| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
baddogma
antitheist
Joined: 01 Feb 2006
Posts: 9202
Local time: 3:45 AM
Location: Colorado
|
 Posted: Tue Feb 12, 2008 11:51 am Post subject: Re: Can "God" be rigorously defined? |
  |
|
| romans120 wrote: | | Unbeliever wrote: | We're always being challenged to "prove God doesn't exist" without the asker telling us exactly what they mean when they use the term "God". How can anyone prove the existence or non-existence of an undefined entity?
I'd like to see if the theists on the board can define the term "God" in such a way that they can all agree on it. Then Maybe we can decide whether its existence is provable or not. |
It's highly unlikely you'll get any number theists to be unified on a subject kind like it's unlikely any number of atheists would be unified on a particular subject because were all different people. But I'll give you a definition. A good definition is one that you can not take away any part of it and it still define the object being defined. The definition for God is that which is eternal (has no cause just is) self-existent (does not depend upon the existence of another object in order to exist) It necessarily follows that this Eternal and self-existent object is the source of all that is.
Now I have a challenge for you. Since you do not believe in God. Define existence and meaning apart from that eternal object. |
God is an object? A physical object? Where?
_________________
Join http://www.sefora.org/
Can omnicient god who knows the future find the omnipotence to change his future mind?
I'm ashamed of what I did for a Klondike bar.... |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
|
kmisho
Stochastic
Joined: 05 Dec 2005
Posts: 4614
Local time: 4:45 AM
Location: Richmond, Virginia USA
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 12, 2008 11:52 am Post subject: Re: Can "God" be rigorously defined? |
|
|
| josephpalazzo wrote: | | Unbeliever wrote: | | josephpalazzo wrote: | | Unbeliever wrote: |
Well, in order for a mathematician to prove or disprove a conjecture, all the terms in the conjecture must be rigorously defined, such that mathematicians can all agree on it.
|
Argh... define a point? |
Point |
"A point 0-dimensional mathematical object", "that which has no part."
Brilliant... |
Maybe you have a better example. For fun, what about something like "a unit to which the concept of betweenness cannot apply."
_________________
K Michau
Now this religion happens to prevail/Until by that one it is overthrown/Because men dare not live with men alone/But always with another fairy tale.
al-Ma'arri, Syrian Poet, died 1057
You deny the existence of 999 alleged Gods. I merely deny one more - yours.
John MacKinnon Robertson, "Godism" 1896
"Never is a long time." Robert Fripp, 1998
Poetry, Art, Music |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
josephpalazzo
Illusion Master
Joined: 30 Aug 2006
Posts: 8036
Local time: 1:45 PM
Location: D-brane
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 12, 2008 12:22 pm Post subject: Re: Can "God" be rigorously defined? |
|
|
| kmisho wrote: | | josephpalazzo wrote: | | Unbeliever wrote: | | josephpalazzo wrote: | | Unbeliever wrote: |
Well, in order for a mathematician to prove or disprove a conjecture, all the terms in the conjecture must be rigorously defined, such that mathematicians can all agree on it.
|
Argh... define a point? |
Point |
"A point 0-dimensional mathematical object", "that which has no part."
Brilliant... |
Maybe you have a better example. For fun, what about something like "a unit to which the concept of betweenness cannot apply." |
More like: one can ALWAYS insert a point anywhere, even within a point. Tho' it doesn't define a point, it gives an intuitive picture of it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jutter
Quixotic Cloggy
Joined: 26 Jul 2003
Posts: 6610
Local time: 7:45 PM
Location: Den Helder, the Netherlands
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 12, 2008 12:46 pm Post subject: Re: Can "God" be rigorously defined? |
|
|
| romans120 wrote: | | Unbeliever wrote: | We're always being challenged to "prove God doesn't exist" without the asker telling us exactly what they mean when they use the term "God". How can anyone prove the existence or non-existence of an undefined entity?
I'd like to see if the theists on the board can define the term "God" in such a way that they can all agree on it. Then Maybe we can decide whether its existence is provable or not. |
It's highly unlikely you'll get any number theists to be unified on a subject kind like it's unlikely any number of atheists would be unified on a particular subject because were all different people. |
You take the effort to try and communicate with us, which requires agreement about the meaning of the words you use, and agreement that there's a reality out there those words refer to. You obviously don't believe that matters are as hopeless as you're trying to make them sound... not really.
| Quote: | But I'll give you a definition. A good definition is one that you can not take away any part of it and it still define the object being defined. The definition for God is that which is eternal (has no cause just is) self-existent (does not depend upon the existence of another object in order to exist) It necessarily follows that this Eternal and self-existent object is the source of all that is.
Now I have a challenge for you. Since you do not believe in God. Define existence and meaning apart from that eternal object. |
I'll do a little groundwork first...
It's safe to asume that us humans are in the business of ascribing meaning/purpose. There, however, is no reason to asume that the cosmos is in the same business, or that some entity other than humans needs to be.
To take a closer look at how this ascribing of meaning or purpose goes, I'll take the example of a multimedia PC. You could use this multimedia-PC as a paperweight, or a doorstop, and it could preform both tasks to our satisfaction. There, however, are things that only a multimedia-pc can do, and a regular doorstop or paperweight can't do those things. It's the preformance of those tasks that only the multimedia-pc can preform which we consider to be the multimedia pc's purpose.
Now let's look at humans. Humanism obviously arises as a strong candidate for humankind's purpose. We're the result of reproduction (you have parents), so a human is always a human among other humans. If humans don't engage in the pursuit of humankind's prosperity and hapiness, chances are the little birdies aren't going to do it instead; to put it mildly. On the other end of that spectrum, the pursuit of the destruction of humankind would result in a world void of people asribing purpose, void of people to find anything meaningful. In this light, meaning and purpose aren't a requirement for our existence... it's the other way around. The ascribing of meaning and purpose requires entities such as us humans.
Remembering the multimedia-pc example you could also say that only humans are capable of theism. But theism as a purpose actually sabotages humanism. When one group lives as though they need to get along with this god, and the other group lives as though they need to get along with that god, both groups will subsequently have a hard time with living as though they need to get along with one another. History as well as our current state of affairs makes this painfully clear.
_________________
~ Let us be reasonable ~
Congratulations: you are paracorrect about the supernatural.
*"If there were nobody listening to gods anymore, there would be nothing left for us to do,...
... then to finally start listening to each other."
*As any gamer will tell you: God-mode is a cheat-code. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kmisho
Stochastic
Joined: 05 Dec 2005
Posts: 4614
Local time: 4:45 AM
Location: Richmond, Virginia USA
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 12, 2008 12:55 pm Post subject: Re: Can "God" be rigorously defined? |
|
|
| josephpalazzo wrote: | | kmisho wrote: | | josephpalazzo wrote: | | Unbeliever wrote: | | josephpalazzo wrote: | | Unbeliever wrote: |
Well, in order for a mathematician to prove or disprove a conjecture, all the terms in the conjecture must be rigorously defined, such that mathematicians can all agree on it.
|
Argh... define a point? |
Point |
"A point 0-dimensional mathematical object", "that which has no part."
Brilliant... |
Maybe you have a better example. For fun, what about something like "a unit to which the concept of betweenness cannot apply." |
More like: one can ALWAYS insert a point anywhere, even within a point. Tho' it doesn't define a point, it gives an intuitive picture of it. |
I still like the idea of disallowing betweenness. Let any number of points that lack betweenness be the same point.
_________________
K Michau
Now this religion happens to prevail/Until by that one it is overthrown/Because men dare not live with men alone/But always with another fairy tale.
al-Ma'arri, Syrian Poet, died 1057
You deny the existence of 999 alleged Gods. I merely deny one more - yours.
John MacKinnon Robertson, "Godism" 1896
"Never is a long time." Robert Fripp, 1998
Poetry, Art, Music
Last edited by kmisho on Tue Feb 12, 2008 12:59 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kmisho
Stochastic
Joined: 05 Dec 2005
Posts: 4614
Local time: 4:45 AM
Location: Richmond, Virginia USA
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 12, 2008 12:58 pm Post subject: Re: Can "God" be rigorously defined? |
|
|
| Jutter wrote: | | romans120 wrote: | | Unbeliever wrote: | We're always being challenged to "prove God doesn't exist" without the asker telling us exactly what they mean when they use the term "God". How can anyone prove the existence or non-existence of an undefined entity?
I'd like to see if the theists on the board can define the term "God" in such a way that they can all agree on it. Then Maybe we can decide whether its existence is provable or not. |
It's highly unlikely you'll get any number theists to be unified on a subject kind like it's unlikely any number of atheists would be unified on a particular subject because were all different people. |
You take the effort to try and communicate with us, which requires agreement about the meaning of the words you use, and agreement that there's a reality out there those words refer to. You obviously don't believe that matters are as hopeless as you're trying to make them sound... not really.
| Quote: | But I'll give you a definition. A good definition is one that you can not take away any part of it and it still define the object being defined. The definition for God is that which is eternal (has no cause just is) self-existent (does not depend upon the existence of another object in order to exist) It necessarily follows that this Eternal and self-existent object is the source of all that is.
Now I have a challenge for you. Since you do not believe in God. Define existence and meaning apart from that eternal object. |
I'll do a little groundwork first...
It's safe to asume that us humans are in the business of ascribing meaning/purpose. There, however, is no reason to asume that the cosmos is in the same business, or that some entity other than humans needs to be.
To take a closer look at how this ascribing of meaning or purpose goes, I'll take the example of a multimedia PC. You could use this multimedia-PC as a paperweight, or a doorstop, and it could preform both tasks to our satisfaction. There, however, are things that only a multimedia-pc can do, and a regular doorstop or paperweight can't do those things. It's the preformance of those tasks that only the multimedia-pc can preform which we consider to be the multimedia pc's purpose.
Now let's look at humans. Humanism obviously arises as a strong candidate for humankind's purpose. We're the result of reproduction (you have parents), so a human is always a human among other humans. If humans don't engage in the pursuit of humankind's prosperity and hapiness, chances are the little birdies aren't going to do it instead; to put it mildly. On the other end of that spectrum, the pursuit of the destruction of humankind would result in a world void of people asribing purpose, void of people to find anything meaningful. In this light, meaning and purpose aren't a requirement for our existence... it's the other way around. The ascribing of meaning and purpose requires entities such as us humans.
Remembering the multimedia-pc example you could also say that only humans are capable of theism. But theism as a purpose actually sabotages humanism. When one group lives as though they need to get along with this god, and the other group lives as though they need to get along with that god, both groups will subsequently have a hard time with living as though they need to get along with one another. History as well as our current state of affairs makes this painfully clear. |
I still don't buy the whole "self-existant" thing. I know of no examples of anything where its existence relies on something else. Everything is self-existant, in other words.
_________________
K Michau
Now this religion happens to prevail/Until by that one it is overthrown/Because men dare not live with men alone/But always with another fairy tale.
al-Ma'arri, Syrian Poet, died 1057
You deny the existence of 999 alleged Gods. I merely deny one more - yours.
John MacKinnon Robertson, "Godism" 1896
"Never is a long time." Robert Fripp, 1998
Poetry, Art, Music |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jutter
Quixotic Cloggy
Joined: 26 Jul 2003
Posts: 6610
Local time: 7:45 PM
Location: Den Helder, the Netherlands
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 12, 2008 2:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Responding to the previous post... Yeah I kinda left that untouched, didn't I?
To briefly whip up an objection that takes an angle different from yours... Romans is basicly saying that the concept "everything" demands an additional item. Considering that "everything" implies that nothing is excluded, adding an item is contradictory thus absurd... even if you call this extra item 'the maker of everything'.
Yet another approach: Romans proposes an alledged universal demand, which is supposedly met by a god, but then this same demand is conveniently dropped in regards to said god. Again contradiction occurs. Supposedly everything must have a maker, but at the same time not everything does.
_________________
~ Let us be reasonable ~
Congratulations: you are paracorrect about the supernatural.
*"If there were nobody listening to gods anymore, there would be nothing left for us to do,...
... then to finally start listening to each other."
*As any gamer will tell you: God-mode is a cheat-code. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
romans120
Moderator
Joined: 14 Aug 2007
Posts: 1976
Local time: 1:45 PM
Location: mid-west
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 12, 2008 3:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Jutter wrote: | Responding to the previous post... Yeah I kinda left that untouched, didn't I?
To briefly whip up an objection that takes an angle different from yours... Romans is basicly saying that the concept "everything" demands an additional item. Considering that "everything" implies that nothing is excluded, adding an item is contradictory thus absurd... even if you call this extra item 'the maker of everything'.
Yet another approach: Romans proposes an alledged universal demand, which is supposedly met by a god, but then this same demand is conveniently dropped in regards to said god. Again contradiction occurs. Supposedly everything must have a maker, but at the same time not everything does. |
I think you may be understanding me. Except for discussion purposes I defined God to His simplest and most essential form. (eternality and self-existence) Since kimsho was trying to think of examples of what I mean let me provide a few. A humans existence is dependent upon the contribution of two parent chromosomes. The earth existence is Dependant upon the contribution of mater and energy of the universe. Now here is where things get debatable. The universe is observed to be in change and in motion. But this motion is not limitless so we theorize that strings or the collision of other dimensional branes caused the change and motion we see in our universe. Thus the existence of the universe is theoretically dependent upon those objects. So something will fit the definition of God. And since you can not have cause without that object it follows that that object is the source of all existence. So for all intense and purposes that object is God and your atheism is not a lack of belief in Gods existence but a lack of belief that God is intelligent. I make this point because it does change your logical arguments against special revelation. Since
_________________
The Resident Theist
For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. Romans 1:19-20
Check out my weblog at http://romans120.wordpress.com/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
josephpalazzo
Illusion Master
Joined: 30 Aug 2006
Posts: 8036
Local time: 1:45 PM
Location: D-brane
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 12, 2008 4:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| romans120 wrote: | | ...your atheism is not a lack of belief in Gods existence but a lack of belief that God is intelligent... |
Nope, God is a fictional character. Period. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
romans120
Moderator
Joined: 14 Aug 2007
Posts: 1976
Local time: 1:45 PM
Location: mid-west
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 12, 2008 4:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| josephpalazzo wrote: | | romans120 wrote: | | ...your atheism is not a lack of belief in Gods existence but a lack of belief that God is intelligent... |
Nope, God is a fictional character. Period. |
KNOB please quit logging in as joe it is really annoying.
_________________
The Resident Theist
For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. Romans 1:19-20
Check out my weblog at http://romans120.wordpress.com/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
josephpalazzo
Illusion Master
Joined: 30 Aug 2006
Posts: 8036
Local time: 1:45 PM
Location: D-brane
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 12, 2008 5:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| romans120 wrote: | | josephpalazzo wrote: | | romans120 wrote: | | ...your atheism is not a lack of belief in Gods existence but a lack of belief that God is intelligent... |
Nope, God is a fictional character. Period. |
KNOB please quit logging in as joe it is really annoying. |
If that is your best shot, you've lost. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
romans120
Moderator
Joined: 14 Aug 2007
Posts: 1976
Local time: 1:45 PM
Location: mid-west
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 12, 2008 5:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| josephpalazzo wrote: | | romans120 wrote: | | josephpalazzo wrote: | | romans120 wrote: | | ...your atheism is not a lack of belief in Gods existence but a lack of belief that God is intelligent... |
Nope, God is a fictional character. Period. |
KNOB please quit logging in as joe it is really annoying. |
If that is your best shot, you've lost. |
no you lost *thppppgh*
_________________
The Resident Theist
For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. Romans 1:19-20
Check out my weblog at http://romans120.wordpress.com/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
josephpalazzo
Illusion Master
Joined: 30 Aug 2006
Posts: 8036
Local time: 1:45 PM
Location: D-brane
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 12, 2008 6:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| romans120 wrote: | | josephpalazzo wrote: | | romans120 wrote: | | josephpalazzo wrote: | | romans120 wrote: | | ...your atheism is not a lack of belief in Gods existence but a lack of belief that God is intelligent... |
Nope, God is a fictional character. Period. |
KNOB please quit logging in as joe it is really annoying. |
If that is your best shot, you've lost. |
no you lost *thppppgh* |
LOL... trying to evade the issue?
Some may identify with your claim that there is a lack of belief that God is intelligent, but you should remember that atheists don't form a monolithic group. We have divergent views on why we have our stand as atheist. So mine is quite clear. God was invented by men for different reasons, for different purposes at different times. Many of those reasons are of political, social and psychological nature. Most Atheists have come to the conclusion that God and everything associated with is a big lie. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mr_C
Reckoner
Joined: 26 Jun 2006
Posts: 6546
Local time: 11:45 AM
Location: Pale Blue Dot
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 13, 2008 10:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
| romans120 wrote: | | josephpalazzo wrote: | | romans120 wrote: | | josephpalazzo wrote: | | romans120 wrote: | | ...your atheism is not a lack of belief in Gods existence but a lack of belief that God is intelligent... |
Nope, God is a fictional character. Period. |
KNOB please quit logging in as joe it is really annoying. |
If that is your best shot, you've lost. |
no you lost *thppppgh* |
HAHAHAHAHA pwnt. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mr_C
Reckoner
Joined: 26 Jun 2006
Posts: 6546
Local time: 11:45 AM
Location: Pale Blue Dot
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 13, 2008 10:08 am Post subject: Re: Can "God" be rigorously defined? |
|
|
| romans120 wrote: |
Now I have a challenge for you. Since you do not believe in God. Define existence and meaning apart from that eternal object. |
Define God apart from existence.
See what I did there?
_________________
"If we long to believe that the stars rise and set for us, that we are the reason there is a Universe, does science do us a disservice in deflating our conceits?"
Carl Sagan
The Atheist Forums Rules
Summary: Just play nice, mmkay? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Live Video and Chat Room
Freethought Videos
FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Register
