Is the word "god" meaningful?

[atanu]

A common argument of many atheists is that the word "god" is unintelligible, incoherent, inconsistent, etc, and therefore, they have no idea what you are talking about when you use it, and thus, they obviously cannot believe in something which hasn't even been defined.

As an atheist, I think that argument stinks to high heaven.

So, what say you? Is the word "god" meaningless and undefined? Is it fair to say that you have no concept of what someone is talking about when they use that word? What is the defense of this argument?

The problem is that most people, themselves, don't even have a clear idea of what they mean by "god."

Let us define God as Anselm did "....... we believe that thou art a being than which nothing greater can be conceived."

 

[Alceste]

How can you nullify that concept?




Same question.

How do you practically, logically, show those to be false? Not rhetorical - I'm asking... you believe you can or you wouldn't have said so. So, how could we do that?

Plenty of research has been undertaken into patient outcomes and whether or not they respond to intercessionary prayer. They don't.

Physics and geology have detailed well-evidenced by which the earth was formed. There is so much evidence I wouldn't know where to begin, but one example is that every substance on earth can be given an age based on the decay rate of various isotopes.

 

[Straw Dog]

Let us define God as Anselm did "....... we believe that thou art a being than which nothing greater can be conceived."

But that's already my definition for "pure chaos" and it sounds cooler than "God".

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

A common argument of many atheists is that the word "god" is unintelligible, incoherent, inconsistent, etc, and therefore, they have no idea what you are talking about when you use it, and thus, they obviously cannot believe in something which hasn't even been defined.

As an atheist, I think that argument stinks to high heaven.

So what does "god" mean, then? If it's intelligible to you, then hopefully you can explain it.

So, what say you? Is the word "god" meaningless and undefined? Is it fair to say that you have no concept of what someone is talking about when they use that word? What is the defense of this argument?

I kind of have two takes on this.

First, based on my experiences with people using the term "god", the only commonality I've been able to find is that "god" denotes an object of worship. That's it.

Second, I've found that I can generally extract consistent meaning from statements about "god" or "God" if I take the term to mean something like "an anthropomorphism of my ideas of perfection/virtue." However, I think that most believers would disagree with my interpretation of what they're saying this way.

As I've quoted more than once in the past:

​

If God, It is simply beyond the scope of scientific enquiry.

Another way of looking at this would be to say that things that are within the scope of scientific inquiry are beyond God. IMO, NOMA ends up either implying arbitrary limits on science or a toothless, irrelevant God.

Let us define God as Anselm did "....... we believe that thou art a being than which nothing greater can be conceived."

That seems to me to be an admission that any meaning for the term "god" will fail to express what it intends to.

 

[Straw Dog]

Another way of looking at this would be to say that things that are within the scope of scientific inquiry are beyond God. IMO, NOMA ends up either implying arbitrary limits on science or a toothless, irrelevant God.

That seems to me to be an admission that any meaning for the term "god" will fail to express what it intends to.

I agree. Figuring out that "God" is something outside rational/scientific inquiry doesn't add to its greatness. It just increases its ambiguity.

 

[Alceste]

I agree. Figuring out that "God" is something outside rational/scientific inquiry doesn't add to its greatness. It just increases its ambiguity.

I agree as well. Also, there is so much richness and mystery within the realm of empirical enquiry I have no curiosity left for considering unfalsifiable claims.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

I agree. Figuring out that "God" is something outside rational/scientific inquiry doesn't add to its greatness. It just increases its ambiguity.

All words are ambiguous. And God is perhaps the most important word in any language, at least for some, because it reduces to 'ultimate truth' or somesuch.

So God is fun. We can spend our lives chasing and cavorting with that word. It's one of my favorite playmates.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

All words are ambiguous. And God is perhaps the most important word in any language, at least for some, because it reduces to 'ultimate truth' or somesuch.

In my experience, it doesn't.

Maybe many believers consider their god to be "ultimate truth", but if they were confronted with some sort of "ultimate truth" that wasn't personal, didn't create anything, and doesn't wield miracles or grant people afterlives, I'd bet dollars to donuts that they'd say it wasn't their god.

 

[Alceste]

In my experience, it doesn't.

Maybe many believers consider their god to be "ultimate truth", but if they were confronted with some sort of "ultimate truth" that wasn't personal, didn't create anything, and doesn't wield miracles or grant people afterlives, I'd bet dollars to donuts that they'd say it wasn't their god.

I once successfully got a Christian friend of mine to describe her God for me. It turned out to be a genderless, invisible thing that permeates the entire universe and takes a personal interest in her life for some reason (she wasn't able to give me a reason). It seems she thinks of Jesus as something else. Like an invisible boyfriend or something.

Actually, the trinity is a perfect example of the incoherence of the concept of God, even in one single religion's god concept. Jesus is God. No, God is Jesus' father. No, God is an invisible force of goodness permeating the universe. Bah. I can make no sense of it, and I haven't even gotten to the part about turning himself into wafers every Sunday to be cannibalized by the faithful.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Maybe many believers consider their god to be "ultimate truth", but if they were confronted with some sort of "ultimate truth" that wasn't personal, didn't create anything, and doesn't wield miracles or grant people afterlives, I'd bet dollars to donuts that they'd say it wasn't their god.

Sure, I'd mostly agree with that. But I think that anthropomorphic concepts of God are primitive and on the way out. It'll take a long time, but I imagine that 500 years from now, very few people will think of some cosmic, conscious Being when they hear the word 'God.' Instead they'll think of the essence of life and the universe. They'll think of God as that thing which is most meaningful or profound to them.

God is just a big important word which we use to talk about ultimate concerns, so it seems to me.

 

[steeltoes]

This is where it becomes important to get some qualifiers for whatever god concept the theist is holding in mind when they want to discuss the validity of their beliefs. Some qualities attributed to various god concepts are certainly falsifiable, for example whether or not intercessionary prayer or miracle healings have any measurable impact on natural illnesses, or whether the Christian god concept created the world in six days.

The existence of God is one thing, that is an argument on its own, but as soon as God acts, such as guiding evolution by his hand, then it steps into the realm of science, and science can provide explanations that render God's involvement superfluous. So science does have a say as to what gods can or can't do, but perhaps not as it concerns God's mere existence. In other words, God can't do a darn thing beyond merely existing.

 

[Willamena]

In my experience, it doesn't.

Maybe many believers consider their god to be "ultimate truth", but if they were confronted with some sort of "ultimate truth" that wasn't personal, didn't create anything, and doesn't wield miracles or grant people afterlives, I'd bet dollars to donuts that they'd say it wasn't their god.

What sort of "ultimate truth" could fail to be or do those things, though?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

What sort of "ultimate truth" could fail to be or do those things, though?

What do you mean? Are you saying that personality, creating the universe, wielding miracles, and granting people afterlives are necessary parts of an "ultimate truth"? If so, feel free to explain why you think this.

 

[Alceste]

The existence of God is one thing, that is an argument on its own, but as soon as God acts, such as guiding evolution by his hand, then it steps into the realm of science, and science can provide explanations that render God's involvement superfluous. So science does have a say as to what gods can or can't do, but perhaps not as it concerns God's mere existence. In other words, God can't do a darn thing beyond merely existing.

Exactly. God's "deeds" have a tendency to be whatever is left after science is finished figuring out the world. That turns an active personal God into a shrinking thing as science progresses. Pantheism and deism are much more stable conceptions of "God", for those who need one.

 

[sandandfoam]

Exactly. God's "deeds" have a tendency to be whatever is left after science is finished figuring out the world. That turns an active personal God into a shrinking thing as science progresses.

I disagree.
I think it was Eriugena who said that when we look on the face of a newborn we look on the face of God. Scientific progression does not shrink such an understanding of God.

God is all around me, the world is theophany to my eyes.

Our scientific knowledge is pretty miserable. In 1000 years I imagine we will be regarded as pretty ignorant creatures by kids in whatever constitutes history class.

All knowledge is provisional, scientific, theological - the lot of it. God is a feeling an experience and a way of understanding.

 

[Koldo]

I disagree.
I think it was Eriugena who said that when we look on the face of a newborn we look on the face of God. Scientific progression does not shrink such an understanding of God.

God is all around me, the world is theophany to my eyes.

Our scientific knowledge is pretty miserable. In 1000 years I imagine we will be regarded as pretty ignorant creatures by kids in whatever constitutes history class.

All knowledge is provisional, scientific, theological - the lot of it. God is a feeling an experience and a way of understanding.

Do you really disagree?

I highly doubt that by 'God' she meant anything akin to a feeling, an experience or a way of understanding.

 

[sandandfoam]

Do you really disagree?

I highly doubt that by 'God' she meant anything akin to a feeling, an experience or a way of understanding.

Yes I believe so.
Once when I was very sick I came close to death. I obviously survived D). I credit God with my life. I believe God is the reason I did not die. I do not understand why and I do not understand why many other people suffer and die. I know that I will some day suffer and die and when my time does come I will call on God to ease my passage.
I believe in God and I do not believe that science is in contradiction with my beliefs - nor do I believe that I am clinging to a god of the gaps.

 

[Alceste]

I disagree.
I think it was Eriugena who said that when we look on the face of a newborn we look on the face of God. Scientific progression does not shrink such an understanding of God.

God is all around me, the world is theophany to my eyes.

Our scientific knowledge is pretty miserable. In 1000 years I imagine we will be regarded as pretty ignorant creatures by kids in whatever constitutes history class.

All knowledge is provisional, scientific, theological - the lot of it. God is a feeling an experience and a way of understanding.

Your god concept sounds pantheistic to me. I think this god concept is much more resilient than an anthropomorphic, corporeal being who sits on a cloud, listens to all your prayers, creates worlds and universes in the snap of a finger, and passes eternal judgment on people for benign transgressions.

Heck, I'm a nostril hair away from being a pantheist myself. I simply don't perceive consciousness, personal relationship or personality in the wonders, miracles and mysteries of the world or the underlying "stuff" that ties it all together.

 

[Alceste]

Yes I believe so.
Once when I was very sick I came close to death. I obviously survived D). I credit God with my life. I believe God is the reason I did not die. I do not understand why and I do not understand why many other people suffer and die. I know that I will some day suffer and die and when my time does come I will call on God to ease my passage.
I believe in God and I do not believe that science is in contradiction with my beliefs - nor do I believe that I am clinging to a god of the gaps.

You may not be, but creationists in general are.

 

[Koldo]

Yes I believe so.
Once when I was very sick I came close to death. I obviously survived D). I credit God with my life. I believe God is the reason I did not die. I do not understand why and I do not understand why many other people suffer and die. I know that I will some day suffer and die and when my time does come I will call on God to ease my passage.
I believe in God and I do not believe that science is in contradiction with my beliefs - nor do I believe that I am clinging to a god of the gaps.

So, a 'feeling' was the reason you did not die?
Do you credit 'an experience' with your life?

How you defined God formerly seems quite strange when put on practice in this post.
You seem to be talking about another 'God' now.