Philosoft

Gotcha. I consider an idea a categorical or a descriptor. If I was to say, "I have an idea," what I actually have is an instance of a mental representation which we describe as "an idea."

stretch

Cool. So would you say that ideas 'exist', or is 'existence' restricted to material things (of various categories)?

My guess is that your answer is going to be no.

Philosoft

I don't think it is troubling to say ideas exist in an abstract sense. I mean, I think it's self-evident that they don't not-exist. They just don't exist in the same way material things exist.

stretch

But the idea, whether or not you actually believe in its truth, of the existence of a non-material God, doesn't make sense.

And the main difference is that there is no claim that ideas affect the physical material world? And/or the type of existence predicated on God is not the same type of existence predicated on categoricals or descriptors?

(I may be using the term 'predicated' incorrectly, but I hope you know what I mean .... )

Philosoft

I agree, inasmuch as God is said to have essential properties of both concrete and abstract things.
I think this about covers it.

stretch

Based on the proposed definition 3 pages ago?

I wouldn't say that's a common way for a theist to define God, at least not from classical 'Catholic' philosophers ... who don't tend to define God ... which is problematic for a discussion of this sort ...

Leaving that problem aside, and going back to the numbering system in the first post:

(1) there would be no 'disembodied' aspect to what such theists would 'call' as opposed to 'define as' God, since there would be no initial body to 'disem';

(2) Defining God according to a specific action (creation) seems odd ... it's like defining 'stretch' by the fact that she once typed something on a forum. The action springs from who 'stretch' is, but does not define 'stretch';

(3) possibly a complete set of traits could be used as a 'definition', but that is also problematic since these traits are generally only 'known' via analogy or revelation ... again making definition difficult.

Just some rambling thoughts from a tired mind that agrees somewhat in terms of the 'definability' of God but from a completely different perspective ...

Randy X

Hi guys, forgive me if I interrupt.

My definition of God would be that since faith (in the religious sense) is based on the premise that faith is God's proof that God's existence is truth and does not rely on facts, and indeed, if facts were available, then faith is not required - so in a sense, faith can be seen to be based on an absence of evidence - a fiction.

In other words God is a fictional character, like Santa Clause.I hope Santa brings me presents

Regards

stretch

Hi Christ,

Thanks for interrupting.


Interesting point. IMO, there is definitely a 'subjective' element to the 'evidence' regarding God's (non-)existence. A non-believer generally considers this subjective element to be a fiction generated in a believer's brain, and therefore an absence of 'objective' evidence. And like Santa Claus, from this perspective, God is simply a fictional character.

Does this get us any closer to understanding what a (stereotypical Western mono)theist means when he or she used the term 'God'?

Philosoft

It may not be an explicit part of the definition, but it seems to be an inescapable implication if God is not made of matter and does not act through physical force.

Well, the term "disembodied" doesn't necessitate a previously existing body. In this case it can imply, "something ordinarily associated with a body."

I agree, and I can illustrate why. Suppose I ask you to define "God" and you say, "God is the creator of the universe." I can point out that that sentence is logically equivalent to "God created the universe." The restated sentence makes it obvious that "God" is assumed to have already been defined.

I'm not convinced that arbitrarily assigning traits to a pseudo-concept is acceptable, in toto or not.
We're not so far apart as you seem to think.

stretch

Maybe my posts make it seem that I think that we're farther apart than I actually think we are.

A lot of my questions have as much to do with seeing whether or not what I think you are saying is what you actually are saying, as with anything else.

Anyway, I've got some more stuff to think about for a while. Thanks.

(edited to correct grammar that was even worse than usual for me .... )