G B Mayes

QueenofSwords:

For the purposes of discussion can we generally agree on a definition of God, regardless of whether our definition refers to a real or imaginary being?

-Brent

Theli

Good question... Is there an attribute wich all god-figures through human history has had in common?
If so, should that be considered the "definition of god"?
I was going to post this question myself, but I simply forgot.
Thanks for reminding me.

Imaginary gods are always given attributes such as "invisible" or "undetectable".

wordsmyth

What is YOUR definition of God? Then we can compare notes.

Ender

The propositions 'God is omnipotent,' 'God is wholly good' and 'Evil exists' are logically inconsistent, so therefore some form of theistic belief is false. Take the first two propositions as analytic truths and the 3rd proposition as a main premise, and the irrevocable conclusion is that God does not exist, IOW, no authentic entity satisfies the idea of God.

Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

It is impossible to define God.

Why isn't this obvious?


Thoughts and comments welcomed,

Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

sighhswolf

The Catholic Almanac offers the following attributes of the Christian god;
almighty
eternal
holy
immortal
immense
immutable
ineffable
infinite
invisible
just
loving
merciful
most high
most wise
omnipotent
omniscient
omnipresent
patient
perfect
provident
supreme
true
And in the same list of the "known" attributes
humankind has assigned to this christian god, is the last and most important attribute.
"Incomprehensible".

It seems that it is standard and accepted practice to assign known attributes to a supernatural being who by very definition is said by most theologians to be fundamentally unknowable
and incomprehensible to his followers.
Mankind can never fully understand the nature and characteristics of god.
Christianity has attempted to provide a means for the average human to understand the nature and attributes of their god, without limiting or restricting this being in any way.
The result is the "unlimited attributes" the
ever present "OMNI's".
They were designed to give the concept of a supreme being substance without restricting it's nature.
To make this being "worship friendly" so to speak but still retain the idea of limitless power and scope and an infinite existence.
The argument that the simple act of acknowledging
the existence of this being is to limit it's power and scope is an ever present thorn in the side of many theologians.
To acknowledge the existence of anything is to assign a "finite nature".
We know of nothing that exists without a nature and/or definable attributes, indeed "existence" is finite.

So there appears to be a contradiction in definitions, attributes and nature.
Many of the students of theology and biblical scholars when backed into a corner by the question of a definition of god will resort to
Negations, derived from the "via negativa" that has roots back to the very earliest era of the church and is grounded in platonic influences.

Instead of telling you what god is.....they resort to telling you what god isnt.
The positive and negative theological approaches.

There are so many different views and definitions of this god being spread by numerous christian sects that there really is no definition of this mythological figure that can be applied as a coverall or broad explanation of it's nature and attributes.

It just depends on who you ask and what year it is..........
Wolf

Philosoft

Because it doesn't make any sense at all. Can you name one other English word that is said to represent something actually existent that performs actions but is not only undefined, but undefinable? I see a serious problem between what is logically possible and what you want to be possible. Why isn't this obvious?

Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

Philosoft,
You don't understand...

Define Abraham Lincoln.

You can't.


You can describe *who* Abraham was. You can describe *what* Abraham Lincoln did. You can describe *when* Abraham Lincoln did it. But you can't define 'Abraham Licoln'.

This is because 'definition' by definition (pardon the pun) is a description used to identify a classof things...not specific instances of things.

Definitions are used to refer to collections of things that share common attributes. That is the only reason why we use definitions because it saves us the time of having to describe every unique object to which we are refering.

Notice that you say "I'm going to sit in that chair." as opposed to "I'm going to sit in that short plastic object with 4 metal legs and a contoured back for lumbar support."

In contrast individuals (you, me, Abraham Lincoln, God) are specific 'instances' of things. And while we can define a class of objects called 'people' and associate 'you', 'me' and 'Abraham Licoln' as specific instances of class 'people' we can't define the 'instances' themselves. God is likewise.


Thoughts and comments welcomed,

Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

[ May 06, 2002: Message edited by: Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas ]</p>

Ender

Never before have i seen a believer rendered speechless. Or are you forgetting the power of possible linguistic gymnastics of a theistic flavor?

~WiGGiN~