Darth Dane

When we try to define (abstract) ideas like "God", we try to create a box or a form, so it is recognizable.

Metaphorically speaking:

Guy 1 (G1): God is square
Guy 2 (G2): God is round

When these two guys met to discuss, without knowing before hand how "God" is defined with the other guy, they will reach impasses where their respective form differ, this leads to argument and in some cases violence.

When we try to define "God", we implicitly put on a form on God.

As I understand it "God" is flexible, so whether or not we can describe God, God will always fit into our own "form" or image of God. God is like water, whatever form we which to put God in, God will adapt to it and look roundish, squarish or whatever.

Some say God is square, but a bit of one wall is missing, as most forms have inconsistencies, these inconsistencies are referred to like this: "God works in mysterious ways" "Humans cannot understand such matters" etc.


If we cannot agree to discuss God in given form, how will we discuss God? If God is flexible then it doesn't matter which form we talk of God, as God will fit into whatever perception you have and ask for!

Next problem is how to agree on defining God, when we have defined something we can look for inconsistencies.


Interestingly enough some say: "God is the formless form, God is the soundless sound, God is the unmovable mover" Etc.


This came after abe smith wanted me to define perfect. If we can't even agree on the definitions we find in dictionaries, how can we communicate?



DD - Love Spliff

John Page

god is the non-contradictory contradiction, god is illogically logical, god is the unimaginable... and other such homilies.

I agree that when we perceive soemthing it must have a form and when we name something we are referring to a form. That is how the word/name has meaning.

Cheers, john

Philosoft

Defining 'God' is an EoG thang...

Darth Dane

Philosoft, we are not discussing "God", we are discussing how we define things, and as an example I used God, because this is what this site is about nes pas?




DD - Love Spliff

Philosoft

Well Spliff, since your entire post is dominated by your example, I have a hunch this will become a "defining God" thread whether you intended that or not. We'll see how it goes.

johngalt

I think defining god is one of the most important things before debating a person about it. If you cannot come up with a mutual agreement of the qualities of god, then you do indeed reach an impasse.

xoc

This argument follows a kind of Platonic assumption about Ideas and Geometry, and the assumption that it is possible to define an existent entity in exact terms. In the phenomenal world, our definitions of objects are neccesarily inexact, because we live not in a world of Forms and Ideas(unchanging things) but a world of phenomena, the changing order of apparent things which transform through time. If I am a jerk, am I a jerk inherently, a jerk always, or merely a jerk on occasion, a human manifesting "jerkiness" at such and such a time? There is no absoluteness in definition of any human being, as we are dynamic and ever-changing through time- the definition of a person to be complete(if possible) would include the full scope of his/her life, good and evil, right and wrong... but as we do not live in a vaccuum we find that the inherent interconnectedness that is in the phenomenal world does not allow us to be clearly, exactly define any "person" since a person is a collection of relationships of parts, inside and outside the "body" as it were.

To Spinoza, a circle would conceive of God as being the "Perfect Circle" and a square would conceive of God as being the "Perfect Square"- so was his argument against the preposed anthropomorphism of the "Judaeo-Christian God." Perhaps. But any relational being must relate to other beings on the same terms: whether one or the other being does the compromising(eg. we adopt a certain manner of speaking depending on who we are talking to, whether the boss or buddies, etc...) So if man has any relationship with the divine (imagined or real) it is a matter of question on whether man defines God in his own image or God relates to man in the only way possible, due to our limitations. The "condescension" (in one meaning, the Incarnation) is similar to how we may need to "condescend" to children; to bring them up to our level of understanding we must first go down to theirs.

However, things are not defined merely by form, but by essence as well. As in the case of water(as Darth points out), it is defined by it's essence (H20) rather than it's form; essence is a more essential definition of something than it's "form" in my opinion(does "essential" come from essence perhaps?). With essence God is defined as holy, just, compassionate, merciful, etc..., the defining points of character. Form is a more arbitrary point in terms of the square or round pool, but I would not go so far as to say it is always arbitrary. That begs the question of whether or not Trinitarianism vs. Unitarianism is an essential debate, and I'm not going there! Peace

John Page

What if a circle had a triangle as its role model? Isn't that how we become wannabees? I mean, if we were all our own god, that would be too perfect, wouldn;t it?

Cheers, John

Darth Dane

Sorry for the inconvenience



Sorry Philosoft, you were right, it did indeed pan out as you foresaw...you have practice in these kind of things yes?





DD - Spliffy Spliff

Patroclus

I think you have the crux of the problem right here, Dane. This is the problem that deconstructionists tackle. For instance:

"Don't be fooled by the rocks that I got;
I'm still Jenny from the block."

My roommate and I have a friend, a brilliant friend, who decided to interpret this song to be about a transsexual. Since my roommate and I have a mutual hatred for Jennifer Lopez, we have latched onto it. And this is the point that Deconstructionists make, that all language is essentially arbitrary and changeable, and therefore meaningless. To continue in this deconstructionist practice can be amusing, but it is not altogether practical--why?

The first reason is that words are separate from the objects of such words. If we see a man peddling his legs as fast as he can across a field, we say he is "running." That is fine, except that we also call post-nasal-drip "running." They can't both be correct. The reason is, that the words are not the actual manifestations. What I may call “cheese,” the next person may just as soon call “fromage.” One may deconstruct the words, but it is harder to deconstruct the reality.

So, this begs the question: "How do we know this is real?" We don't. But isn't this the most basic metaphysical question? People have spent entire lifetimes doubting everything, yet they get up in the morning. Why is that? This brings me to my second point.

When we walk outside, we accept gravity. If we are in a state of doubt, we choose to accept gravity. Why do this? It probably will not change our spatial orientation. But, it is so much more convenient to accept it and keep walking than to just stand, or float there thinking about it. When you looked at this post, you accepted that it would be in English, at Infidels.org, and that you would be able to read it, barring any computer problems. If there was any doubt, you chose to believe it. One can deconstruct any word away, but is left with choice in the end.

The same is so when discussing God(s). I grew-up in the church. For many years, I accepted a construct of God, as though it was as natural as gravity. Later, doubt surfaced, so that I was no longer accepting, but choosing a construct of God--a construct, by the way, that I allow to change within limits. In much the same way, there was some acceptance during part of each life here, of some sort of spiritual reality. Depending on parents and/or environment, some people grew-up with some sort of theism, atheism or agnosticism. At some point, there was doubt. It was at that point when each reality became a choice. This is not necessarily based on some emotional feeling either. For instance, for those of us Americans on this board, we may or may not like George Bush, but we opt to be Americans rather than revolt. We choose to allow this reality to impose upon us.

If we choose gravity, we choose to allow the reality of gravity to impose all of its laws upon us. If we choose atheism, we choose to allow all of the principles thereof, within the construct we choose, to be imposed upon us. The same is true with every religion.

Therefore, you are right. It is impossible to accept a definition of God for the purposes of debate. Rather, one must be chosen as a platform for debate. Regardless of whether you internally agree with the construct (see GWB), or not, is irrelevant. Debate is flexible, but it must be governed by the definitions accepted. I submit that you can have many different debates about God, all based on separate constructs useful for each debate.