Religion General Discussion : Can "God" be rigorously defined?

The Infidel Guy Show
The Debate Hour Show
Faith and Freethought
3 Podcasts, One Feed

or visit this page.

FAQ

Memberlist

Usergroups

Profile

Live Video and Chat Room

Freethought Videos

Blogs

Weblogs News

Embed Our Player

~ TIP JAR ~

Can "God" be rigorously defined?
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4 Next

AtheistForums.com Forum Index -> Religion General Discussion

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

kmisho
Stochastic

Joined: 05 Dec 2005
Posts: 4276
Local time: 12:37 PM
Location: Richmond, Virginia USA

Posted: Wed Feb 13, 2008 1:12 pm Post subject:

romans120 wrote:

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

I knew this was what you were going to say if you were going to say anything at all.

You are NOT talking about existence. You are talking about FORM. There is no new material in my body that did not exist in some other form previously. Nothing had to come into existence for me to be as I am.

You are confusing existence with form.
_________________
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

romans120
Moderator

Joined: 14 Aug 2007
Posts: 1785
Local time: 9:37 PM
Location: mid-west

Posted: Wed Feb 13, 2008 1:27 pm Post subject:

Mr_C wrote:

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.

Ok ok I know I'm a geek but I can't go any longer without finding out what this "pwnt" or any derivative of it means?
_________________
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/

BarkAtTheMoon
O Captain, my Captain

Joined: 20 Dec 2004
Posts: 4348
Local time: 10:37 PM
Location: Wilmington, DE

Posted: Wed Feb 13, 2008 1:37 pm Post subject:

romans120 wrote:

Mr_C wrote:

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.

Ok ok I know I'm a geek but I can't go any longer without finding out what this "pwnt" or any derivative of it means?

If you were really a geek, you'd already know what it means. Cool

Pwn.
_________________
"The very existence of flame throwers proves that some time, somewhere, someone said to themselves, 'You know, I want to set those people over there on fire, but I'm just not close enough to get the job done.' - George Carlin

"I hope that someday we will be able to put away our fears and prejudices and just laugh at people." - Deep Thoughts by Jack Handey

Mr_C
Moderator

Joined: 26 Jun 2006
Posts: 5920
Local time: 8:37 PM
Location: Pale Blue Dot

Posted: Wed Feb 13, 2008 1:38 pm Post subject:

romans120 wrote:

Mr_C wrote:

HAHAHAHAHA pwnt.

Ok ok I know I'm a geek but I can't go any longer without finding out what this "pwnt" or any derivative of it means?

An acronym or Text message shorthand used in online chat, IM, e-mail, blogs, or newsgroup postings, it is intentionally misspelled and is considered online slang for "owned."
Other derivations:
Owned
Pwned
Pwn3d
Pwn3t
Own3d
etc...

romans120
Moderator

Joined: 14 Aug 2007
Posts: 1785
Local time: 9:37 PM
Location: mid-west

Posted: Wed Feb 13, 2008 1:39 pm Post subject:

kmisho wrote:

romans120 wrote:

Jutter wrote:

Ok I understand the amount of material existence in our universe is set and matter merily changes forms. But you would have me to believe that it doesn't function that way outside or when our universe was created and set in motion. That finite and temporal things generated what we exist in. My point is at some point you have to have a infinite and non-temporal object because nothing is nothing something will not and can not come from nothing. And infinite and non-temporal in my mind are just ambigous versions of eternal and self-existent. That object is God. It may or may not be conscious, it may or it may not be intelligent. But it does fit the most basic definition of God. So do you agree that object exists and just don't like the fact that I call It God or do you have a disagreement with my premise?
_________________
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/

romans120
Moderator

Joined: 14 Aug 2007
Posts: 1785
Local time: 9:37 PM
Location: mid-west

Posted: Wed Feb 13, 2008 1:43 pm Post subject: Re: Can "God" be rigorously defined?

Mr_C wrote:

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?

As I have defined God and demonstrated what I mean by it. How can something be defined apart from it's priori?
_________________
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/

romans120
Moderator

Joined: 14 Aug 2007
Posts: 1785
Local time: 9:37 PM
Location: mid-west

Posted: Wed Feb 13, 2008 1:45 pm Post subject:

Mr_C wrote:

romans120 wrote:

Mr_C wrote:

HAHAHAHAHA pwnt.

Ok ok I know I'm a geek but I can't go any longer without finding out what this "pwnt" or any derivative of it means?

AHHH I see.
_________________
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/

Mr_C
Moderator

Joined: 26 Jun 2006
Posts: 5920
Local time: 8:37 PM
Location: Pale Blue Dot

Posted: Wed Feb 13, 2008 1:55 pm Post subject: Re: Can "God" be rigorously defined?

romans120 wrote:

Mr_C wrote:

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?

As I have defined God and demonstrated what I mean by it. How can something be defined apart from it's priori?

You see, you can't have the creator of existence also "exist". You have to make up a term for that, such as "self-exist", which is just blatant stealing the concept.

pwnt. Laughing

romans120
Moderator

Joined: 14 Aug 2007
Posts: 1785
Local time: 9:37 PM
Location: mid-west

Posted: Wed Feb 13, 2008 2:19 pm Post subject: Re: Can "God" be rigorously defined?

Mr_C wrote:

romans120 wrote:

Mr_C wrote:

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?

As I have defined God and demonstrated what I mean by it. How can something be defined apart from it's priori?

You see, you can't have the creator of existence also "exist". You have to make up a term for that, such as "self-exist", which is just blatant stealing the concept.

pwnt. Laughing

I am not really talking about a creator of existence. I'm talking the object that just is and put things in change and in motion. The definition of a thing that "just is" would be self-existent. Because it "just is" and was not formed from anything else.

Pwnt
_________________
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/

baddogma
antitheist

Joined: 01 Feb 2006
Posts: 8455
Local time: 11:37 AM
Location: Colorado

Posted: Wed Feb 13, 2008 2:33 pm Post subject:

No that would be: _________________ 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....

Mr_C
Moderator

Joined: 26 Jun 2006
Posts: 5920
Local time: 8:37 PM
Location: Pale Blue Dot

Posted: Wed Feb 13, 2008 2:51 pm Post subject: Re: Can "God" be rigorously defined?

romans120 wrote:

Mr_C wrote:

romans120 wrote:

Mr_C wrote:

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?

As I have defined God and demonstrated what I mean by it. How can something be defined apart from it's priori?

You see, you can't have the creator of existence also "exist". You have to make up a term for that, such as "self-exist", which is just blatant stealing the concept.

pwnt. Laughing

Ah, but if no question-begging-concept-stealing-existence-creator isn't necessary and a thing "just is", then this definition would fit the cosmos quite nicely. No God necessary.

pwnt

Edit: "isn't"

Last edited by Mr_C on Wed Feb 13, 2008 3:12 pm; edited 1 time in total

Noggin

Joined: 13 Jan 2004
Posts: 996
Local time: 9:37 PM
Location: Columbus Ohio

Posted: Wed Feb 13, 2008 2:52 pm Post subject: Re: Can "God" be rigorously defined?

romans120 wrote:

Mr_C wrote:

romans120 wrote:

Mr_C wrote:

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?

As I have defined God and demonstrated what I mean by it. How can something be defined apart from it's priori?

You see, you can't have the creator of existence also "exist". You have to make up a term for that, such as "self-exist", which is just blatant stealing the concept.

pwnt. Laughing

And that "just is" is ...... drum roooolllll ......

existence

Woohoo!

You cannot define a god without using existence or that which is in existence, so that would tell me that existence came first, not a god.

Even if we try to warp our minds into some contradiction that a god is beyond our understanding of it's existence, we cannot then say what that god is. How could we if we just put it, by definition, outside of human understanding?

And one last thing,
"A contradiction cannot exist in reality. Not in part, nor in whole. To believe in a contradiction is to abdicate your belief in the existence of the world around you and the nature of the things in it, to instead embrace any random impulse that strikes your fancy - to imagine something is real simply because you wish it were. A thing is what it is, it is itself. There can be no contradictions." Wizard's ninth rule - SOT

-Noggin

Daggett
Forum Leader

Joined: 22 Jul 2007
Posts: 553
Local time: 8:37 PM
Location: Kansas

Posted: Wed Feb 13, 2008 3:50 pm Post subject: Re: Can "God" be rigorously defined?

romans120 wrote:

Mr_C wrote:

romans120 wrote:

Mr_C wrote:

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?

As I have defined God and demonstrated what I mean by it. How can something be defined apart from it's priori?

You see, you can't have the creator of existence also "exist". You have to make up a term for that, such as "self-exist", which is just blatant stealing the concept.

pwnt. Laughing

You postulate an object that exists without having been caused to exist. I see no problem with that. Whatever physics tells us the fundamental existents are would suffice for that, as far as a simplistic (and possibly incorrect) view of physics goes.

But you then postulate, in the same sentence, that this uncreated stuff caused everything else to move. There are at least two problems with this: 1) You didn't say anything about what caused the other stuff to exist, if it was caused; 2) you neglect the fact that if something requires a force to cause it to change behavior, then so would this "self-existent" stuff require a force for the commission of its actions--so something else had to exist before this "self-existent" stuff could act.

It's the same classical argument--no improvements, just different terms.

Theist or atheist, no one I am aware of--not even you--believes that existence (including God, in your case) was ever static. Assuming I speak for everyone on this, everyone believes there was always motion--action--at any one time (I include potential for action in this to appease Joe, since my statements might otherwise contradict quantum mechanics). This means that something has always been happening, that there was no beginning, because from absolute nothing (and flatline potential for QM stuff to occur), nothing can come.

baddogma
antitheist

Joined: 01 Feb 2006
Posts: 8455
Local time: 11:37 AM
Location: Colorado

Posted: Wed Feb 13, 2008 3:54 pm Post subject:

Imagining material to come about....Matter. In the Big Bang wasn't hydrogen the only matter? I took stars to produce the rest of the periodic table no? _________________ 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....

Jutter
Quixotic Cloggy

Joined: 26 Jul 2003
Posts: 6384
Local time: 3:37 AM
Location: Den Helder, the Netherlands

Posted: Wed Feb 13, 2008 4:01 pm Post subject:

Others already posted what I would've posted in reply. George H. Smith also adressed this issue in his "Atheism; The Case Against God". It's within the framework of the universe (meaning all that exists) that explaination is possible. Subsequently asking for an explaination for this framework itself renders the term "explaination" meaningless. _________________ ~ Let us be reasonable ~ You want to claim there's such a thing as the "supernatural"? Fine. I hereby declare that proposition "paracorrect". "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.

Display posts from previous:

	AtheistForums.com Forum Index -> Religion General Discussion	All times are GMT - 5 Hours Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4 Next
Page 3 of 4

Jump to:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum