tergiversant

This one is a challenge to theists and non-theists alike to define "God" such that the definition is:

1) Coherent, and
2) Reflective of common usage

The first criterion should take into consideration meaninglessness as a result of either formal contradictions (e.g. loving hate) or type crossings (e.g. leftist moonlight). The second criterion may be fulfilled more or less arbitrarily well, but definitions involving, e.g., invisible pink unicorns, are clearly unacceptable.
G'luck all!
tergiversant@OklahomaAtheists.org

<a href="http://www.OklahomaAtheists.org" target="_blank">ATHEISTS of OKLAHOMA</a>

"Atheists are OK."

JerryM

I'm not sure if this is exactly what you're asking, but I like what Frank Lloyd Wright (one of my heroes) said about his idea of God: (paraphrasing)"I spell Nature with a capital N."

(I hope everyone got a chance to see the recent rebroadcast of the Ken Burns FLW documentary on PBS--excellent)

Taffy Lewis

God is supposed to be a proper name that refers to a conscious, rational agent of infinite power and knowledge upon which everything apart from him/herself depends and whose nature and existence depends upon nothing distinct from him/herself.

This seems coherent. Whether or not there is such an entity is another question.

Jobar

Taffy, you say nothing about benevolence. Does that break tergiversant's 'common usage' rule?

Taffy Lewis

Jobar,

I also didn't mention that God is supposed to be perfectly free and eternal, among many other things. But I didn't think it was a requirement that I mention everything that has been claimed about God.

As to 'common usage', it seems that all the terms I have used to define God have common meanings and are fairly easily understood.

Devilnaut

You could've also said "God's an entity". Entity has a common meaning and is easily understood, but I think the idea behind the definition being reflective of common usage was that it include all of the characteristics which would normally be attributed to him. Of these, omnibenevolence is one.

Philosoft

This implies God is a physical being. Is this correct?

<strong> I think it's important to indicate whether this entity is a physical thing or not.

Taffy Lewis

Philosoft,

I don't think so. How do you draw the line between that which is physical and that which is nonphysical?

If you define 'physical' so broadly that it necessarily includes anything that actually or possibly exists then God would be physical.

tergiversant

Your description consists of one noun "agent" and a lengthy list of predications thereto.
Could you expand on the meaning of the crucial noun being modified? Is this "agent" a mind? Is it made of stuff?

Philosoft

Am I missing something?

Physical = made of matter

<strong> Well, many people, myself included, differentiate between physical/material existence and abstract/conceptual existence. Hence, "God exists" does not necessarily mean "God exists physically."