# Define God
**URL:** https://boards.straightdope.com/t/define-god/284623
**Category:** Great Debates
**Created:** [January 13, 2005, 11:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/define-god/284623 "2005-01-13T23:54:48Z")
**Posts on this page:** 20
**Page:** 5
### Author:  [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)
#### Post date: [January 17, 2005, 10:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/define-god/284623/81 "2005-01-17T22:22:38Z")
> [@Liberal](#):
>
> I think it’s interesting information that God exists, and I think the supremacy of Its existence is extremely interesting. Your demand is illogical. There are untold millions of pieces of information about my brother. Whatever might interest you is entirely subjective. Why should your interests interest me?
Because literally **all** you can tell me about God is that it exists. There’s absolutely nothing I can do with this information.
Suppose I tell you that “Merlin” exists. How does this affect your life? I can’t tell you whether Merlin is a cloud, a cat, or a cupcake. I can’t tell you whether Merlin likes you or wants you dead. I can’t tell you whether Merlin is faster than a speeding bullet, lives in Santiago, or died back when druids ruled Great Britain.
Or perhaps I can: perhaps, in answer to any specific, concrete question you ask me about Merlin, I can answer you a definitive “no.” Again, this is useless to me. Does Merlin love me? No. Does Merlin hate me? No. Does Merlin know what I’m wearing? No. Did Merlin create igneous rock? No. It’s like the world’s stupidest game of twenty questions.
And again, it’s wholly unlike the God worshipped by most monotheists. Most monotheists can answer all those questions specifically: God loves me (or hates me); God knows what I’m wearing; God created igneous rock.
One version of the ontological proof means you can’t answer any questions because you’ve got no way of building on the knowledge of “God”; the other version means you gotta answer any positively-phrased concrete question about God with “no.”
That interests you, obviously–but it’s not interesting to most monotheists, and most monotheists define God very differently.
Daniel
---
### Author:  [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)
#### Post date: [January 17, 2005, 11:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/define-god/284623/82 "2005-01-17T23:14:26Z")
> [@Left Hand of Dorkness](#):
>
> Eternal and infinitely old do not seem to be synonyms for me; indeed, if one accepts the idea that time began with the Big Bang, then the universe “prior” to the Big Bang existed in a perfectly eternal state, I’d think.
>
> Daniel
But, as I already cited, the marjority of physicists, including Hawking, have opined that entropy increases inside singularities, which means changing states, which means passing time.
---
### Author:  [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)
#### Post date: [January 17, 2005, 11:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/define-god/284623/83 "2005-01-17T23:19:32Z")
> [@Left Hand of Dorkness](#):
>
> Because literally **all** you can tell me about God is that it exists. There’s absolutely nothing I can do with this information.
No, that’s not correct. That’s all the ontological proof can tell you, but then, that’s all that an ontological proof _ought_ to tell you. Why you are making these absurd demands defies reason. Recall that my post was “I define God as Supreme Being, or Necessary Existence. Its actual existence is easily proved.” When asked to provide such proof, I did — thus fulfilling the member’s request. Why all this your-proof-doesn’t-describe-God’s-whiskers nonsense?
---
### Author:  [@II\_Gyan\_II](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/II_Gyan_II)
#### Post date: [January 17, 2005, 11:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/define-god/284623/84 "2005-01-17T23:26:48Z")
**Liberal** , what’s ‘ontological perfection’?
---
### Author:  [@Ludovic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ludovic)
#### Post date: [January 18, 2005, 12:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/define-god/284623/85 "2005-01-18T00:23:21Z")
> [@Left Hand of Dorkness](#):
>
> And again, it’s wholly unlike the God worshipped by most monotheists.
>
> […]
>
> That interests you, obviously–but it’s not interesting to most monotheists, and most monotheists define God very differently.
>
> Daniel
Which, to me, is the crux of the problem with MOPOG. And while certain people might not like me questioning the semantic relevance of their parlor tricks, that little annoying nit we can pick is extremely relevant to this thread.
If you want to make any headway in discussing the existence of God, you need to, LIKE THIS THREAD SAYS, talk about God in the ways in which the speaker understands Him.
Question him or her about their beliefs, if necessary. If they are fine with the definition of God as merely an entity with NE, then fine, they will be satisfied with the MOPOG.
But, like this thread was supposed to help resolve, you won’t make any headway if the final result is built on shaky premises that the reader doesn’t agree with. Like the common language definition of God.
Ah! but many philosophers agree that God is merely someone with NE. Despite my reservations about this bold claim, even if true, that’s like crying whilst jumping up and down because they don’t agree that every white person in America is racist because they take advantage of the passive advantages being white entails. But speak to the average American and they will tell you that a person is racist if they hold or enforce prejudicial beliefs or policies against a person based on ethnic origin. To the average person, I’m not a racist simply because I _don’t_ get followed by cops at night.
Yet, I could claim that this is a good definition of racism because many social theorists agree that this is racism. Ya dig?
---
### Author:  [@RaftPeople](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RaftPeople)
#### Post date: [January 18, 2005, 3:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/define-god/284623/86 "2005-01-18T03:28:05Z")
> [@SentientMeat](#):
>
> This is confusing “all of time” with “an infinite amount of time”. The singularity is 13.7 billion years away from here, not an infinite number of years away from here. That 13.7 billion years is still the _always_ in that direction.
>
> Singularities do indeed throw up many problems in various fields physics such as thermodynamics and quantum mechanics. You call these ‘metaphysical’ problems, and of course I say that they are still _physical_ problems and that the metaphysical is unnecessary.
>
> [A summary for **Gyan, RaftPeople** and others](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=4599618&postcount=6).
Thank you for the well written explanation in your link.
I read the proof the other day, and my immediate reaction was to discount it due to the definition of terms (e.g. “necessarily”), but after googling for “” and logic I discovered this modal logic and I have not had time yet to dive into the details.
Your explanation was exactly what I was looking for.
---
### Author:  [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)
#### Post date: [January 18, 2005, 11:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/define-god/284623/87 "2005-01-18T11:35:09Z")
> [@II Gyan II](#):
>
> **Liberal** , what’s ‘ontological perfection’?
Necessary existence. Ontology concerns the nature of being.
---
### Author:  [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)
#### Post date: [January 18, 2005, 11:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/define-god/284623/88 "2005-01-18T11:48:28Z")
> [@Ludovic](#):
>
> If you want to make any headway in discussing the existence of God, you need to, LIKE THIS THREAD SAYS, talk about God in the ways in which the speaker understands Him.
Aside from the mere matter of Its existence is Its essence.
My understanding of Its essence is, of course, derived entirely from a revelatory epistemology. I believe that Its metaphysical nature is spirit, Its ethical concern is morality, and Its aesthetic is goodness. If I were asked to describe God according to my understanding, I would describe It as the Objective Reference Frame, a free moral agent like myself That values goodness above any other aesthetic. I would describe Its primary functionality as the Facilitator of Goodness. Goodness I would define as that aesthetic which edifies. Love I would define as the facilitation of goodness. Therefore, I would say that God is Love. I believe that God is eternal — by that I mean that from Its frame of reference, all events simultaneously have yet to occur, are occurring, \*and \* have already occurred. I believe that God is real, and that the universe is not. I believe that It gives every man the desires of his heart. And I believe that the living Christ is Its embodied essence.
I cannot prove any of that, but then, I cannot prove my own existence.
---
### Author:  [@Othersider](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Othersider)
#### Post date: [January 18, 2005, 12:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/define-god/284623/89 "2005-01-18T12:26:44Z")
> [@Liberal](#):
>
> I cannot prove any of that, but then, I cannot prove my own existence.
I was first tempted to post something DesCartesian, but I think instead I’ll ask you if you’re a phenomenologist.
---
### Author:  [@II\_Gyan\_II](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/II_Gyan_II)
#### Post date: [January 18, 2005, 1:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/define-god/284623/90 "2005-01-18T13:30:45Z")
> [@Liberal](#):
>
> Necessary existence.
Does that mean what it literally says? Or something else?
---
### Author:  [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)
#### Post date: [January 18, 2005, 1:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/define-god/284623/91 "2005-01-18T13:45:15Z")
> [@Liberal](#):
>
> No, that’s not correct. That’s all the ontological proof can tell you, but then, that’s all that an ontological proof _ought_ to tell you. Why you are making these absurd demands defies reason. Recall that my post was “I define God as Supreme Being, or Necessary Existence. Its actual existence is easily proved.” When asked to provide such proof, I did — thus fulfilling the member’s request. Why all this your-proof-doesn’t-describe-God’s-whiskers nonsense?
Either my “absurd demands” “defy reason,” or else you’re not paying attention. I know where my money is.
Once more, with feeling: your definition of God=Necessary Existence is wholly unlike how most monotheists conceive of God, which means that it’s got very little relevance to this thread.
If a thread asks, “How do we define ‘personhood’?” and I post, “I consider any entity that can see in the visual spectrum to be a person,” I’d be posting similar irrelevancies.
But I think this whole thing is terribly irrelevant, so that’s the last I’ll say on the subject.
Daniel
---
### Author:  [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)
#### Post date: [January 18, 2005, 5:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/define-god/284623/92 "2005-01-18T17:52:17Z")
> [@II Gyan II](#):
>
> Does [necessary existence] mean what it literally says? Or something else?
It means existence in all possible worlds.
---
### Author:  [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)
#### Post date: [January 18, 2005, 5:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/define-god/284623/93 "2005-01-18T17:58:41Z")
> [@Left Hand of Dorkness](#):
>
> Either my “absurd demands” “defy reason,” or else you’re not paying attention. I know where my money is.
Your demand that an ontological statement describe God’s attributes is absurd and unreasonable.
> [@](#):
>
> Once more, with feeling: your definition of God=Necessary Existence is wholly unlike how most monotheists conceive of God, which means that it’s got very little relevance to this thread.
I would like to see your list of theists who believe that God does not necessarily exist.
> [@](#):
>
> If a thread asks, “How do we define ‘personhood’?” and I post, “I consider any entity that can see in the visual spectrum to be a person,” I’d be posting similar irrelevancies.
Nonsense. Dogs can see in the visual spectrum.
> [@](#):
>
> But I think this whole thing is terribly irrelevant, so that’s the last I’ll say on the subject.
That’s probably a good idea.
---
### Author:  [@Dunderman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dunderman)
#### Post date: [January 18, 2005, 6:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/define-god/284623/94 "2005-01-18T18:12:24Z")
> [@Liberal](#):
>
> Until you find a reputable source, or become capable of formulating a sound argument, as to why entropy would not be 100% in an infinitely old universe, my assertion stands unchallenged.
It’s not infinitely old, it has merely existed always, as there was no time before it. That’s why entropy isn’t 100% yet.
**Liberal** , may I ask you why you insist on calling necessary existence God? _Something_ obviously does and must exist, but you must realise that when you call it God you fill it with a whole sackful of unrelated connotations from various religious traditions, things that aren’t necessary at all.
---
### Author:  [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)
#### Post date: [January 18, 2005, 6:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/define-god/284623/95 "2005-01-18T18:20:37Z")
> [@Othersider](#):
>
> I was first tempted to post something DesCartesian, but I think instead I’ll ask you if you’re a phenomenologist.
Only in the broadest possible sense of the term. The reason I say that I cannot prove my own existence is because of the circulus in demonstrando due to audiateur et altera pars. Before I can do anything at all, including prove my existence, I must first exist. That makes my existence axiomatic. Since my conclusion — that I exist — would be the same as my premise — that I exist — my argument would beg the question ( a petitio principii falacy).
---
### Author:  [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)
#### Post date: [January 18, 2005, 6:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/define-god/284623/96 "2005-01-18T18:37:52Z")
> [@Priceguy](#):
>
> It’s not infinitely old, it has merely existed always, as there was no time before it. That’s why entropy isn’t 100% yet.
If, as Hawking suggests, entropy increases inside a singularity, and if a singularity was the entity from which the universe emerged, and if the singularity was itself not metaphysical (as in beyond physical) — then it seems to me that your assignment of time’s beginning is merely arbitrary and convenient. The increase of energy incapable of doing work implies events, and events imply time. Therefore, there was time before the event called the Big Bang.
> [@](#):
>
> **Liberal** , may I ask you why you insist on calling necessary existence God? _Something_ obviously does and must exist, but you must realise that when you call it God you fill it with a whole sackful of unrelated connotations from various religious traditions, things that aren’t necessary at all.
Well, that’s two questions really (one couched in a comment). As to the first, I insist on calling necessary existence God because Supreme Being is a longstanding, common description of God’s ontology. Please see Sentient’s link, which explains that modal necessity implies ontological supremacy. As to the second, I reckon it’s damned if I do and damned if I don’t: Daniel insists that I comment on God beyond a mere ontological statement, declaring that it says nothing, and that I should describe His whiskers and whatnot. Therefore, I do both. I make an ontological statement about the nature of His existence, and then I make a personal statement about how I see His attributes. I clearly label each as being one or the other, and _still_ I get from you that I “fill it with a whole sackful of unrelated connotations”. I have in fact made every effort to separate the two precisely because of the objection you raise. Rather than coming down on me, why aren’t you explaining to Daniel why I have consistently refused to compromise a purely ontological statement with irrelevant commentary?
---
### Author:  [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)
#### Post date: [January 18, 2005, 6:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/define-god/284623/97 "2005-01-18T18:37:48Z")
> [@Liberal](#):
>
> I would like to see your list of theists who believe that God does not necessarily exist.
:rolleyes: I work for a humane society. Any animal we deal with necessarily exists.
If someone asks me to define a dog for them, I’m not gonna say, “I define a dog as necessary existence.” Nor will any other shelter worker.
Daniel
---
### Author:  [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)
#### Post date: [January 18, 2005, 6:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/define-god/284623/98 "2005-01-18T18:40:10Z")
> [@Left Hand of Dorkness](#):
>
> :rolleyes: I work for a humane society. Any animal we deal with necessarily exists.
>
> If someone asks me to define a dog for them, I’m not gonna say, “I define a dog as necessary existence.” Nor will any other shelter worker.
>
> Daniel
If dogs existed necessarily, then we would find them filling all of space and time, including in our hair and on the moon. I’m not sure you quite understanding the meaning of ontological perfection.
---
### Author:  [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)
#### Post date: [January 18, 2005, 6:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/define-god/284623/99 "2005-01-18T18:46:57Z")
> [@Liberal](#):
>
> If dogs existed necessarily, then we would find them filling all of space and time, including in our hair and on the moon. I’m not sure you quite understanding the meaning of ontological perfection.
So where do you get these portable goalposts, or do you have to make them yourself? This is why my instinct to bow out was right: you don’t debate honestly. Follow the thread back.
Daniel
---
### Author:  [@Dunderman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dunderman)
#### Post date: [January 18, 2005, 6:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/define-god/284623/100 "2005-01-18T18:55:29Z")
> [@Liberal](#):
>
> Well, that’s two questions really (one couched in a comment). As to the first, I insist on calling necessary existence God because Supreme Being is a longstanding, common description of God’s ontology. Please see Sentient’s link, which explains that modal necessity implies ontological supremacy.
I read that a long time ago, and I would still like to see your response to his comments.
> [@](#):
>
> As to the second, I reckon it’s damned if I do and damned if I don’t: Daniel insists that I comment on God beyond a mere ontological statement, declaring that it says nothing, and that I should describe His whiskers and whatnot. Therefore, I do both. I make an ontological statement about the nature of His existence, and then I make a personal statement about how I see His attributes. I clearly label each as being one or the other, and _still_ I get from you that I “fill it with a whole sackful of unrelated connotations”.
No, you’ve misunderstood me. I would have posted what I did regardless of your statements about his attributes. What I meant was that when you use the very word “God”, it immediately, whether we like it or not, carries with it connotations. When you say “God’s existence can be proven”, as you often do, you do not deliver the idea “necessary existence can be proven” to your listeners. You deliver an idea containing, precisely, a whole sackful of unrelated connotations such as omnipotence (or at least extreme power), omniscience (or at least enormous amounts of knowledge) and so forth.
> [@](#):
>
> Rather than coming down on me, why aren’t you explaining to Daniel why I have consistently refused to compromise a purely ontological statement with irrelevant commentary?
Mainly because I don’t think Daniel has done anything wrong. It is quite understandable that he misunderstands your statements, simply because the word “God” carries so much baggage.
I’ll read the Hawking cite and get back to you on that one, as I’m in the middle of washing up after dinner and my roommate is shooting some evil looks my way.
[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/define-god/284623.md?page=4)
[Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/define-god/284623.md?page=6)