I’d like to hear and discuss definitions of God. If you wouldn’t mind a preemptive strike, I’d like to avoid drive-by potshot definitions from either extreme. Neither from one extreme — I define God as a figment of your imagination — nor from the other — You’ll know how I define God when you’re burning in Hell — will be helpful. If you think God is a figment of my imagination, then define it better than that because that’s too broad. Do you mean hallucination? Made up lie? Brain damage? What exactly. And if you think God is going to send me to Hell, explain why. What quality or qualities does He possess that led Him to deem me to be worthless?
I think it’s especially important for an atheist to make a cogent definition of what it is he does not believe in; otherwise, how can he know he does not believe in it? I do not believe in unicorns, but as an aunicornist, I can define for you what it is that I think does not exist. I suppose an agnostic might well say, “I don’t know what God is”, and in fact that view might well be the very root of his agnosticism. If you are an agnostic of that sort, explain what makes it difficult for you to pin down a definition.
We can discuss and question one another’s definitions, but please let’s keep it civil. Let’s not pile-on any particular person, and let’s respect the views of all who are participating sincerely and in, well, good faith.
For me, God in the broadest sense is that which exists necessarily, which means that He cannot not exist. He exists in every possible world, meaning that truth is contingent on Him. But more essentially, He is a free moral agent Who facilitates goodness, meaning that He freely and volitionally serves as the conduit through which goodness may be shared among free moral agents. Goodness I define as that which edifies, in other words that which creates, builds up, or improves. In my view, goodness is an aesthetic — that is, it is something of value. Some people value it more than others do, and some people do not value it at all. God is the free moral agent Who values goodness above all else.
I think this part of your question is terribly flawed. An atheist is one who doesn’t believe in a god that someone else proposes. You are only an aunicornist because someone has sufficiently defined unicorns. How can you say if you are either a gurtilblawist or agurtilblawist without first having a sufficient definition of gurtilblaw?
Well, to “define” something means to describe its limits. To say what it is, and just as importantly, what it is not. Most people regard God as George Kaplin just described him - as omni-everything.
Well, logically, if something has no limits, it cannot be defined. Even the universe itself has been described as “infinite, but bounded.” That is still a limit that most people would not wish to ascribe to God. It almost gets into a zen-like statement of, “That which can be talked about is not the true God.”
But here’s where it gets interesting. What do we say of the mathematic statement x divided by zero? It is undefined. If, in our calculations, we come across an undefined statement, we know we are in error. That which is undefined cannot exist.
So, if God can be defined, he is not God. If he can’t be defined, he doesn’t exit.
Next, I will go on to prove that black equals white and get myself killed at the next zebra crossing.
You’ve made this point before, but I hope to convince you that it is a mistake. As a non-believer in some grand metaphysical framework or idea, I really don’t have to nail down specifically what version or exact sort of it I don’t believe in.
Non-believers really DO have an advantage here in not needing to nail this down, because all they have to do to confirm that they don’t believe in something is search for anything even vaguely fitting into the category, discover that there is nothing like that in their minds, and return the answer that they do not believe in God… in any sense that the word is used.
The other important point is that it is in the end really not our job or our responsibility to know the definitions of things we don’t believe in. If what “God” really means is “teakettle” then I could see that might have a point: maybe atheists really are missing the awesome teakettleness of God. But since most concepts of God involve some pretty abstract and grand claims that would be pretty darn hard to overlook in our hypothetical “mind search,” it’s generally always safe to say that I don’t believe in them even if I don’t know of each and every last permutation of those claims. If someone thinks they have merit, then they can introduce me to them and present arguments for belief in them. Even theists do not know every last possible definition of other Gods they might not agree with before ever encountering those concepts. Atheists should not be placed under burdens or suspicions for being the same position as theists with specific definitions that do not encompass all possible Gods.
While I think strong agnosticism (i.e. the belief that it is impossible to know what God is) is self-refuting, I think the atheist agnostic, or non-cognativist agnostic does generally have a strong point in arguing that in practice, most of the claimed God entities would be so far beyond human understanding that any statements about their motives, desires, intentions, moral goodness, or anything other of the sort is rendered almost incoherent, washed out by an infinite number of equally likely alternatives.
I think you’re trading in some semantic confusion here. Be careful in mixing terms like “undefined” between different disciplines.
It’s a lot safer to point out that defining what you are claiming exists is a pre-requisite to successfully arguing that it does: or even believing that it does. This is the weak non-cognitivist position on the issue. And note the distinction between arguments and conclusions. The weak non-cognitivist position is that if you can’t really define what something is, it’s pointless to claim to be proving that it exists, or even to say that you believe in it. If you can’t define it in some coherent fashion then saying you believe in it is like saying you believe in square circles. You can SAY you do, but “square circles” is just two words clumped together: no actual understanding of what a square circle looks like actually exists behind the words.
However, this is a sort of practical meta-position on ARGUMENTS. What you did in your post was jump to conclusions i.e. argue that if we lack a definition for something, we can conclude that it therefore doesn’t exist. But that’s not going to work because we just before agreed that we lacked a good definition: you can no more claim a God you can’t define DOESN’T exist than you can claim that it does. How would you know WHAT didn’t exist if you already agreed that you didn’t know!?
The reason is NOT that by asserting a non-cognitivist position that you have disproven some claim, but rather that you have simply called to everyones attention the disappointing reality that no one really knows what we’re talking about.
Right, but that’s the point of this thread, “Define God”. Hopefully, we can see how far apart our definitions are and whether there are any commonalities at all. If not, then we’re no worse off. But if there are, then maybe atheists, theists, and agnostics can all communicate better.
I think I can understand you better when I know what you’re talking about. Take for example your statement: “An atheist is one who doesn’t believe in a god that someone else proposes.” You have used a word — god. In your mind, it must have a meaning (else, why use it). I would like to know what that meaning is so that I can understand you better.
I’m not sure what gave you that idea. I mean, I defined God as I see Him monotheistically, but that does not mean that anyone else has to. You can say you have multiple definitions comprising more than one God. I’d love to hear them.
I’m an Athesit. I’ll give my definition (even though I shouldn’t have to). God is something that makes a difference in the universe; i.e., it has a tangible effect on something that otherwise would not occur within the set of “natural laws”.
So to me, if someone says God exists but you can’t see, hear, taste, or observe any tangible interaction with the universe I see it as mental masturbation similar to the contention that someone sneaks in every night and replaces everything I own with identical copies.
On the other hand, if they believe God does make some tangible difference we can at least have a discussion.
No, what I said was that if something CAN’T be defined, we are safe in saying that it doesn’t exist. Much like your example of square circles. I take your first point, though. I was being somewhat facetious in that.
But as I pointed out, that wouldn’t make any sense. WHAT are you saying doesn’t exist? If you can’t define what x is, making statements about “it’s” non-existence is sort of bizarre, because you just admitted that you don’t know to what those statements apply to. Once you’ve taken the non-cognitive position about a claim X, it doesn’t make any sense to then jump to the position that X doesn’t exist. The non-cognitive position stops the train at the station before any statements, pro or con, can get out.
I think this is a great definition that encompasses all the main religions and most of the smaller ones. If god doesn’t make a difference in the universe, there’s no reason to worship it.
The best summation of God as I interpret God (whether God exists or not) is quite possibly- not surprising considering my demographics- in a showtune. It’s the title song in The Color Purple (skip to caps) and its reprise .
And like unicorns, fairies, and dragons, there are many god definitions one picks up by being in a culture. Each theistic concept I’ve encountered strikes me as either unfalsifiable, incoherent, or a silly semantic game. Therefore, I am an atheist. I’m sure I could not list all god concepts I heard even if I cared to. At their core, most claim gods to be something supernatural. A few seem to define gods as nature. The rest do a mixture of the two.
So there are two or three definitions of god for you. Not very detailed, right? That’s my point. Atheists giving one usable definition of a god makes no sense because there are so many. Here’s a challenge for you… define all the gods you don’t believe in.
There’s a subtle but very important difference between responding to a unicornist (who has just defined unicorns) with “I am an aunicornist and I am prepared to debate the issue with you”, on the one hand, and starting a conversation with “Hi, I am an aunicornist, any of you unicorn-believing folk wanna debate me?”
Hi, I am someone responding to the “I think it’s especially important for an atheist to make a cogent definition” statement and I don’t see how your point relates.
“God”, as I use the term, means that there is cognizant intentionality that is successfully causing outcomes.
That’s as close as I can come to outright “definitive”; there are other characteristics that I think properly apply to God, but if (for example) Liberal, Friar Ted, or WhyNot did not consider those characteristic to apply to God, I might nevertheless continue to think we were both discussing God and having a difference of opinion about the specific characteristics thereof; whereas if someone used the word “God” but considered “God” to exist but all cognizance and intentionality to not exist, I’d be more inclined to say “That word doesn’t mean to you what it means to me”.
Just to complicate things, I don’t consider God to be an entity that possesses personal consciousness, human-style, e.g., experience of the passage of time or a tendency to start thinking about something on Monday, mull it over Tuesday through Thursday, come to a conclusion on Friday, rethink it the following Wednesday, etc… but rather that intentionality and consciousness as we understand them do exist in the world, in the patterns of how things are and the rules and laws that govern how things work.
I’m not necessarily disagreeing with you… if you only identify yourself as an aunicornist, atheist, agurtilblawist , etc, in response to someone else’s exposition on the existence of unicorn, god, or gurtilblaw, there’s a definition in place — that of the person who so expounded — and you’re certainly entitled to disbelieve thereupon.
Without accusing you of doing so, I was noting that a hypothetical aunicornist could start a conversation with people who had as of yet expounded on the existence of no such thing, and that in such an environment as that, it is the aunicornist who needs to identify the definition because as of yet no such definition is in place within the confines of that conversation.
It sound’s like you have a point to make but I’m not getting it. At least not in the context in which it appears. Please reread Liberal’s statement and my response and then tell me what therein prompted you to write what you did.
