Quizzes & Puzzles3 mins ago
What is a God?
91 Answers
How would you define a God?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by flobadob. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Naomi,
I'm only playing devil's advocate but once you define what "god" is then it is what it is. It doesn't require acknowledgement by it's creation.
Purely hypothetically if the likes of you and I were wrong and there was a god (of any description). It wouldn't cease to be god even if we knew the nature of creation.
Let's not forget the question was "what is a god?" If you don't define what god is then how can you argue over it's existence.
I'm only playing devil's advocate but once you define what "god" is then it is what it is. It doesn't require acknowledgement by it's creation.
Purely hypothetically if the likes of you and I were wrong and there was a god (of any description). It wouldn't cease to be god even if we knew the nature of creation.
Let's not forget the question was "what is a god?" If you don't define what god is then how can you argue over it's existence.
Tweaker, good afternoon.
//But a point about human race - (and apart from no-one knows the answer to this) is that God did not intend our world to end up how it is now.//
No one knows the answer - and no one knows what God(?) intended either. They just claim they do.
Rev, yes, I'm aware you're playing Devil's Advocate. I did define God - I defined it as a futile hope, which is what exists within the minds of the faithful. It emanates from man's fear of his own mortality, and it culminates in a belief that something supernatural will eliminate the reality that every man must eventually face - death. Therefore, I am at liberty to argue the rationality of that belief, and the existence, or otherwise, of a legitimate basis for that belief.
//But a point about human race - (and apart from no-one knows the answer to this) is that God did not intend our world to end up how it is now.//
No one knows the answer - and no one knows what God(?) intended either. They just claim they do.
Rev, yes, I'm aware you're playing Devil's Advocate. I did define God - I defined it as a futile hope, which is what exists within the minds of the faithful. It emanates from man's fear of his own mortality, and it culminates in a belief that something supernatural will eliminate the reality that every man must eventually face - death. Therefore, I am at liberty to argue the rationality of that belief, and the existence, or otherwise, of a legitimate basis for that belief.
Naomi,
I try to shy away from bluntly disagreeing with others in a debate but I don't think your description above really amounts to a definition of what constitutes a god. I don't disagree with you, I just don't feel it is by any means a definition.
Something doesn't have to exist to be defined. I can easily define a unicorn for you and then you could argue it didn't exist. However so long as it is only an idea in my head you can't argue against it because I might consider a horse to be a unicorn.
I try to shy away from bluntly disagreeing with others in a debate but I don't think your description above really amounts to a definition of what constitutes a god. I don't disagree with you, I just don't feel it is by any means a definition.
Something doesn't have to exist to be defined. I can easily define a unicorn for you and then you could argue it didn't exist. However so long as it is only an idea in my head you can't argue against it because I might consider a horse to be a unicorn.
Tweaker, first of all it's nice to see someone with your views hanging around a thread like this as usually I find most people with religious beliefs shy away quickly enough when challenged. That being said I quote you /"But a point about human race - (and apart from no-one knows the answer to this) is that God did not not intend our world to end up how it is now."/ As far as I was aware God is all knowing so how can it be claimed he didn't know how earth would pan out?
Rev, I don't mind you disagreeing with me, but I beg to differ. You might consider a horse to be a unicorn, but it isn't, so you'd be suffering under a delusion and people would be absolutely right to argue against your idea, especially if you were promoting it to others as fact. So why doesn't my description constitute a definition of a God? What is a God if not an idea?
Naomi,
What I'm getting at is your definition isn't precise enough. Immortality, any form of afterlife, with or without a god, reincarnation, space aliens and probably other solutions could satisfy your definition. None of these are god. I would say you have neatly summed up a big part of man's need for god but not what it actually is.
I would have thought to define what god is you'd have to specify things such as 1) Did it create the universe or just mankind. 2) Is it immortal and omnipotent and all knowing etc. 3) Is just being infinitely superior to us enough? And so on.
I realise that a unicorn isn't a horse but that's because in my head I've defined what a unicorn is. If you just said a unicorn was a fantastic beast which I can imagine but have never seen then if I'd never left my house then a horse might satisfy that definition.
What I'm getting at is your definition isn't precise enough. Immortality, any form of afterlife, with or without a god, reincarnation, space aliens and probably other solutions could satisfy your definition. None of these are god. I would say you have neatly summed up a big part of man's need for god but not what it actually is.
I would have thought to define what god is you'd have to specify things such as 1) Did it create the universe or just mankind. 2) Is it immortal and omnipotent and all knowing etc. 3) Is just being infinitely superior to us enough? And so on.
I realise that a unicorn isn't a horse but that's because in my head I've defined what a unicorn is. If you just said a unicorn was a fantastic beast which I can imagine but have never seen then if I'd never left my house then a horse might satisfy that definition.
Rev, Well, if it would satisfy you, I could tell you god is a fantastic beast that no one has ever seen, and if you want to imagine it as a horse, or anything else, that's your choice. However, the truth is that if it exists - other than as an idea in the minds of men - no one knows what it is. I could answer your numbered questions, but I, like everyone else, would only be guessing - and I prefer not to guess. If a god exists, I have no idea what it is, but I see the reality of the effect that belief in a god has on the human intellect - hence my definition - a futile hope. I can't say more than that, but since you posed the questions, perhaps you should can give us a precise definition of what a god (if one exists) actually is - and if you can do that, you're the only human being on this planet who can.
Oh wait, there is a difference . . . unicorns are real! They're mentioned in the Bible for Christ's sake!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unicorn#Biblical
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unicorn#Biblical
Naomi,
not sure if you were having a bad night last night or if it's me unintentionally antagonising you. Probably the latter. :-)
I think I'm failing to explain my point however. I wasn't asking you personally to define god, I was trying to make the point that we all have different ideas what "god" is. Hence until we come to common agreement on what constitutes the concept of god we can't debate the possibility of it's existence.
I wholly agree that the abrahamic god sitting on a cloud is far fetched. god as an unconceivable to us (at the moment) entity that created the known universe for reasons unknown is possibly a different matter.
I wish the bloody unicorn had never been been invited along to the debate but the subtle difference is that although both are probably fictional we all agree what a unicorn is. I could draw one (albeit very badly) and you would recognise what it was, I couldn't draw a universally recognisable picture of god.
not sure if you were having a bad night last night or if it's me unintentionally antagonising you. Probably the latter. :-)
I think I'm failing to explain my point however. I wasn't asking you personally to define god, I was trying to make the point that we all have different ideas what "god" is. Hence until we come to common agreement on what constitutes the concept of god we can't debate the possibility of it's existence.
I wholly agree that the abrahamic god sitting on a cloud is far fetched. god as an unconceivable to us (at the moment) entity that created the known universe for reasons unknown is possibly a different matter.
I wish the bloody unicorn had never been been invited along to the debate but the subtle difference is that although both are probably fictional we all agree what a unicorn is. I could draw one (albeit very badly) and you would recognise what it was, I couldn't draw a universally recognisable picture of god.
Rev, Why would you think I was having a bad night? I answer the questions people ask me and I'm always fine, but thank you for caring. ;o)
//until we come to common agreement on what constitutes the concept of god we can't debate the possibility of it's existence.//
I disagree. You're never going to get common agreement because, as you rightly say, people have conflicting views. However, if we cease to debate it for that reason we will never find the answer. Additionally, no one knows what god - if it exists - is, and that surely is part of the great debate.
//I couldn't draw a universally recognisable picture of god.//
You might not be able to, but several artists including Michelangelo have managed to produce images that are pretty widely recognised - hence your description of the Abrahamic god on another thread as 'Old Beardy'.
http://en.wikipedia.o..._Moon_face_detail.jpg
//until we come to common agreement on what constitutes the concept of god we can't debate the possibility of it's existence.//
I disagree. You're never going to get common agreement because, as you rightly say, people have conflicting views. However, if we cease to debate it for that reason we will never find the answer. Additionally, no one knows what god - if it exists - is, and that surely is part of the great debate.
//I couldn't draw a universally recognisable picture of god.//
You might not be able to, but several artists including Michelangelo have managed to produce images that are pretty widely recognised - hence your description of the Abrahamic god on another thread as 'Old Beardy'.
http://en.wikipedia.o..._Moon_face_detail.jpg
Naomi,
Your comments seemed a little more curt and acidic than usual and I thought a debate was edging towards argument. I do care how you are, I consider the people I debate with on here as friends, so while I'm happy to disagree, I try not to offend.
I think we're at an impasse, we disagree, so be it. I will retract my statement about not being able to debate the existence of god, that's not what I really meant. What I'm getting at is if we all have a different idea of what god is then we talk about "god" we might actually be talking about completely different things.
I accept your statement that many recognise god as being akin to the big bearded fellow drawn by Michaelangelo but then again Mickey and Donald are recognised universally as being a mouse and a duck!!!
At the end of the day my stance is I am what LG would call an atheist but I can no more readily believe any of the alternative theories of creation therefore I see any one as if not as valid as likely as another at least something not to be discarded out of hand.
Your comments seemed a little more curt and acidic than usual and I thought a debate was edging towards argument. I do care how you are, I consider the people I debate with on here as friends, so while I'm happy to disagree, I try not to offend.
I think we're at an impasse, we disagree, so be it. I will retract my statement about not being able to debate the existence of god, that's not what I really meant. What I'm getting at is if we all have a different idea of what god is then we talk about "god" we might actually be talking about completely different things.
I accept your statement that many recognise god as being akin to the big bearded fellow drawn by Michaelangelo but then again Mickey and Donald are recognised universally as being a mouse and a duck!!!
At the end of the day my stance is I am what LG would call an atheist but I can no more readily believe any of the alternative theories of creation therefore I see any one as if not as valid as likely as another at least something not to be discarded out of hand.
Rev, //Your comments seemed a little more curt and acidic than usual//
Really? I was simply answering your post, but clearly I must try harder. My apologies.
//we talk about "god" we might actually be talking about completely different things. //
People are talking about different things, but abandoning debate is not the way to greater understanding.
From what you've said both on here and on the other thread, I appears you have much sympathy for the creation theory, albeit involving an alternative god, and therefore you don't come across as the atheist you claim to be.
Really? I was simply answering your post, but clearly I must try harder. My apologies.
//we talk about "god" we might actually be talking about completely different things. //
People are talking about different things, but abandoning debate is not the way to greater understanding.
From what you've said both on here and on the other thread, I appears you have much sympathy for the creation theory, albeit involving an alternative god, and therefore you don't come across as the atheist you claim to be.
Naomi,
As I've said I'm playing Devil's Advocate a bit so not really arguing in favour of this theory more saying that the "creationist theory" should perhaps be treated as something separate to religion. I consider it a hypothesis that has not yet been disproved. My view is that I doubt in the existence of god - I can see many reasons for inventing it but it solves few conundrums just rearranges things. Having said that the concepts of nothingness being unstable and something just coming into existence or of time having a finite begining don't rest easy with me either. Even if I fully understood the mathematics I don't have faith in them when I can't conceive what the calculation is saying.
I would class myself therefore as an agnostic, LG would call me an atheist, Keyplus would probably call me a heretic or infidel.
Apologies if I came across as critical of you, I interpreted your responses as being more hostile than was warranted. Almost certainly misinterpretation on my fault but hey I'm a man and we're like that.
As I've said I'm playing Devil's Advocate a bit so not really arguing in favour of this theory more saying that the "creationist theory" should perhaps be treated as something separate to religion. I consider it a hypothesis that has not yet been disproved. My view is that I doubt in the existence of god - I can see many reasons for inventing it but it solves few conundrums just rearranges things. Having said that the concepts of nothingness being unstable and something just coming into existence or of time having a finite begining don't rest easy with me either. Even if I fully understood the mathematics I don't have faith in them when I can't conceive what the calculation is saying.
I would class myself therefore as an agnostic, LG would call me an atheist, Keyplus would probably call me a heretic or infidel.
Apologies if I came across as critical of you, I interpreted your responses as being more hostile than was warranted. Almost certainly misinterpretation on my fault but hey I'm a man and we're like that.
@Rev - remarkably persistent for simply playing "Devils Advocate" :)
Not sure how I would characterise your belief status Rev - Except that I don't think of you as an atheist. Either "theist- lite" or agnostic would sit better with your stated opinions on here, IMO :)
Every culture has a creationist story - and all, to my knowledge, are linked to the local religions. All religions have a creationist story, even the more modern ones. It is an understandable area of speculation. The Big Bang Theory is the current "best fit" for the scientific observations to date, but is subject to revision, because thats how the scientific process works.
You appear to exhibit a visceral distrust of the scientific explanation (" I dont have faith in the mathematics"). Many people have the same problem, because, as a species, we just aren't very well equipped to understand stuff like quantum theory, or grasp the scale of cosmological and subatomic events.
So, you arrive at a philosophical position of rejection of the current scientific theory, and of seeking of a "better" alternative - but, your rejection of the science equates to the logical fallacy of "Argument from a position of Personal Incredulity" - just because you don't understand something, that doesn't mean that others don't, or that therefore it is incorrect. ;)
-ctd-
Not sure how I would characterise your belief status Rev - Except that I don't think of you as an atheist. Either "theist- lite" or agnostic would sit better with your stated opinions on here, IMO :)
Every culture has a creationist story - and all, to my knowledge, are linked to the local religions. All religions have a creationist story, even the more modern ones. It is an understandable area of speculation. The Big Bang Theory is the current "best fit" for the scientific observations to date, but is subject to revision, because thats how the scientific process works.
You appear to exhibit a visceral distrust of the scientific explanation (" I dont have faith in the mathematics"). Many people have the same problem, because, as a species, we just aren't very well equipped to understand stuff like quantum theory, or grasp the scale of cosmological and subatomic events.
So, you arrive at a philosophical position of rejection of the current scientific theory, and of seeking of a "better" alternative - but, your rejection of the science equates to the logical fallacy of "Argument from a position of Personal Incredulity" - just because you don't understand something, that doesn't mean that others don't, or that therefore it is incorrect. ;)
-ctd-
-ctd-
I cannot make claims myself for understanding the math and the physics behind the scientific theories that are advanced, since that requires a careers worth of learning in arcane and specialised fields - but I am happy with my very basic picture of the creation narrative that the science suggests.
Alternative theories involving a supernatural force can seem attractive, in that they offer a superficially less complex explanation of creation, ("Goddunnit") and offer the additional benefits of an eternal life (souls, and the afterlife) and the existence of a supposedly benign, omniscient omnipotent being, who can ( and does, according to the religious) intervene where appropriate - but a moments logical analysis should tell you that such a being would inevitably be even more difficult and complex to explain than the scientifically derived creation theory you are rejecting in the first place!
I cannot make claims myself for understanding the math and the physics behind the scientific theories that are advanced, since that requires a careers worth of learning in arcane and specialised fields - but I am happy with my very basic picture of the creation narrative that the science suggests.
Alternative theories involving a supernatural force can seem attractive, in that they offer a superficially less complex explanation of creation, ("Goddunnit") and offer the additional benefits of an eternal life (souls, and the afterlife) and the existence of a supposedly benign, omniscient omnipotent being, who can ( and does, according to the religious) intervene where appropriate - but a moments logical analysis should tell you that such a being would inevitably be even more difficult and complex to explain than the scientifically derived creation theory you are rejecting in the first place!
Rev, methinks you protest too much. ;o)
You propose the creationist theory be treated seriously and separately from religion. How do you suggest that might work? Do we take the information we’ve acquired, mark it ‘safe’, and then search for God, or do we ditch all that, go back to square one and assume that God created everything in the universe, including man in his image, and then search for God? (Sorry about the ‘man’ bit, but I’m not sure how far you want to take this. I know you proposed treating it separately from religion, but it’s difficult to separate it completely since without religion there would be no concept of God, so we’d have nothing to search for).
I understand what you mean when you say //something just coming into existence or of time having a finite beginning don't rest easy with me either.// That puzzles me too, but not quite as much as it appears to puzzle you. However, I agree with LazyGun. It’s difficult to conceive of anything with which we aren’t familiar.
//I can see many reasons for inventing it but it solves few conundrums just rearranges things. //
It rearranges nothing and it solves nothing. Saying ‘god must have dunnit’ may relieve people who prefer to inhabit a comforting intellectual vacuum of the burden on thinking beyond the end of their noses, but they are absolutely wrong to attribute one unknown to another unknown and claim to have found the solution, because they haven‘t. As I said it’s difficult to conceive of anything with which we aren’t familiar - especially if our intellect is restricted by the dogma of an unseen, unknown, unproven, supernatural genius creator occupying the void where our brains ought to be.
Thank you for the apology.
You propose the creationist theory be treated seriously and separately from religion. How do you suggest that might work? Do we take the information we’ve acquired, mark it ‘safe’, and then search for God, or do we ditch all that, go back to square one and assume that God created everything in the universe, including man in his image, and then search for God? (Sorry about the ‘man’ bit, but I’m not sure how far you want to take this. I know you proposed treating it separately from religion, but it’s difficult to separate it completely since without religion there would be no concept of God, so we’d have nothing to search for).
I understand what you mean when you say //something just coming into existence or of time having a finite beginning don't rest easy with me either.// That puzzles me too, but not quite as much as it appears to puzzle you. However, I agree with LazyGun. It’s difficult to conceive of anything with which we aren’t familiar.
//I can see many reasons for inventing it but it solves few conundrums just rearranges things. //
It rearranges nothing and it solves nothing. Saying ‘god must have dunnit’ may relieve people who prefer to inhabit a comforting intellectual vacuum of the burden on thinking beyond the end of their noses, but they are absolutely wrong to attribute one unknown to another unknown and claim to have found the solution, because they haven‘t. As I said it’s difficult to conceive of anything with which we aren’t familiar - especially if our intellect is restricted by the dogma of an unseen, unknown, unproven, supernatural genius creator occupying the void where our brains ought to be.
Thank you for the apology.
