I think the OP wants the definition of a universal God that encompasses, or at least touches, all definitions of God. That is impossible. If you ask to define the Christian God, you may have more luck. Although I doubt you could get a universal definition even then.
And, usually when someone says “God does not exist”, they have a definition of what they are claiming doesn’t exist.
<sticks head back in the door>
Polycarp hits the nail on the head.
CivilGuy, even the blind men would agree that the elephant is not cold as ice, has physical form, is larger than an ant, never speaks English, etc.
<trundles off to bed>
What about Buddhism? I haven’t studied that much, but do they even have a god in the Judaism/Christianity/Islam sense? Buddhism to me seems like a philosophy in search of a god.
Buddhism is the classic example of a real religion without a god – one’s goal is to achieve enlightenment, and thus transcendence of the world, without reference to any deities who may or may not have created or play roles in the world. Their existence or non-existence is irrelevant to the spiritual quest of the Buddhist.
One can simply say that “god” is the sum-total of all the physical laws that run the universe…
But this smacks of an early Church heresy; the Creator is NOT one and the same as the Created.
Looks like the number of Buddhists are significant.
What definition of “game” do we generally agree upon? Who should I appeal to for an answer? The dictionary? But it lists multiple definitions of various levels of exclusion, some not even obvious at first. When you first hear “game” perhaps you think of physical or mental competition within some rule set; it is doubtful that you’d think of the number of points to win (“That’s game”). And should they both occur to you at the same time? Is “game” so strange a word that at one time it can refer to the activity and another the rules which govern the activity? Why, it might even depend on who I ask… like if I said, “Oh, they’re playing a game of ring around the rosie,” and someone responded, “That’s not a game. There’s no way to win.” But could I apply that criteria to a four-spades contract in rubber bridge?
What do you expect of words?
That’s a strange way of looking at it. How many people in the entire world must be hold-outs before you accept the universiality of a definition? If everyone but one lone guy in China agreed on some subset of properties, would that be ok? I don’t mean this to sound like a silly question, but I can’t help it. The question that I feel needs answering is what your criterion of universiality is really meant to do, and whether it applies to most words at all, nevermind a term like ‘God’.
This is not a realistic standard for almost the entire English language.
Do you feel the term ‘God’ should mean precisely the same thing in these three statements: “God damn it,” “God be praised,” and “There is no God.” What about ‘mom’? When you say, “I love you, mom,” and I say, “I love you, mom,” is mom universally defined? Does it refer to all mothers everywhere when I say it? If so, it is a strange use of the singular term “you”, and if not, then there are no mothers, since no one can agree who mom is.
I’ve read this before, I think. Wittgenstein?
Shhh… it’s the only trick I have. Don’t spoil it for me! 
i agree with you here. i disagree that any proposition (presumably made in the op) with a meaningless referent has any meaning. the classic example, and the one i had in mind when i said i don’t like propositions whose sole purpose is a statement of existence, is bertrand russell’s “the golden mountain does not exist.” this is clearly a meaningless statement, as if there is no thing we can refer to as “the golden mountain”, how can we say whether or not it exists? so, statements of nothing but existence are hard to parse, as if statement p is true, then ~p must be false. however, if the golden mountain does exist, the statement “the golden mountain does not exist” is still meaningless. but i digress…
well, i guess i might quibble about the definition of “opinion”, in this case. when i say i prefer it, i mean that it seems to me to be the default status. that is, if i told you there was an IPU looking over your shoulder as you read this, yet you could not prove it, the default proposition would be that there is no such IPU. i’m not sure if that is or is not “opinion”, but it certainly seems to me worth considering as fact, given the way we consider facts and opinions and how the shape our view of the world.
i think we definitely agree that if x does not refer to anything, any statement about x would be meaningless. if i may, for a moment, speculate, however, one might construe the statement “god does not exist” as "there is no thing to which we would refer as ‘god’ ". if that is the case, the statement is meaningful even if “god” refers to nothing. so it then does have a status higher then opinion. i’m not sure if that’s what the op means, but if it is, (s)he is correct. but then, that just goes back to whether or not the statement “god exists” is meaningful whether or not “god” refers to anything.
anyone who’s debated with erl in the past knows his tendency toward the wittgensteinian. however, i think this thread screams for wittgenstein. if we knew to what the word “god” was supposed to refer, we could presumably conclude whether there is something in this world we consider god. the fact that we don’t, however, creates confusion, and thus a philosophical problem.
what did everyone think of my two criteria for “god”, though? i’d hoped that that was the important portion of my post, that god must have volition and that we ought to worship god. if we don’t attribute at least the latter characteristic, the debate on whether or not god exists in this universe is not one many people would bother having.
I’ve got a question. Are you requesting a definition for God, the Western deity, or for the properties of some god? God is personal, but the deistic god is not. God created the universe, but Zeus did not. The answer might help us narrow this down some.
Well, I like Poly’s post, and Sample says it’s right on the nail in terms of what he’s looking for in his OP. So I’m going to go with that.
So what we want is a concept of God which the broad mass of theists in America and similar societies would identify with (though not necessarily every single theist.
I suggest this; God is an entity who uniquely possesses the characteristic of having created all things other than himself.
That. I’m confident, will take in pretty well all the Christians, all the Jews and all the Muslims, with only the most minor exceptions. And it may well bring in many of the remaining theists as well.
We could add other characteristics which many or most theists would agree on, but we shouldn’t because
(a) the characteristic already identified is sufficient in itself to define God
(b) the addition of further characteristics cannot increase, and can only reduce, the broadness with which our definition is accepted by theists, and
© arguing or proving that a God possessing those other characteristics would not show that God did not exist; merely that the person asserting those characteristics had misunderstood the nature of God. (As for instance disputes about whether God is or is not a Trinity tell us nothing about whether a creator God exists or not.)
Since God seems undefinable under this OP’s paradigm, maybe a definition of something we can agree on and that is significant to the OP’s question.
the·ism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (thzm)
n.
Belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in a personal God as creator and ruler of the world.
Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary
Main Entry: the·ism
Pronunciation: 'thE-"i-z&m
Function: noun
: belief in the existence of a god or gods; specifically : belief in the existence of one God viewed as the creative source of man and the world who transcends yet is immanent in the world
Not that it takes away from what many have already said.
<tries to wake up>
Good morning. Some interesting stuff up there.
Let’s just deal with God rather than gods – that is, God as the monotheists would see it.
So we’re talking about the Golden Mountain, not any golden mountain. If the Golden-Mountainists claim there is one Golden Mountain, but they don’t agree on any of its characteristics, then it’s difficult to understand how one who believes the Golden Mountain exists can turn to someone who says “I believe that’s hogwash” and say, “That’s just your opinion, and it’s as good as mine” – especially if they claim (as many theists do) that all the Golden-Mountainists are really describing the same mountain, but that they understand it differently.
It’s too early to start getting into common characteristics of games and love – I thought of some for love last night, btw.
The game analogy doesn’t apply here, tho, I think. I’m not asking for a definition of god that must apply anywhere the term is used (certainly not in expressions such as “Oh my God”). No one claims that there exists One Game. I’m asking for, citing the OP, “the fundamental characteristics of God which [mono]theists generally agree upon”. So no, the lone guy in China wouldn’t be allowed to throw a wrench in it.
Ramanujan sums up my position rather well here, I think (although for consistency’s sake, I’ll sub qubakaar for invisible pink unicorn):
Oh my qubakaar, it’s 6:00. Gotta get to work.
Btw, this is not a troll-thread. (I’m thinking of those “gotcha” threads re obvious contradictions in scripture that seem intent only on stirring up trouble.) Some ideas have been introduced here that I’m going to have to think a lot about, and which may cause me to change my thinking. And that possibility is what makes the post worthwhile for me.
Unaware of you, I did not see your inquiry. I define God as Supreme Being, or Necessary Existence. Its actual existence is easily proved.
If easily proved, then I can assume you have posted that proof in some thread.
I would be interested in reading it, can you help me find it?
If you define God as “necessary existence”, then proving its “actual” existence shouldn’t be too hard. Do you prove this God to be a separate entity?
Here’s one version:
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=5294698&postcount=72
You’re right, and that’s why I selected the adverb “easily”. All that is required is the acceptance of two premises: (1) it is possible that God exists, and (2) if God does exist in actuality, then It must exist necessarily.
Separate from what?