.
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
Have you taken a stab?
PolyHedral
Superabacus Mystic
"Any of the many memes that stop you realizing that the universe doesn't actually care about you?"
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
Here's a couple of online definitions:
(I think we can pretty easily rule that one out; that one clearly does not exist.)
That sounds a little better to me.
How are we doing?
[Merriam Webster
(I think we can pretty easily rule that one out; that one clearly does not exist.)
[Merriam Webster]
That sounds a little better to me.
[some dude on the internet]
[Dictionary.com]
How are we doing?
As I mentioned before, I disagree with the idea that the term "god" implies "creator". There are plenty of god-concepts that people actually believe that don't involve creation.
AFAICT, there's only one thing common to all god-concepts: the idea that a god is an entity that's "above" us in some hierarchical way.
Implicitly, all god-concepts also share another characteristic: they're all believed in by people.
And if we're looking at the characteristics posessed by most (but not all) god-concepts, I'd say that a god is an object of worship. Personally, I'm comfortable with including this in the defintion of "god"... even if it upsets the deists.
So... with all that in mind plus a few other thoughts rattling around in my brain, here's my try at defining the term "god":
A god is an entity "above" humanity, usually considered to be (but not necessarily) conscious, intelligent and personal, who is believed in and worshipped by human beings.
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
I think it has to be supernatural to be a God. That's what I'm trying to get at in my definition with "unable to be perceived with the physical senses".
It seems that those are all definitions for "God", not "god". None of them allow for polytheism or for god-concepts where the god in question is not a "ruler" in some sense.
I was saying that "God" (by some images of "God") is what is left when you subtract everything and nothing from the universe.
Is that a necessary characteristic of a god (or of God), though?
I think it would be problematic to include that in the definition, since every religion I can think of makes claims about people perceiving gods (or God) in some way.
How is that an "image of 'God'"?
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
I'm aiming for god, not God. (although we could do God instead.) But all gods are supernatural, no?
PolyHedral
Superabacus Mystic
But those are never going to give you the same thing. (for any sensible idea of "subtract")
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
Yes, it is complicated. They say you can't see God, but you can feel Him. Some kind of internal sense, which of course is not what we mean by sense, normally. I remember talking with a Christian friend, and when I said "can't be seen, heard, felt, smelled..." she replied scornfully, "Not with any of those senses." As though there's some other sense I didn't know about.
Mormons would call this the Holy Spirit. I would call it an internal mental experience.
Hmm. That's a very good question.
It seems to me that our definitions are starting to involve concepts that I at least reject. I personally reject the idea of any sort of objective "heirarchy of being", but I based my definition of God on such an idea. Now you're bringing up the supernatural, which is another concept I personally reject.
Is it necessary to believe in these concepts to believe in God?
Quick straw poll: is there anyone here who believes in God who doesn't think that God is supernatural (however you define the term) and "above" you in some sense?
But they also say that God appeared as a burning bush before Moses, and that Jesus (who they consider to be God) walked the Earth and talked to people, among other things.
And IIRC, Mormons believe that Joseph Smith had a vision where he literally saw God the Father and Jesus Christ.
Also, if people can perceive God by some unknown sixth sense, then they're still perceiving God.