God Revisited

[Inter.spem.et.metum]

Why is the debate over God always about existance? Why can it not be about definition? If a definition were created that did not bring into question a supernatural being or an entity that was seperately active, could a person choose to define that as God without falling into the same category as traditional thinkers on such a topic?

 

For example, right and wrong have many definitions for many different people. Each person can justify their own idea of how each is distinguished. But that does not make any personal definition correct or incorrect. And just because there is no concrete definition for right and wrong, does not negate their existance. Some may say otherwise, although they still have a concept with which to base what is right and wrong on, and that is relativity. They say there is no right or wrong, but claim that "IT" is individually created.

 

So if I were to say that a scientist has a God, and it is science, would I be wrong?

 

If I chose to call God by another term, perhaps a philosophical term, would those who choose not to believe in "GOD" be more open to the idea?

[C1ay]

OK, define God. Just make sure your definition satisfies EVERYONE.

 

Me thinks you might find more solace in the position of Ignosticism. It is the view that the question of whether or not God exists is inherently meaningless because (1) the notion of God has no consistent definition among the various religious factions, and (2) all definitions of God refer to words that do not point to anything verifiable or testable in the 'real world' but only to presupposed 'attributes' extracted through an arbitrary collection of other words.

[Moontanman]

Why is the debate over God always about existance? Why can it not be about definition? If a definition were created that did not bring into question a supernatural being or an entity that was seperately active, could a person choose to define that as God without falling into the same category as traditional thinkers on such a topic?

 

For example, right and wrong have many definitions for many different people. Each person can justify their own idea of how each is distinguished. But that does not make any personal definition correct or incorrect. And just because there is no concrete definition for right and wrong, does not negate their existance. Some may say otherwise, although they still have a concept with which to base what is right and wrong on, and that is relativity. They say there is no right or wrong, but claim that "IT" is individually created.

 

So if I were to say that a scientist has a God, and it is science, would I be wrong?

 

If I chose to call God by another term, perhaps a philosophical term, would those who choose not to believe in "GOD" be more open to the idea?

 

Why is it important to have the concept of God at all? Does having a God change anything? Will the sun fail to come up if we dispense with the concept of god? Does believing in the concept of a God help us in any way? Why even bother to define the concept of God. Why not just go on with out any superstition at all?

[Inter.spem.et.metum]

Clay,

I have my own definition of it. But to ask me to satisfy anyone but myself with such a definition is absurd. Even those who hold beliefs closely related to mine would still think differently to some degree. But one point I would like to make is it that if I did call it God, those who already have a predisposition against the word God would immediatly claim that it didn't exist. Ignosticism fails to prove itself after any amount skeptical evaluation, just as many religions do. The only premise that Ignosticism can stand on is that words are arbitrary, which of course where I was going any ways. But if words are arbitrary, then the definitions of God in each religion do not contradict each other. Only the idea that is created in each persons mind does. It is their choice to consider whether or not God is inconsistantly defined from one religion to another. A definition can be composed that does give God verifiable attributes.

 

Moontanman,

The word God does not have to take on supernatural attributes. But your response obviously shows that you believe so.

 

One point I am trying to make is that because of people's predefined notion of God as presented by some religions, some people choose to deny any idea that has the word "God" in it. Rather than have a discussion about an idea or concept that is not supernatural and is applicable in our daily life, they make it their own personal mission in life to ridicule those who do not think the same as they.

 

I will define God in my own words, but not before more feedback, because as we know, as soon as I put that definition into words, it will be attacked rather than the topic at hand.

[Moontanman]

Clay,

I have my own definition of it. But to ask me to satisfy anyone but myself with such a definition is absurd. Even those who hold beliefs closely related to mine would still think differently to some degree. But one point I would like to make is it that if I did call it God, those who already have a predisposition against the word God would immediatly claim that it didn't exist. Ignosticism fails to prove itself after any amount skeptical evaluation, just as many religions do. The only premise that Ignosticism can stand on is that words are arbitrary, which of course where I was going any ways. But if words are arbitrary, then the definitions of God in each religion do not contradict each other. Only the idea that is created in each persons mind does. It is their choice to consider whether or not God is inconsistantly defined from one religion to another. A definition can be composed that does give God verifiable attributes.

 

Moontanman,

The word God does not have to take on supernatural attributes. But your response obviously shows that you believe so.

 

One point I am trying to make is that because of people's predefined notion of God as presented by some religions, some people choose to deny any idea that has the word "God" in it. Rather than have a discussion about an idea or concept that is not supernatural and is applicable in our daily life, they make it their own personal mission in life to ridicule those who do not think the same as they.

 

I will define God in my own words, but not before more feedback, because as we know, as soon as I put that definition into words, it will be attacked rather than the topic at hand.

 

Ok, how is the concept of god, supernatural or other wise, necessary or helpful in our daily lives! If it indeed is I'll go with it.

[Zythryn]

Many/most religions have a few common attributes to 'god'.

Not all, but most. I believe that Wiccan's have the concept of 'mother earth' (this is all from casual knowledge from some time ago, please correct me if I am wrong). They may simply refer to 'nature' rather than 'god'. I am not sure if there is a creation legend in that religion.

Buddism really doesn't focus on the concept of 'god' but on the path to reach peace and tranquility.

All other religions I am aware of have the concept of 'god' as a supernatural creator.

So it does not seem unusual to assume god is supernatural when someone simply refers to 'god'.

However, if entering into any discussion referring to god, it would be wise to lay out your personal definition so there are no misunderstandings.

[C1ay]

Ignosticism fails to prove itself after any amount skeptical evaluation, just as many religions do.

 

What is there for Ignosticism to prove? It simply asserts that there is not a consistent definition of God among the many religious factions and that the definitions that do exist are not testable or verifiable. Would you say that the definition of God is consistent? That it is verifiable or testable?

[ughaibu]

Why is the debate over God always about existance? Why can it not be about definition?

 

For example, right and wrong have many definitions for many different people.

This comparison is false. People have the same definitions for "right" and "wrong", what differs are the things that qualify for those definitions. If this is to apply to "god" there needs to be a similarly common definition of god whereby people will agree that science, for example, is their god.

[modest]

Why is the debate over God always about existance?

 

I find this a very, very odd question.

 

Through all of recorded history the debate has most always with very few exceptions been one of my god vs. your god. The smallest of differences in definition and even different interpretations of the same definition are enough to solidify war and define separate cultures.

 

Can you qualify this question a bit more. Maybe you mean to say "why is the debate over God always about existence when talking to atheists" or something similar. But, as stated the premise seems wildly off base.

 

Why can it not be about definition?

 

There are hundreds, maybe thousands of definitions of "god". Any new declaration of God's nature at this point is bound to be little more than an epilogue to tons and tons of baggage.

 

If a definition were created that did not bring into question a supernatural being

 

This would apparently not include deism, but would include pantheism.

 

or an entity that was seperately active,

 

If by "separately active" you mean active outside our universe but not interfering with it then that is deism.

 

could a person choose to define that as God without falling into the same category as traditional thinkers on such a topic?

 

You could decide a frog or a butterfly is god and you're going to worship it. That would distinguish you somewhat from 'traditional' thinkers. If, however, you decided to worship a cow or a book then you would not distinguish yourself from tradition. It all depends on the specifics of what you're talking about. So far your definition is undefined.

 

For example, right and wrong have many definitions for many different people....They say there is no right or wrong, but claim that "IT" is individually created.

 

As Kant said, no action, in and of itself, is either wrong or right. Indeed, right and wrong are not things that exist in and of themselves. Are you wanting to say the same of God?

 

 

So if I were to say that a scientist has a God, and it is science, would I be wrong?

 

According to you, each and every scientist is allowed to make up his or her own definition of god. Therefore (according to your conclusion) you would be able to say this if and only if that scientist defined god as science.

 

If I chose to call God by another term, perhaps a philosophical term, would those who choose not to believe in "GOD" be more open to the idea?

 

I thought you were talking about a different definition of god, now you're talking about calling it a different name. But, the answer is definitely no. A rose by any other name, you know? People aren't going to be fooled.

 

Also, are you going to make up a word? If you use a word that already has a definition then you will have a contradiction. If you started calling God "car" or "coffee" then it would make no sense. Do you have any word in mind?

 

I really think this conversation would be greatly helped if you gave an example of an alternate definition and alternate name for god. Even if it's not a definition or name that you advocate, just an example of what you're talking about would help over the abstractions above.

 

~modest

[Inter.spem.et.metum]

Once again, the definition that I hold is what everyone is waiting on to dispute.

 

All forms of existance are in a constant state of change. Why should religion not also be? Why is it assumed that because tradition religions are based on infallible truth, that new forms of religion are assumed to be false, like their predecessors? Were not ancient forms of science considered infallible at one time? And is not the very nature of religion indicated by some hint of that which exists beyond the corporeal world? If a religion does not make some proposition about such topics, it becomes more of a philosphy than a religion. Which is why buddihism and other such eastern philosphies are more accepted than other philosphies that discuss metaphysical ideas.

 

I don't believe my question was off base at all. I believe that ideas of God in our minds are not aligned.

 

As said before, since all things are in transition, it is ignorant to say that because any idea of God is dependant upon that which came before it that it is false.

 

By trying to put an idea of God into any preexisting concept, you are falling into the same trap as those you choose to rebuke. They feel they must choose a form of God rather than understand it's formlessness.

 

Because you believe Kant is correct, it makes him so? Does that mean that because I think God exists, it does?

 

I was specifically saying that scientists do not call science God, but could if their definition of God were not controlled by preconceived notions.

 

Although the truth of what it is allows a person to better understand the very nature of existance, I don't feel that this conversation has moved in a direction that would foster any need of me to give my definition. It seems that some are still trying to fight old battles.

[C1ay]

I believe that ideas of God in our minds are not aligned.

 

What's "god"?

[Moontanman]

What's "god"?

 

Yes, direct and to the point and necessary for this discussion to really go anywhere!

[modest]

Once again, the definition that I hold is what everyone is waiting on to dispute.

 

I didn't ask you for your definition of God. Perhaps you should reread my post, but if not, I will repeat what I said and add that I hold firmly that it is true:

 

I really think this conversation would be greatly helped if you gave an example of an alternate definition and alternate name for god. Even if it's not a definition or name that you advocate, just an example of what you're talking about would help over the abstractions above.

 

All forms of existance are in a constant state of change.

 

This does not differentiate between:

1. forms changing
   
2. human understanding of forms changing
   

But, yes, the definition of god sure does seem to change.

 

Why should religion not also be?

 

If the point of your argument is that religion should be more inclined to change then I completely agree. You'll find similar such remarks from me in previous posts.

 

Why is it assumed that because tradition religions are based on infallible truth, that new forms of religion are assumed to be false, like their predecessors?

 

What on earth does a traditional religion's position on infallible truth have to do with the validity of a new religion? Who made that argument? Are you talking to me?

 

Were not ancient forms of science considered infallible at one time?

 

Well... "Ancient forms of science" were indistinguishable from ancient philosophy which also included what we now call religion. As far as it being infallible, you'd have to be more specific. Many ancient Greeks claimed their system was the best system or school of philosophy - I don't know if they went as far as claiming it was infallible. Nor do I think ancient Eastern philosophy was so inclined to say such a thing.

 

After Christianity came on to the scene there was more of that kind of thing - but that doesn't really qualify as "ancient". Nor were most forms of science in the middle ages (such as alchemy) really considered "infallible".

 

And is not the very nature of religion indicated by some hint of that which exists beyond the corporeal world?

 

The nature of religion is indicated by making claims about that which exists beyond the corporeal world.

 

If a religion does not make some proposition about such topics, it becomes more of a philosphy than a religion.

 

Philosophy is perfectly capable of making wild speculations about what exists apart from the corporeal world - unfortunately

 

I don't believe my question was off base at all. I believe that ideas of God in our minds are not aligned.

 

You said that the debate is always about the existence of god when in fact historically it nearly never has been. That was off base.

 

As said before, since all things are in transition, it is ignorant to say that because any idea of God is dependant upon that which came before it that it is false.

 

Who said that? Your post is a response to me, clearly, but you are arguing against a strawman. I did not make the statement that any idea of god is false because it relies on previous definitions of god. That is an ignorant argument and I wouldn't make it. I have completely different reasons for thinking ideas of god are based on something false.

 

By trying to put an idea of God into any preexisting concept, you are falling into the same trap as those you choose to rebuke.

 

What preexisting concept did I put God in?

 

They feel they must choose a form of God rather than understand it's formlessness.

 

Formlessness, as in "the way" of the Tao? Is this an example of a non-traditional view of God?

 

Because you believe Kant is correct, it makes him so?

 

Kant said no action, in and of itself, is either wrong or right and shakespeare said "for there is nothing either good or bad but thinking makes it so" and you said "right and wrong have many definitions for many different people"

 

Since I agree with all three of you, it begs the question... what the hell are you talking about?

 

I was specifically saying that scientists do not call science God, but could if their definition of God were not controlled by preconceived notions.

 

Knowing some scientists, I can confidently say that they would not see this as beneficial. They would see no benefit in calling science "god" and would therefore not do it. Do you think they should? Do you think they would benefit from such a thing? Do you think science should benefit from such a thing? If so, how so? If not, what is your point?

 

Although the truth of what it is allows a person to better understand the very nature of existance, I don't feel that this conversation has moved in a direction that would foster any need of me to give my definition. It seems that some are still trying to fight old battles.

 

I didn't ask you for your definition of god! It is very possible that you advocate a broadening of the definition without advocating a particular one. I fully accept that is both possible and consistent. It nevertheless would be helpful if you gave examples. Your reply is clearly directed to my post so if this comment is for other people in this thread than you should indicate that. But don't assume I'm making the same argument other people are making nor that I'm making the argument that people have made to you previously. You seem to be trying to fight an old battle that I was in no way part of.

 

~modest

[skeptic griggsy]

This comparison is false. People have the same definitions for "right" and "wrong", what differs are the things that qualify for those definitions. If this is to apply to "god" there needs to be a similarly common definition of god whereby people will agree that science, for example, is their god.

Yet that cannot help theists as any definition of Him will depend on incoherent attributes, which contradict each other. One cannot verify a matter that in principle unverifiable and thus meaningless. Even the arguments for Him display meaninglessness, such as the First Cause that has no referent and thus no meaning.:lol:

So this is what we ignostics hold. [ I'm also ignostic morgan.]

I hold that ignosticism [ igtheism or theological non- cognitivism is an argument of atheism, not as Ayer thought opposed to both it and theism.] :wub: