I guess what I’m trying to say is - a circular definition is a logical fallacy whether there is a competing definition or no. It doesn’t stand on its own legs.
But that’s just a disagreement. I don’t think a disagreement on your part necessarily constitutes a flaw on my part. 
And I don’t really care about beliefs, but rather about definitions. My only concern with respect to belief is its doxastic precision.
Then he need only say that he defines God as any supernatural being.
Yes, it was, thanks.
I don’t believe in any god which does not exist necessarily, which does not facilitate goodness, and which does not value goodness above all else. And I’ll go one further: I define reality as that which is eternal, necessary, and essential. Whatever is not all of those is not real.
How convenient. How do you figure that bad things aren’t real? And how do you feel that god is necessary if so many people live entire lives without belief in god? Does this not seem to you to be a construct of your own doing, to please you and the things *you personally * hold dear?
The Tao Te Ching starts out:
The tao that can be described [or spoken, or understood, or various other words depending on which translation you look at] is not the eternal Tao.
In a similar way, I think, a god who can be defined is not the true God.
Of course it does! Why would I invest myself into something I don’t care about? But I don’t understand the relevance of your observation. I’ve defined what I believe in and what I don’t believe in. If you don’t like my beliefs, open a thread in which the point is to discuss them.
As an atheist, I would say that there are two broad definitions of God that I specifically reject.
The first is the ‘superhuman’ God. Not necessarily the popular image an old bearded man living in the clouds (as I suspect very very few people actually believe that), but something close to that. A personality with thoughts and feelings and desires, who created the universe and the human race with specific aims in mind, who ocassonally meddles in human affairs and who can be spoken to on a personal level. This seems to be the sort of God that the fundamentalists and creationists believe in, and this is also the sort of God that can be argued against with real facts. We should expect to find all sorts of evidence of His meddling and we just don’t. Q.E.D.
The second is the ‘transcendental’ God, the sort that much more educated, intelligent and eloquent religionists seem to talk about. Here, God is everything that is good, or nature, or love, or beauty, or the potential for human kindness, or a combination of any of those concepts. In my opinion, this can be dismissed just as easily. I can experience all of those things and be awed by them but adding the ‘God’ label to them as a sort of metaphor does nothing to enhance them and can sometimes even trivialise them.
Those are two extremes, and there’s a huge grey area between them where I expect the beliefs of most religious people lie, but if I don’t believe in black or white then I won’t believe in any particular shade of grey either.
That’s an interesting take, and would make for a great discussion. God is that which cannot be defined. It’s almost like division by zero. Not how I define Him, of course, but very interesting all the same. Thanks!
Thanks! I can understand exactly what it is that you’re rejecting.
Well, earlier in the thread you said,
But defining god as things that may or may not mean the same thing to everyone gives the person the responsibility of defining it as opposed to god defining it. If I say killing kittens is a good thing and you don’t which opinion does god side with? By doing so, you’ve created a personal god that only means something to you; the definition is utterly meaningless with regard to it being worshippable.
I have no problem with your feeling that way. What I’m interested in is how people define God. The reason I posted the thread here instead of IMHO is because of (1) the religious nature of the topic, and (2) the potential for witnessing. As I’ve said many times over, I’m not interested in what people believe or don’t believe about God; I’m interested in how they define or describe what it is they do or don’t believe IN — the nature of the object they are accepting or rejecting. If you need an example, look at Wayward’s post above.
Why should anyone have to define god? Shouldn’t god define god? You know…just so there’s no confusion?
I would wholeheartedly second this notion.
One thing I can’t really grasp is the idea of an omnipotent, involved, and interested God that only represents the beauty, truth, and love of the universe, and allows evil to persist. Are there people who believe specifically in non-omnipotent versions of God that allow for evil because God CAN’T control everything? People who assign the same powers to Satan (or any other evil force) that rival God’s (thus essentially elevating said evil to God-Like status)? What about people who believe God also encompasses evil as well, whether by nature or for some ineffable reason?
Perhaps. The fact is people do use it and do have definitions that vary quite a bit. Worship can and does include things like , wonder, awe, gratitude, communion, seeking that connected feeling.
When I say, “I love ice cream” or “I love my son” you don’t think they’re the same do you? One is mundane. One is not.
I think you make a valid point and and perhaps the term should be reserved for the omnipotent creator being but as of now, it isn’t. How would you suggest people express their feeling of something more, and something transcendent, without using that term? I think it’s a way for people to share that common feeling and the details after that are another matter.
Well, as I said earlier, if god exists, it’s up to it to let us know what it is. This is a pointless exercise because everyone has their own idea that others may or may not agree with. Since god refuses to make itself known once and for all, I have to assume that everyone’s opinion is nothing more than a wild guess with a dash of personal preference.
Hmm…okay, if that’s what you’re talking about, then I suppose I could say that I don’t believe in any god that exists, that facilitates goodness, or that values goodness above all else, in addition to not believing in any of the gods that you also don’t believe in.
But this is the problem that I was describing. When talking with you, it’s helpful for me as an atheist to explain that I don’t believe in the “necessarily exists” God. That wouldn’t be helpful were I talking with Polycarp, with Jerry Falwell, or with my mom.
That’s because I’ve got a plethora of gods I don’t believe in; so do all the theists out there. The point of disagreement between you and me is not Jerry Falwell’s angry god; both of us don’t believe in that definition of God. It’s not my mom’s abstract semi-Presbyterian god; both of us don’t believe in that definition of God. It’s not the Hare Krishna’s blue monkeydemon-fighting god; both of us don’t believe in that definition of God.
In order for me, as an atheist, to have a discussion with a theist, I need to find out which definition they do believe in. That’s the one that matters for the discussion. If it turns out that they define God as “Love,” then it turns out we don’t have a point of disagreement; but it would make no sense for me to enter a discussion with (for example) Osama bin Laden claiming that we agree on the point of God because my working definition is that God is Love.
I have no working definition for God. I’ll go by the definition used by the theist with whom I’m talking.
Daniel
Right. I take it as an expression about that person rather than about God.
There we have it, folks. “God” is a typo.
I’m not sure I agree with this. Quasars exist, but it’s not up to them to let us know what they are; we have figured out what they are through some brilliant scientific work.
However, quasars are detectable, and those making claims about quasars may be meaningfully challenged on those claims. In my mind, this makes claims about quasars more interesting than claims about God. I do agree with your final thoughts, more or less: I think that folks’ opinions about God are fundamentally unconvincing. Not necessarily wrong, but there’s nothing there with which to convince me, as long as they define God in a manner that cannot be supported through evidence.
Daniel
Well, most people’s definition of god defines it as something “knowable” as well as all-powerful. If it isn’t at the very least, all-powerful, then who cares what it is? If it is as the major religions define it, it has the capability of letting us know, but chooses not to. Why?