- The god that is all acts of love(agape), past present and future.
Let me try it another way. Whenever I’ve seen an atheist describe God, I can see the contradiction or the way they’re refuting this God pretty much from their very description.
So the God they’re describing is the one that has the contradiction of X in it. And that’s why they don’t believe it.
What I mean by narrower is that it’s a pretty neat and tidy package. It doesn’t have any fuzzy edges around it. As some people have noted here, once God gets fuzzy, they don’t accept it.
Is this god actually composed of agape (which makes no sense to me), or is that something he/she/it does? Is this an entity defined as being loving, but not specifically having other attributes (sentience, power, etc.)?
Or is this definition 3, 4, or 5?
I define God as a very good idea. God = good. It is helpful for people have a reference point for the difference between good and evil. So, I like the idea of God and I like the idea that there is a difference between good and evil. I believe that being good is better than being evil. The concept of God helps us define what wants and desires are vs. needs.
Hmm… No it’s not composed of agape in that sense of the word. It’s something that it does, but it’s doing comprises its essence. This god has other attributes that can correspond somewhat to human attributes, such as jealousy, wrath, power, etc. Sentience? I would say yes.
That’s only if you regard unconditional love as valuable or mentally healthy, or as a gift that can be accepted( If he gives it to everyone you get it whether you accept it or not). I really don’t see how moving closer to what you describe as God would be anything other than literal insanity, since that’s what I regard unconditional anything as. I certainly don’t see it as making you more “fulfilled”, but as more irrational and dangerous to yourself and others.
Also, since you and others keep going on about love, I’ll say that I’m not all that impressed by love; I don’t regard it as especially virtueous or beneficial.
I’m rather indifferent to theology, since I regard it as nonsense, and tend to regard Christian terminology as deliberately confusing.
And don’t give me a lecture about how I shouldn’t criticize Christian theology unless I study it in detail; I don’t need to be a scholar about it to know it’s nonsense, any more than I need to study in detail every claim of UFO abductions or psychic powers. As well, if I tried to study in detail every religion I disagree with I’d fail, since there aren’t enough hours in the day. And, frankly, I don’t think it’s worth that much time.
I dont wish to sound santimonious, but I hope you someday change your mind on what I quoted. A life without love, love of ANY kind, is a sad and hollow one.
You equate theology with UFO’s and psychic powers? You might find refuge on The Dope with that mindset, but that doesn’t make it any less silly. Neither of us wish to get into a showdown most likely, but I’ll just say that nobody has written a “Gospel according to Alf” before.
Btw, I wasn’t lecturing you. It was only a question.
I didn’t say that love couldn’t be good, or that it was always bad; I just don’t consider it good in itself.
What makes it silly ? If anything, I rate UFOology as higher on the plausibility scale than theology.
To me, many of the definitions of God in this thread are indistinguishable from the random sequence of words strung together by spam generators. Can’t we get down to brass tacks?
Did God create the Universe?
Did God set things in motion (or define the natural laws) and go away or does God still intervene?
Are the acts of God discernible; i.e., do they differ from what you would expect by chance alone?
Does God intervene in human affairs as a result of praying; i.e., if a cancer patient prays and/or is prayed for is there a difference in outcome?
Does God judge people when they die and decide what becomes of their soul?
How would the universe differ if there were no God?
How would the disposition of your life change if you did not believe in God or follow God’s proscribed laws?
These are the things that seem important to me. This God is love (or archaic Greek word), God is “necessary” stuff just seems too vague to have any real meaning or importance.
these are sort of the questions I asked in my (largely ignored, but spawned the idea of listing possible gods, I suppose) earlier post trying to give some grounding to the debate. Namely, a common theme element such as those types of questions.
well, that sort of begs the question, doesn’t it? To an atheist, the question should be framed "how the world be different is there WAS a God?
Again, begging the question. On the other hand, since the OP is technically “define God”, it stands to reason if one is giving a description of God, it’s existence is presupposed, but it still makes it extremely difficult for an atheist attempting to define the lack of a God, again a substitute may be “What would a God impose as his law, if you were to have some substantial reason to believe that it should be followed”. Also, some beliefs may not state specific laws of God.
all that said, these questions along with the last 10-15 posts do seem to be what I was getting at earlier, that instead of all of these shot-in-the-dark scrabble games, why not try to ground the debate in a series of accepted common terms and questions that must be answered in a valid definition.
For purposes of this discussion, let us set aside which world is characterized by existence. I think you know how I would argue that. Nevertheless, these two attributes, morality and neguentropy, were not selected at random. They were selected because they are pertinent to the examination of goodness as edification. Therefore, it is the negation of these particular attributes that were of interest for the purpose of answering your question.
I’m not sure who “we” are, but the supernatural world is all about morality. Goodness is a thing of value (an aesthetic) and not a measure of behavior (an ethic). This notion was central to the teachings of Jesus. Goodness edifies in the sense that it adds value to the moral agents who share it. That’s why I balk at the notion of homosexuality being a sin. If a man fulfills the longings of another man, both becoming happier and more loving as a result of their actions, it can only be called good.
Incidentally, I define sin as the obstruction of goodness. Since love is the facilitation of goodness, love and sin are opposites.
I agree that there is no — well, not no, but little — correlation between goodness in the supernatural world and what we call goodness in ours. But that’s only because we call the wrong thing goodness. We call obeying the rules goodness, and thus have made goodness a matter of ethics. But Jesus teaches that that is a mistake. For one thing, we are incapable of obeying the rules because the rules are designed for perfect beings. Recall that His own moral imperative is “Be perfect”.
What we should call goodness instead is that which edifies. Consider, for example, the overture made by MrDibble in this thread. It was not good because of some rule stating that he should mend his relationship with me; it was good because he greatly increased the value of our relationship. He made me happy, and he doubtless was happier himself. We both shed a burden, letting go of baggage that did nothing but weigh us down.
With respect to God being perfectly good, there is no such thing as stasis. Life in neither world is a photograph. If God is moral, then He is constantly increasing the value of moral relations. He must be perfectly good to do this; otherwise, there would be relations that are not increasing in value, and by definition they would not be good. The commandment to love is a commandment to edify someone — to cause them to see the beauty and the value in themselves. That’s the sort of love Jesus teaches about.
Well then, I’m sorry I missed that. 
I don’t agree with that.
Well sure, but that’s only because an implication with a false antecedant is true no matter whether the consequent is true or false. I mean, we can say that if George Bush is a genius, then the moon is made of green cheese, and that’s a true implication. But a supreme being is indeed possible because of the fact that it is necessary.
For these purposes, supreme and necessary are synonyms because of the relation on frames (Euclidean). If there is in actuality no being that is supreme in all possible worlds, then that means that there is the possibility that some being might yet be found who fits the bill. Failure to use the Euclidean frame — if X is related to A in W and Y is related to A in W, then X is related to Y — leaves us discussing epistemic, rather than metaphysical, possibilty. In other words, it becomes not a matter of what is actually possible or impossible, but a matter of what we know. We would find ourselves in a position analogous to the frustrated science student trying to prove that 1+1=2 by experiment.
I think it’s very important that we not equivocate with respect to our modals. The notion of metaphysical possibility itself demands that there be something necessary in all possible worlds because each world shares the attribute of possibility. And so, for example, every possible world must have at least one true statement. Otherwise, we would have worlds that are possible but don’t exist, or worse, worlds that are impossible but do. It cannot be a matter of what we know. It must be a matter of what we can prove.
No, I’m sorry. We’re just at an impasse on that if you actually believe that “we” (whoever that may be) have disproven supremacy.
Will do. 
For understanding, it’s important to keep in mind the definitions given, which are new to you, I realize, but if I’ve defined love as the facilitation of goodness, then you cannot understand if you read “love” as something else. God is love because God is the facilitator of goodness. That means that He behaves in that regard like any other facilitator — acting to smooth out the path and remove obstacles between two moral agents (i.e., people). He cares what we do only to the extent that goodness is increased proportional to how many moral agents (He and we) are facilitating it, just as there is more capacity to a manifold if it has more chambers. He values goodness above all else, and so desires to see it grow. Our (and His!) reward and punishment are one and the same. He quite simply gives us the desires of our heart. If we do not value goodness, then He does not force it upon us because that would not be good just as forcing freedom on a person would not make the person free. He would be subjugated to our demand. Therefore, what is heaven for the man who values goodness would be hell for the man who values evil. God values X. If a man values Y, then God gives him Y. But it is silly to say that God should impose Himself upon the man who values Y. If the man valued X, no imposition would even be necessary. Surely, as an atheist, you do not wish for God to force you to believe in Him. That would violate your own volition.
It might be helpful to expose these modals. It is much less complicated than it appears at first blush, and is really just a matter of common sense. This particular kind of modal logic deals with three modals: necessity, actuality, and possibility. They form a common sense hierarchy, begining with necessity. Every necessary thing is also both necessarily actual and necessarily possible. Every actual thing is not necessarily necessary but is necessarily possible. And every possible thing is neither necessarily necessary nor necessarily actual.
Why all the adverbs (“necessarily this and that”)? Because a possible thing, for example, might not actually exist. It is possible, say, to build a house out of Dr Pepper cans, but that does not mean it has ever been done. Nor does the world we live in have to have a house made of Dr Pepper cans in order to exist. But if there is something that the world could not exist without, then that thing is at the very least actual (otherwise, the world wouldn’t be here).
That’s what made Einstein’s Relativity Theories so beautiful and special to logicians. They were entirely deduced by logic and proved that light and gravity must behave they way they do, else the universe would be something other than what it is. There was no question (at least in the minds of logicians) about whether science would confirm the theories. It had to; otherwise, something would have been wrong with science.
Does that help?
The god that does nothing and cares not one whit, yet still deserves “worship.”
The problem with “love” is that it’s as difficult (impossible) to define as god. And it’s not always a good emotion (and by the way, what does “good” mean?). Think of paralyzing love that makes someone give up their life to sit by the phone waiting for a call that isn’t going to come. Think of the “loving” parent who doesn’t want to complicate their child’s life by turning them in for excessive drug use. Think of the boyfriend who loves his girlfriend so much that he kills her rather than let her begin a new relationship. It’s no wonder there are so many definitions for god and love; they’re both internal emotions that mean different things to different people.
There is really only one definition of love, unconditional. If love isn’t unconditional it just isn’t love. Think about it.
Every axiom is a statement of faith in the sense that it is unprovable, which is what makes it an axiom. (Note that I’m using the terms “axiom”, “premise”, and “postulate” interchangeably — denoting a statment taken to be true without proof.) But to be clear about where I stand on logic, it tells me only what must follow from the premises I select. Every logical proof stands on one or more unprovable assertions, just as science stands on an unfalsifiable principle.
There also isn’t much that logic can tell me descriptively about the supernatural world other than ways in which it is analogous to ours. Analogics is itself just another branch of logic, and an analogy is just another kind of logical statement. The problem with analogies is that they necessarily cannot be identical to their analog; otherwise, they would be their analog. That makes argument by analogy frustrating because someone can always say, “Yeah, but your analogy X is different from Y because X has A but Y has B.” Anologics requires a very sharp mind for discerning what is pertinent and what is not. If I draw an analogy between the sun and a tennis ball for the purpose of discussing yellow globes, it would be an analogical fallacy to point out that the analogy fails because the sun fuses hydrogen while a tennis ball does not. That’s why I had to clarify to Voyager why I chose two particular attributes from the natural world to negate. He began to bring up attributes that were irrelevant to the point.
And so Jesus describes the spirit (supernatural “atoms” of a sort) in metaphors (also called “parables”), painting pictures of the supernatural world with analogies. People sometimes ask why He doesn’t just speak plainly, and as He Himself explained, there is no natural frame of reference by which the supernatural can be expressed. And so there are three epistemologies (theories of knowledge) that must be brought to bear: science, logic, and revelation. The former two may be used in some cases to test the latter one.
With respect to making a statement of faith and stopping there, it just isn’t in my nature. I can’t do that. I had to know. I wanted to know whether anything made sense about it. Whether it would imply other things that are true. Whether anything of consequence could be concluded based on the premise. But even so, the logical arguments have no impact on the basic faith itself. I would believe even I couldn’t prove anything logically. I have to. I have no choice in that regard any more than I could choose to stop believing my mother loved me. I’d have to deny my own experience — deny my own self.
Another point to raise here, perhaps, is that despite all the focus on my epiphany, it is not the case that I have had one and only one experience with God and have since found Him elusive. I experience Him daily. Of course, I will not blame you if you say, “Yeah but you’re just experiencing something else and calling it God.” In your shoes, I would feel the same way. We all are bound by our frame of reference.
Hate can be unconditional, as well. This is not a definition; it’s a modifier.
Lib, I’m not sure how you figure that god wants goodness for us. Or that god wants anything for us at all. Or that he facilitates. Our own needs or desires facilitate good or bad in our lives, and the two are not always defined the same way by everyone. To personify god as having wants or abilities is a pretty big leap. Sometimes we create our own reality and sometimes our reality is created by outside forces, no matter how badly we want “good” in our lives. Simply wanting something is not enough to make it happen.
That’s kind of funny, actually, because the whole purpose of this thread (note its title) was to solicit definitions. Notably, you did not chastise any of the people who scoffed at providing one.
I believe the words I use are sufficiently defined; in fact, I always go out of my way to define them. I’ll bet I’ve defined goodness, for example, in practically every thread in which I’ve discussed it. Same for love. Even notwithstanding all that, mathematics does not get a free pass. Every mathematical proof contains certain undefined terms. That is necessary because of the nature of definitions. If we have to define the terms that define the terms, then we get into a recursion of definitions that never ends.
Define X. Well, X is ABC. Define A, B, and C. Well, A is DEF, B is GHI, and C is LMN. Okay, but define D, E, F, G, H, I, L, M, and N. Oy.
Consider, for example, Russell and Whitehead’s proof that 1+1 = 2, using the Peano Axioms. Among the undefined terms is the very critical “successor” which underpins the entire Induction Axiom. That’s just the nature of the thing.
We all use shorthand to speak informally, just as you did. A wiff is not a sequence of symbols; it is a statement that is grammatically correct. But I knew what you meant, and what I mean by “the supernatural obtains” is what I said I meant: the statement that the supernatural exists is true.