Whether you believe or don't believe there is evidence for a god, how would you define "a god" or "god's"...
I'm not asking what religious texts say. Although you may use that if it's part of your definition. I'm asking YOUR opinion. Not someone else's definition. Even if you do not believe, you must have some framework from which you've decided you don't believe in X....I'm asking your definition of X.
Why yes, it makes a difference. It shows his diabolical scheme is working!
If Bob's on here twice, I'm going to have to up my game.
I can't really because I don’t believe in the existence of gods. It is difficult to define something I have no concept of. It is assumed by theists that we all understand what the term means. I have no framework about what a God might be like in my mind because one does not exist in my mind. I am unable to formulate one because any of the traits I am told a god would have make no logical sense to me. As an Atheist I do not reject or disbelieve in any gods I know of because I know of none. As an atheist what I do not believe is what other people claim they believe. Just because we are all familiar with the term “God” it is assumed that we must know what it means. I don’t. I have no idea or concept of what they are talking about.
A Muslim asked me over the weekend why I reject God. I don’t. I have no idea what he means by “God”. I don’t think he does either because he could not give me a meaningful definition. “God is Spirit”, “God is Love”. Well ok man, but what is “God” in the first place. What are you talking about man? It is not that I reject God, it is that I reject the nonsense he is talking about.
You do not believe that Zylobane was responsible for creating the Universe. That is because you have no concept of what I am talking about. If I insisted that it is true because it makes sense to me and that my faith was enough for me, would you believe me? If I was unable to define anything about Zylobane or offer any description of Her would you believe me? If I said Her love for me is true for me would you believe me or would you think that I believed it all subjectively, that it existed only in my mind? You would most likely see me as suffering from a delusion.
If I turned around and then asked you to describe what framework you used to conclude belief in Zylobane (i.e. what you call “X”) was not warranted you would not be able to. This is because you have no knowledge of Zylobane. I can insist that She gives my life meaning but you still would have no idea of what I am talking about. How would it then feel if those that say they can communicate with Her and She with them refuse to describe or define Zylobane to you and then they accuse you of denying Her existence or are too close-minded to believe?
You have heard me more than once ask for a definition of God from theists. This is because I really do not know what they are talking about, in the same way you have no idea what I mean by Zylobane. The word “God” does not bring forward the same ideas in my mind as it seems to for those that profess to believe in His existence. The word does not trigger an image or an emotion or a “framework” in my mind.
I even get somewhat annoyed when asked by Christians what I think god to be. They claim to believe in a particular “God” with a specific name, Yahweh. But what they are asking me is to describe “god” as in the deist sense of the word while they profess a belief in one of thousands of gods humans have claimed or believed at some point to exist. Deism and theism are not the same thing.
I think visiting theists should tell us what they mean by “God” because they insist He actually exists but as you are asking us I will try to come up with one.
God is a concept. That is, “God” exists only in the minds of those who have analysed the concept and somehow reached the conclusion that this supernatural entity is real. They reach this conclusion, not by evaluating any evidence, but by succumbing to the arguments of others and then giving their mental assent to it being true. It or He or She exists nowhere else only in their mind.
I would say that by default it must be an all-powerful entity if it can imagine Universes into existence but I am not really sure why it would bother doing so. “Gee look at my works and marvel at the huge vacuum of 99.99% empty space I just created”. “Are you not impressed”?
The idea of a creator god never made any sense to me. All other attributes I can consider, such as omnipotence or omniscience seem to be easily contradicted by logic. It is disingenuous of theists not to define their god to us. They must have a definition or understanding of what they say they believe in. Claiming it is indescribable or a mystery or beyond human understanding is a cop-out. If they want to believe in something they cannot understand or if they believe in the existence of some all-powerful mind reading mystery, but claim to have a personal relationship with it, then fine. Just don’t expect me to believe a word of it. I will remain an atheist towards that concept too.
God is what most humans have always considered to be the Cause of whatever they did not understand. Down through the ages gods have been worshipped by those who had no alternative answers to the bigger questions in life. The idea made sense at the time. Now Science offers us much better answers.
Once the Enlightenment began to shine a light on to our ignorance we began to realise that there is no need for the God hypothesis. I find I am unable to write much more because the word has no practical meaning for me. A working definition does not exist in my mind. I really cannot come up with one. I only think atheist. I am glad I don’t think like this (read the whole page!!)
To be brief (a miracle!) I do not define God because I have no concept of what God is. It does not exist for me.
It's difficult to know what you would call god versus what is just a more powerful being. In any case, it's not up to me to define god, it's up to the believer trying to explain their god to me.
So to answer your question: I define god as whatever the person I'm talking to defines god. Sometimes I find the definition to be unworkable and illogical and reject it out of hand (i.e. logical contradictions around omnipotence, etc), and sometimes the definition doesn't contradict logic, but always limits god in such a way that I find it pointless to call god a deity anymore (i.e. god is love, god is the natural world, etc).
I have no reason to define deities, these superstitions belong to others not me. I'm a Realist.
If I HAD to have a definition of God, I'd call it physics. The natural laws of physics. That what we know and what we have yet to discover is all powerful on Earth. And "physics" doesn't even apply when out in space. So it's not even that powerful, but it does define a lot of what the world is and isn't.
If a theist cannot define what they mean by “God” then I can only assume they do not know what they are talking about. If their concept of God is so vague then they cannot expect to explain it to others. If not, why should we take them seriously? If they are so unclear about it what has them convinced they are correct.
Claiming their god is a mystery or unknowable is not good enough a reason to give their claim any merit. That is only an excuse to remove the onus of proof. If “He” is unknowable then how do they know “Him”.
Everything the theist offers is theological camouflage. I have concluded they have no concrete idea about the god they claim to believe in.
What you got back home, little sister, to play your fuzzy warbles on? I bet you got little save pitiful, portable picnic players. Come with uncle and hear all proper! Hear angel trumpets and devil trombones. You are invited.
Reminds me of an atheist talking to a theist