Philosoft

Sorry, I have no idea what "perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness" means.

<strong> "God is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe" is the same as saying, "Christians worship God as the creator and ruler of the universe." Both sentences have the presumption of a pre-existing God.

<strong> This is the same as "God is omnipotent, omniscient and benevolent and created the universe." Once again, you have given characteristics and proscribed actions to a word that has yet to be defined.

<strong> Precisely. You begin with the presumption that God exists and then go about describing it, thinking that will support a case for its existence, when it does not.

If I said to you, "Hannah the cable modem fairy just stopped by to see how my new cable modem was doing," you'd say, "Who in the hell is Hannah the cable modem fairy."

Then, by your logic, I could say, "She is the semi-powerful, rather smart creator of cable modems who is non-definable" and that would apparently mean she exists in some intangible way.

Naturally, you wouldn't buy that, you'd want to see Hannah to make sure there actually is a cable modem fairy who possesses those characteristics. And you'd be right to want that.

[ May 06, 2002: Message edited by: Philosoft ]</p>

Samhain

SOMMS:

Sorry that this reply is a tad on the late side, I have other pressing matters to attend to.

Assuming that we cannot "define" a particular person (which I hold to be true, but perhaps in a different sense than you), then as you say we could define the meaning of what it is to be a "person" in generalized terms. My question posed was this: why can we not define [G]od as a particular being. Assuming what monotheistic religions hold as true, [G]od is no different than [g]od since there is only one [G]od/[g]od. A definition of what it is to be a [g]od is no different than the definition of what it is to be [G]od, since there is only one, they are one in the same. Therefore you'd have to argue that a [g]od cannot be defined in order that [G]od could also not be defined. All of the attributes of a [g]od can only fall under the attributes of those that [G]od has. Therefore [G]od or [g]od are the same thing from a monotheistic perspective. If you hold that we can define what it is to be a [g]od, then it would also mean that we could define [G]od if any particular monothesitic religion were true.

Must we not hold certain definitions toward a [g]od in order for that [g]od to be considered a or the [G]od? For one to be able to understand what [G]od is we must first look and see what definitions define what entails being a [g]od. If [G]od is the only [g]od, then the defining [g]od is nothing different than defining [G]od. What does it take for such an entitity to be considered a [g]od, and thus, if it is the only [g]od, then the definition of [g]od defines [G]od.

How are they different? If a monotheistic [G]od is to be regarded as true then the definition or description of [g]od must also fall under the same category. In essence, describing what [G]od is leads to defining what it is to be a [g]od.

HRG

See below for a definition of Abraham Lincoln.
And if a class contains exactly one element, then a definition of a class is at the same time a definition of this element.

Example: "Abraham Lincoln is the human being which was US President in 1862".

Or: "e is the natural number is the limit as n
goes to infinity of (1+1/n)^n".

I guess you overlook that a definition need not be unique, nor do anything but uniquely identify the object we denote by "Abraham Lincoln", "e" or "God". It attaches a label - nothing more. Whether this label is attached to a many-element class or to a single element as a member of a one-element class is irrelevant.

True, but a definition can also simply link a label ("Abraham Lincoln", "e" etc.) with a single object.
Just like we are saying "A.L. freed the slaves" instead of "the human being which was US President in 1862 freed the slaves", or talk of e or pi in mathematics instead of the defining limit.


See above. You forget that there are classes with just one object.

Regards,
HRG.

[ May 07, 2002: Message edited by: HRG ]</p>

Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

G B Mayes, Philosoft, Samhain, HRG

For clarification:

There is a common atheistic position that in the strictest sense of the term 'define' one can not define God. In the strictest sense of the term 'define' I would agree...as it is impossible to define any particular instance of anything.


This does not imply, however, that I don't think we can describe God (or from your position the concept of God) and talk about him.

On a personal level I don't see much difference between a definition and a description and don't really care. As long as both parties agree on what they are conversing over.


Thoughts and comments welcomed,

Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

[ May 07, 2002: Message edited by: Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas ]</p>

Synaesthesia

I agree. When one person defines(I'm using the world loosely) god as existing, it's kind of difficult to carry out a debate over the question of his existence.

Philosoft

SOMMS,

I'm not clear as to what is your precise objection to a particular instance of something being defined as a chunk of matter. Does your definition of 'definition' carry a sense of permanence that would make this position untenable?

G B Mayes

SOMMS:
I honestly did not know that, though I know nothing about atheists other that what I've seen in the short time I've been on this site. I agree that God cannot be defined and starting this thread with the word definition was a poor choice. But I assumed that reasonable people on both sides could come up with some sort of description for this being commonly know as "God", whether such a being be real or imagined. If not, how do atheists know what they don't believe in?

This is not to set up some sort of "gotcha", just some baseline for discussion that a few regulars could use as a stipulated reference. It is bound to be flawed, but may be useful.


-Brent

rainbow walking

Hi SOMMS,
Mind if I register a few objections?


Somms: Right. This would be the part where I call your bluff and say 'prove it'.
However, I suspect you've already gone through these motions many times and by now any true sense of intellectual exploration you may of had initially has been reduced to wrote reenactment of the 'Why is there suffering?/Because there is free will' dialog.

So let me quickly present my position and you can decide if you want to play.
As a theist I hold:
-Suffering is an eventual consequence (not punishment) of sin.

Rw: You hold this by faith or do you have some logical reason for it? Perhaps suffering is a natural consequence of the normal functions of this universe in relation to beings capable of experiencing it. Maybe there’s little rhythm or reason to any of it unless we want there to be. Maybe we can trace individual causes of suffering for individual people and find in it a quite random set of determined factors that flow into an infinitely long regress that is encapsulated within the broadest framework we simply call “existence”. Maybe our minds aren’t sufficiently developed enough to adequately conceptualize the infinite or eternality of existence without beginning or end. The point is, I can think of more appropriate ways to account for suffering without incurring a god.
Somms: -God is in no way obligated to change the universe simply because mankind occasionally makes choices that have sufferable consequences.
Rw: A good and equally omniscient God, within the context of innocent human suffering, cannot exist simultaneously. An all good God would not have arranged such a universe in need of changing if he is truly all knowing. An all knowing God is directly responsible for every innocent child’s suffering that he foresaw before that child became a reality in a universe this God is not obligated to change. Never mind this argument runs counter-productive to the Christian claim that God is actively involved in the lives of His children.

Somms: -Furthermore, one cannot prove 'An all-good God is incoherent in the context of suffering.'

Rw: One cannot prove a god period. I have already demonstrated above the inconsistencies inherent in the omni’s used to describe this un-proven god’s attributes. His all-good status diminishes rapidly under critical scrutiny.

Somms: For in assuming God's existence one must also assume the consequences of his existence, namely his benevolence which entails that everything he does is 'good' and that he is the objective standard/authority of 'good'.

Rw: Why must one assume both? Why not a God who has rolled the dice and let’s the chips fall where they may with no benevolence or objective standards of good intended? This would appear to be more consistent with this universe. Why not existence itself as the objective standard of good whose sole authority is derived from it’s reciprocal: non-existence? Why not existence as the prime mover and superset from which is derived this universe as a sub-set and possibly God as a subset capable of arranging the fabric of existence to reflect this universe? The point being, assuming the existence of God does not force one to assume benevolence as a necessary consequence of his existence nor does it force one to assume him as the fabric of existence. Existence exists. So does benevolence, (the same cannot be so authoritatively stated for God) but it is only relevant to a unique species that exists in one tiny corner of the universe, which also exists, and is primarily consequential to the continued existence of life.

Somms: Thus God's 'goodness' is a tautology which cannot be disproven. And let me head you off at the pass...there ARE useful, meaningful tautologies...math and logic are examples.

Rw: Yes, if it were a stand alone attribute of this god. However, since most apologetics assumes more than just benevolence in its description of the Christian God’s attributes the tautological expression is devaluated as anything meaningful in light of the contradictions that surface the nearer we get to a description. The spectacle of an innocent child born with a debilitating disease who suffers for a few years and dies along side a god with omniscience who foreknew this child’s desperation before the child was ever conceived has no meaningful value except to cause suffering in its parents and anyone else who must witness the utter frustration of being unable to alleviate the child’s pain. You may claim that this is not a moral crisis, that this god’s reputation as omni-benevolent is not tainted, that the child’s suffering is a result of some sin committed by someone named Adam, but you will have a difficult time convincing any rational human being of this. And let me head you off at the pass…before you stake a claim that some good may come from the child’s suffering; that PERHAPS the child’s parents, in their grief and pain, will turn to God for solace and comfort. Must an all-good God torture an innocent child to drive his parents to the cross? Must an omnipotent, all good God create such a universe where this became even a potential option to consider?

Somms:-Natural evil need not be reconciled.

Rw: But of course not, especially in a universe allegedly created by an omnipotent all good God, where these phenomenon are also a necessity.

Somms: That is there is no moral value to 'drought', 'meteor' or 'tectonic pressure release'.

Rw: No, the phenomenon itself is amoral but the consequences are often construed, by those who suffer through them, to be as evil as any intentional immoral act.

Somms: Those these things do affect human suffering in many cases human suffering can be minimized or avoided all together.

Rw: Relevance?

Somms: -Lastly, suffering can actually be a good thing...it can present opportunites and motivation for people to turn to God.

Rw: And that, my friend, is the leper’s bell, (as Ayn Rand says), of an approaching looter. Why is this always the obvious theistic choice? Why not that suffering can inspire men to seek ways to avoid and or eliminate it themselves? What possible earthly good can God do? Has done? Where’s the evidence? Outside of the emotional relief one may briefly derive…the suffering continues. If this omnimax God created a universe that includes suffering why in hell run to him when the suffering begins? To show him his creation still works?

If I had to devise an excuse to get God off the hook for the suffering of that innocent child, I’d argue that God devised suffering as a necessary motivational factor in man’s evolution which was also devised by God as part and parcel of his plan for humanity and drop all this original sin crap. It at least smacks of something more coherent and leaves us with a vision of God as a grand wizard rather than an egotistical monster.

When I look out my living room window I see thousands of bugs of various shapes and sizes fluttering around the street lamp in my front yard. I also watch in fascination as several bats occasionally swoop through and nab a snack or meal with each pass. I wonder if the bugs that are eaten experience any sort of pain at death. Surely they must be conscious of their own existence else why do they struggle to exist? It awakens in me that age-old question of whether there is pain in death. Or is non-existence as a conscious living organism just painless oblivion? I know the theist will pull out his after-life arguments and declare death to be nothing more than a shadow. Well, it’s a mighty big shadow and strangely enough, all who pass through its darkened corridors seem to end up in the earth, or in the digestive tract of another living creature only to later end up in the earth as a part of a turd. Either way I see the earth becoming the only beneficiary of death.

Somms: After all God took the worst possible thing that could ever happen...the death of God...and turn it into the best thing that could ever happen...the redemption of man.

Rw: The purchase of man from Who? Satan? Death, hell and the grave? God’s wrath?
Are you absolutely certain that the death of this omni-max god is the worst thing that could ever happen? For who?

Autonemesis

Sure thing. The theists will be happy to just shrug off thousands of years of war, bloodshed, pogroms, crusades, jihads, witchhunts, cleansings, occupations and other minor disagreements, just like they always have when asked to do so, even if only for the sake of discussion.

G B Mayes

King Bud:

It is obvious I'm missing something here, because my original question about a definition/description of God, whether real or imagined seemed innocuous. But you are not only unwilling to touch it but antagonistic against it. I honestly don't understand your post and how it relates to my question.

Dictionary.com:
atheist: one who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods. Syn.Infidel,unbeliever

How can one be an atheist without a concept of the meaning of the word "God"? How does this fit with the Secular Web motto: "a drop of reason in a pool of confusion"?. Assume that I am as clueless as I appear and please explain this to me, as well as the meaning of your post.

-Brent

[ May 08, 2002: Message edited by: G B Mayes ]</p>