The larger point, however, was simply that the claim that it is contingent on non-believers to precisely define what they don’t believe doesn’t hold water. Nor did I say anything about “all of metaphysics”: you’re simply misrepresenting me in the way I think you likely misrepresented SM. It’s simply that the concept of god is generally so grand and presumptive about a particular metaphysics that it’s fairly easy to identify whether one has a belief that fits the bill, however anyone is going to define it. I’m aware of countless god concepts, none of which I believe in. I’m also aware that there are probably lots of others I’ve never heard of. I don’t need to know the definitions of the others to know that I don’t believe in them, because knowing those definitions is a pre-requisite for believing in them.
(I am terribly afraid that none of this is actually going to make any sense.)
I believe that non-physical, possibly conscious, forces are a part of the universe, and that they are essentially incomprehensible to people.
I think that ‘gods’ are what happen when people try figure them out. Because of this, I think that most gods end up being externalizations of different parts of human nature.
Ergo: the gods people believe in are man-made creations, but they are a conduit to the actual higher forces in the universe.
I also think that Sage Rat’s description of human nature and endorphins is very interesting, and warrants further consideration.
- Orual: Lapsed pagan, part-time Buddhist, and probably not articulate enough for GD
The problem, as I see it, is what some atheist said: we mostly all disbelieve in the same gods; I just disbelieve in one more than you.
When debating with any particular theist, it’s not the atheist’s definition of god that matters. It’s the theist’s. The atheist doesn’t believe in God under myriad definitions, same as the theist, and if the atheist is trying to guess which particular definition of god this particular theist accepts, the atheist is going to waste time.
Instead, it is incumbent on the theist to provide the definition that they do believe in: that definition is the only point of contention between the atheist and the theist, and it’s inappropriate to ask the atheist to figure out what exactly that point of contention is.
Note that there are some definitions of God by which I am a theist. For example, if someone says that God is Love, and that’s the long and short of their definition, I’m not going to argue with them: I certainly believe in love. I don’t find that a particularly useful definition, but whatever. Similarly, someone who defines God as the known cosmos makes me a theist by their definition.
But most folks use the term God to refer to something else, and that something else, while varied and interesting, tends to be something I don’t believe in.
Daniel
I think the OP is flawed, too, but I’ll respond after I explain.
I have no problem holding atheists and theists alike to a standard which requires them to understand the concept they’re arguing against in each instance, but the OP seems to be asking atheists to construct a concept which they consider false as a means toward mutual understanding. I have to say, this sort of reverse Socratic method while intriguing seems ill suited to the task of mapping common ground.
-What I mean is that, rather than starting a small group of explorers from an agreed set of principles, you’re tasking each of us with sketching either the terrain we think we see around us which may not be perceived the same way by others or the terrain we think others are describing and which doesn’t match what we see around us. It may take us more time than we’ve got to find each other again.
Now that I’ve impeded the thread’s progress a little, I’ll try and play a bit more nicely, although probably not very helpfully…
God is: The meaning of life, the universe, and everything.* I think this probably remains ineffable, even though we are all part of the big Question and the big Answer. But I think effability is far less important than most other aspects of existence.
*[sub]I’d like to check Douglas Adams’ work; I think his answer is incomplete. 
[/sub]
koan: If you meet the Buddha on the road, kill him.
For myself, God represents yet unsolved mysteries about ourselves, our nature and the nature of the universe. We are still exploring the nature of consciousness and how connected we are or aren’t to each other and our planet. How much does the state of our consciousness have a real effect on our lives and the quality of life around us? God also represents the hope of self discovery through the inner journey.
We can be in awe of the amazing interplay of life around us and through the inner search, seek to find our place in the world and encourage others to find theirs.
Now see…I’d use the word “curiosity” and “hope” in this case.
“God” is the manifestation of the human brain’s ability to seek and embrace connections between observed phenomena, writ large. It’s an attempt to describe a wide variety of events whose causes and manifestations are mysterious under a comforting umbrella term.
That seems somewhat circular. God is a god because he’s the one necessary being, and we know he’s the one necessary being because he’s a god. Why is it there can be only one necessary being? (i’d ask why it must be necessary, but that would be getting on a tangent).
Actually my point was rather that it could be a successful comunication, if flawed in that we have a misunderstanding over what an orange is. If I, and the other person, both think that the creature known as a whale is called an orange, then we’ve successfuly communicated. I intended to convey something about (what I know as) oranges, and they recieved information about (what they know as) oranges. But it’s a flawed definition, because actually that’s a whale.
And that’s the point. I can’t define your God by saying “Yep, he’s red. And he wears a hat”. I could, but it would be an incorrect definition. You can’t just define things anyway you want - it’s not just a matter of communication.
But in believing in your God, you disbelieve that any other gods exist instead, or that any other gods exist with your God. And you don’t have a definition of “god”. Shouldn’t you too know what “a god” is in order to say it doesn’t exist?
I didn’t know you’d had a very limited formal education. I guess it just seems odd that you’d consider yourself able to say “My idea of God is the right one” without having anything to compare it against (besides the Greek/Roman gods).
How about this, then; imagine a god that is entirely the same as your God except for one detail; this god has a colour preference of blue. Would this being be a god?
[looking at the tiny end note]
Are you kidding? That has never stopped me before! 
But really, I constantly ponder something similar to your ponderings, the difference is that the evidence so far shows to me that he/she/it/them are not so interested in this neck of the woods.
When one considers how vast the universe is and how unlikely is the oasis where we are, I do think that many modern philosophers that still consider the possibility of an old fashion God (or the currently proposed one in the OP) to be way, way off the mark.
Assuming for a moment the existence of creatures or entities that qualify as gods:
IMHO the real “action” in this universe is closer to the center of galaxies, where possibly those entities, Similar to Arthur C Clark’s creatures of radiation, would think that finding self aware intelligent life (almost at a parasite level in comparison to them) in the dumps of the galaxy to be an odd thing.
Sure, they can believe edification is beautiful and valuable, but then it is like us pondering what is beautiful and valuable and then we don’t bother to teach that to the ants over here. IOW, I come to the conclusion that it is not that they could not interfere or think of us, but I think they are working with the model that not interfering with us is a valuable thing.
I think they would be smart enough to realize that non-believers do have a point in not worrying to much about them, and it is silly for many in this planet to demand to them to take care of the non-believers over here in their puny earthly prayers.
Not necessarily - it is possible to have your own definition of God which precludes belief in him.
I’m an atheist,and to me, God is the mental construct created by people for whom the World-as-it-as is not enough.So, created to fill their belief deficit. By understanding God as a negative, as a lack of completeness in the believer, I better comprehend why I do not believe, and why I’m OK with that.
See, it’s a definition that makes sense to me, but believing said definition in no way stops me being an atheist.
Of course, it also probably makes me come across as a smug superior ass, but I can live with that.
I’m off to bed, I’ll reply to any comments arising from this tomorrow.
I don’t understand the comment that the OP is “flawed”. The OP simply asks people to define God. How is that a flaw?
Also, how is asking an atheist to define what he’s talking about a straw man?
In general, if you want to know whether I believe in X, then you’ll have to define X before I can tell you. I’ll be happy to hear anyone explain how X can either be accepted or rejected without knowing what X is. But please offer an actual explanation rather than an incredulous remark.
And Apos, if I “misrepresented” your position — despite asking directly whether I had misunderstood you — are you sure you want to risk even further degradation? We might save some time and bother for both of us if I go ahead and concede that I am incapable of understanding your position or of representing it properly. You have stated it, and there it is. Why don’t we just leave it nice and pristine.
Sure. Months ago in some other thread someone who was an atheist I think, perhaps an agnostic, described their own feeling of wonder and connection and I saw that we thought exactly the same way. There’s no reason for semantics to separate us. If someone says “I believe in God” that doesn’t tell you much about what kind of person they are. They might be great they might be judgmental assholes. Same goes for atheist, agnostic, Jew, etc. etc.
Personally, I’ve been wondering if the term God can only be realistically used to describe Omnipotent governing being which I don’t eagerly embrace. Still, I see many people who use the term as a reference point. It may be easier for them to personify that expression of awe and hope. If that works for them that shouldn’t be a problem right?
Lib, might I suggest that you take your apparent total lack of comprehension of pan- and polytheists’ gods, and attempt to empathise with those of us for whom your God, and their gods, are the same thing.
Your God is as unreal to me as polytheists’ gods are to you.
You’re saying “define what I, Liberal, believe in”. Well I can’t - no more than you can understand the beliefs of cargo cult worshippers. Your question, to this atheist, is akin to someone asking you to define Thor, Wotan, Thoth, Baal, Ganesh, Shiva, Ra, Annapurna, Ram, Sakyamuni, Tin Hau, Kitsone, Kappa, Pho Lha, etc. etc. etc. Oh, and Prince Philip the divine.
Your OP just doesn’t make sense to this atheist, at least.
I too immediately thought of the OP as flawed. In particular, it looked almost like a trap for atheists to present a definition that they “didn’t” believe in, only to be jumped with “haha well that’s not my definition, ergo what you don’t believe in is silly” or “why do you have a definition just to not believe it, you’re contradictory”
at any rate, Lib seems to have made it clear enough that he asked the question in an honest spirit thus far, so I’m going to make a stab at this:
First of all, I’d like to put up a string of definitions, since this debate doesn’t seem to have much grounding, and I think it’d be good for people to be able to identify with some “base” positions and then draw distinctions:
Traditional “gods”: views generally held before the rise of major monotheistic religions defined Gods as Supernatural Beings with often human characteristics who would rule specific domains of the earth (eg. the Gods of Mount Olympus, Egyptian Gods) These gods were fallible, but very powerful, and dabbled frequently in human affairs
Judeo-Christian God (OT): Generally in the OT it seems as if “God” is not the only god, merely claiming to be the most powerful God and the only one worthy of worship, namely, the only one who had the power to specifically affect, protect, or judge his chosen people wherever they were, repeatedly demonstrating said powers in a series of miracles. Claimed to have created the Universe.
Judeo-Christian God (Modern): The only God, the creator, omniscient, judges people after death based on their adherence to revealed laws. Specifically to the Christian religion, judges based on whether or not they have accepted that he sent his only son to redeem the world of their sins. Son demonstrated many physically impossible miracles (in a literal reading) that only God claims to have the ability to do (I suppose angels can work miracles too, but that’s sort of a sidenote since they directly serve Gods). Silent for some time, last confirmed scriptual activity is the writing of the Koran (or maybe the book of Mormon, I suppose). Some claim this God’s work is apparent in “everyday” miracles, and some still seek healing from him and some claim to receive it, though this is difficult to verify. Depending on who you ask, either very forgiving or rather strict.
Universal God: God is all around us, S/He/It created the universe, , and is pervasive to it. All actions are some reflection of God. Depending on who you ask, God may or may not specifically interact with His universe at some point. Other camps find that emotions, especially love (oddly, never hate) are manifestations of feeling near God. Generally does not have a specific view of afterlife.
Emotional God: “God” as a literal thing may or may not exist. Generally, God is referred to as what seems to be a convenient analogy (as the highest level of disbelief) for the reasons for love and good in the Universe, or simply a description of a “force” that seems to bind us together in some way. Possibly a provider of or reason for morality, and not to do evil, although the belief is generally too diffuse to have a specific definition for this morality
**Generic “Entity” God:**An entity of some sort, could have created the Universe, possibly provides or oversees morality. Could judge us in the afterlife. Generally the sort of entity that an agnostic can’t decide if he believes in. Also used by people who have developed specifics of the three “could haves” above but don’t fit in to any generally recognized religion.
No God: The Universe was created by and continues to exist due to purely physical properties. There is no “supernatural” that cannot be explained by definable physical laws (whether or not they have been discovered yet). Generally believes in no conscious afterlife.
myself, I believe in a Generic God, mostly as a stop-gap explanation for the very beginning of the universe and my completely unfounded beliefs about the afterlife. I don’t think God interferes with affairs in the Universe directly.
Thanks for trying, Lib. I mean it…just as much as I mean that the above-given definition is Greek to me – a language that happens to escape me.
That being said, I bow out of this discussion as gracefully as possible.
All the best.
I usually ask the questioner to define “God.”
I agree wholeheartedly with this. To me, the very concept of “God” is nonsense.
I’m trying to not let it stop me now, anyways.
… and this is where one gets into the murky, unprovable, difficult-to-explain realm of personal experience.
Of course, I think it’s foolish to expect other people to base their beliefs on my personal religious experiences.
If you don’t mind my saying so, I don’t think you’ve given a ‘definition’ per se as much as a reason as to why you are not a believer. A reason with which I don’t have much truck, btw.
So again, I’ll stick to my guns and say that if I had some sort of god definition that made sense to me, odds are rather high I’d also believe in same.
As it stands now, all the definitions I’ve read or heard (and that, in itself, tells me there’s a total lack of consensus on what “god” is amongst believers) are so nebulous and/or easily refutable as to be meaningless. I refer you back to Lib’s own attempt to answer my query. As I told him in my prior post, I can’t make head or tails out of said response.
Can you?
It seems to me that when people talk about a god, there are some standard characteristics. It is a being that is intelligent like humans, and typically more so (perhaps infinitely more so). It has purpose - things it wants and dislikes. It is also able to do things that violate the default laws of physics (the ones scientists formulate and we mortals are limited by). This would be my definition of god. As an atheist, I find it extremely unlikely that any such being exists.
A god also typically is very concerned about how humans behave, especially our sex lives, and about whether we believe in it and worship it. This seems to be even more unlikely.
A god’s mind is normally assumed to exist without the benefit of a physical brain. Again, I find this extremely improbable. Intelligence is a very particular and complex ability some animals have and it seems particularly adapted to helping a body survive in a competitive environment with limited resources. It does not seem like something that would pop up out of nothing.