No more silly then defining “God” as “Reality”.
[QUOTE=Maggie the Ocelot]
So someone up thread posited the Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal as being the Judeo-Christian God? That’s just silly.
[/QUOTE]
It was me (sheesh, it wasn’t THAT far up the thread ;)), and it was in response to an attempt to simply define God as Reality, by fiat acclimation. I was making an equally silly assertion that if I define God as the RBBoT then that would, ipso facto, make God fictional. 
-XT
But that’s the thing. I think a lot of times when people say “God”, they aren’t thinking necessarily of a specific god at all. They’re thinking of some sort of benificent Creator-spirit, who may or may not have any defining characteristics beyond that.
Specific gods have defined characteristics from their various mythologies. YHVH - wrathful, likes the Jews best, jealous, doesn’t like to come down to Earth, trolled the HELL out of Abraham, doesn’t want his followers to eat pork. Jesus - has existed forever but for a short time manifested physically on earth, sacrificed on the cross, rose again on the 3rd day, is all about forgiveness and love and stuff (mostly). Odin - one eye, broods a lot, has pet ravens, rides an eight-legged horse, respects bravery in battle, will fall at Ragnarok.
If you’re arguing for a Deist sort of god, you are NOT arguing for a god that fits the defined characteristics of either YHVH or Jesus. If you are arguing that God is Nature, or Eternity, or the Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal - that’s cool, and worth discussing - but again, that’s not the same Deity described in the Torah or the New Testament.
I shall refute this with dual paradigms.
Number one I call the Gender Redistribution Hypothesis:
[ul]
[li]“If my aunt had balls he’d be my uncle.”[/li][/ul]
Number Two I call the Crusher Conundrum:
[ul]
[li]“If there’s nothing wrong with me… maybe there’s something wrong with the universe” - Dr. Beverly Crusher Remember Me[/li][/ul]
You’re assuming monotheism. If Zeus is annoyed by the Sun shining in His eyes when He’s napping, He goes to Apollo or Helios about it - He can’t just smite the sun down without repercussion.
[/QUOTE]
As said, capital-G God means the standard monotheistic God.
That already defines it as the Christian God, since that’s pretty much a Christian/Muslim concept. The idea that there’s a singular creator god which is referred to by the term “God” comes from there.
You’re confusing epistemology with ontology.
Untrue things can be well-defined. I can have a very precise mental image of exactly what a unicorn is. That doesn’t mean that my thoughts about unicorns are true.
Conversely, my thoughts about real-world entities can be vague and contradictory. For example, I happen to know that there’s a real animal called a quagga, but I have no idea what one looks like, or where they live, or what their habits are. For me, “quagga” is not a well-defined concept. It is, however, a true one.
Unless God is actually the Great Green Arkleseizure. A hypothesis not yet disproved…
That’s what I said: Anselm. 
I mean thanks.
We already have a term for “all”: the universe. Calling it something else doesn’t change it. It would mean that God has the exact same attributes as the universe: uncaring, impersonal and random, which I suspect isn’t what you have in mind for God.
Stop me if you’ve heard this before…If you count a dog’s tail as a leg, how many legs does it have?
Four. Counting the tail as a leg doesn’t make it a leg.
I thought about going with the GGA, but I thought it would confuse things too much, on the off chance the OP knew the books. 
-XT
It reminded me of anselm and Descartes a bit.
So then what does make that distinction?
When you define “God” as he does. Duh!
NB-which he is yet to do. And won’t be able to outside of ethereal mumbo-jumbo, abusing word definitions to suit their purpose & ‘personal experience’.
I’m excited though, this is like nothing we’ve ever read before on here.
I was referring to your use of “necessary.” It was just an example of a self-contradictory definition of god. But I clearly did not limit definitions of god to this one. Assuming we don’t go to silly extremes - Augustus was called a God by the Romans, Augustus existed, thus God exists - give me a definition and I’ll refute it.
Even the deity defined in the New Testament doesn’t seem to be well defined, with different sects saying he loves gays or hates gays. This, and your first point, is exactly what I was referring to. A believer can’t expect an atheist to demonstrate why the god he believes in makes no sense when he can’t even describe the god he believes in.
It is like if a doctor is asked to create a cure for Bonkus of the Conkus, which is a disease which sometimes makes you feel tired on Monday or glad on Tuesday, and can be found in a leg, an arm, or nowhere at all. She can’t come up with a cure? What kind of doctor is she, anyhow?
I think this gave him that idea:
**
**
and this:
I know I’m late to the party, but I didn’t see anyone here point this out explicitly. Are you for real, Invictus?
Yeah, his first name is Yahu-Wahu. According to some sources, anyway…
According to Peoplesmart, he’s 27 and lives in Portland Oregon.
I hate to break it to you, but quaggas don’t exist.
Anymore.
Kind of like God.
And that OP is the poorest restatement of the Ontological Proof I’ve ever read.
Wait…I thought Donkey Hodey lived in Someplace Else?