Define "God"

[DTho]

In a single sentence (if possible), please provide your definition of the word/term/concept: "God."

For example, "A fictitious human construct," or "A being than which no greater being can be conceived," or "An egomaniacal creature capable of incomprehensible violence," or "Pure Love," or what-have-you.

(Please try to come up with your own definition rather than using one of my examples; thanks).

Again, the question asks for a definition only; not a definition and following tirade . . .

-DTho

[ST88]

How . . . noncommittal.

TransW/ST88/Anyone Else: What say you? Anything?

Wellllllllll, since you asked...

I thnk we're dealing with two basic definitions of God. One definition is the Biblical God, YHWH or Jahovah, as described in the Judeo-Christian Bible. There are other defintions of this same God, such as is found in the Qu'uran, or, alternatively, in various God-type cults around the world. But essentially, on a Christian forum, we would be discussing the Christian God.

The other definition is the D/deist view of God, which I gather is more of a experiential view of how this God operates. The two defintions refer to the same God, but they each see H/him in a different way.

For myself, since I do not believe in God, nor supernaturality in general, I have to refer to the user manual in order to see what the heck everyone else is talking about. In The Mosquito Coast, Paul Theroux postulated that the Bible is like a broken two-way radio to God. I think it's more like a software manual to a program that has never been written. So for me, I have to use the intended definition of the person I'm talking to in order to determing which definition is being applied. Usually, that's some kind of Biblical definition, which, thanks to various Protestants throughout history, I am able to refer to without believing in. Sometimes this gets me into trouble, but I try very hard not to evoke error messages.

[DTho]

ST88: Please correct me if I’m wrong:

Personally, you define “God” as: A construct of Judeo-Christian myth.

For purposes of debate in this forum, you accept Protestant tenets and/or accept what you assume to be the definition accepted by the individual you happen to be confronting at any given time.

otseng: Don't get me wrong; sure, I'm being a bit of a smart aleck; however, in all honesty, I was a bit put off by your answers. Your first answer totally ignored my question in favor of vomiting forth pre-made definitions from sources other than yourself. In addition to ignoring my question, you also, in my opinion, served to work contrary to one of the main reasons I asked this question: to get people thinking. When I attempted to politely draw your attention to the question as asked, you claim you understood perfectly, yet refuse to answer unless I should rephrase and relocate the question (in spite of the fact that it has, wrongly in my opinion, already been relocated). Perhaps I'm being overly sensitive, but, I find this combination of facts to be somewhat . . . annoying. There was really no “underlying debate question” per se; simply a desire to more fully open the doors to proper debate by establishing a readily-accepted definition of terms. Hopefully you can understand that.

-DT

[otseng]

There was really no “underlying debate question” per se; simply a desire to more fully open the doors to proper debate by establishing a readily-accepted definition of terms. Hopefully you can understand that.

OK, I'll relent. I'll give my thoughts here on the definition of God.

Some of my definitions of God:
1. The creator of our universe.
2. An entity in which nothing is more powerful.
3. An entity that is infinite in scope.
4. An entity that has revealed itself through the Bible and seeks to have a love relationship with humans.

[Piper Plexed]

otseng: Don't get me wrong; sure, I'm being a bit of a smart aleck; however, in all honesty, I was a bit put off by your answers. Your first answer totally ignored my question in favor of vomiting forth pre-made definitions from sources other than yourself. In addition to ignoring my question, you also, in my opinion, served to work contrary to one of the main reasons I asked this question: to get people thinking. When I attempted to politely draw your attention to the question as asked, you claim you understood perfectly, yet refuse to answer unless I should rephrase and relocate the question (in spite of the fact that it has, wrongly in my opinion, already been relocated). Perhaps I'm being overly sensitive, but, I find this combination of facts to be somewhat . . . annoying. There was really no “underlying debate question” per se; simply a desire to more fully open the doors to proper debate by establishing a readily-accepted definition of terms. Hopefully you can understand that.

-DT

your question was

In a single sentence (if possible), please provide your definition of the word/term/concept: "God."

For example, "A fictitious human construct," or "A being than which no greater being can be conceived," or "An egomaniacal creature capable of incomprehensible violence," or "Pure Love," or what-have-you.

(Please try to come up with your own definition rather than using one of my examples; thanks).

Again, the question asks for a definition only; not a definition and following tirade . . .

-DTho

If a members definition of God seems pre-made to you (a value judgment) or coincides with the definition of God found in reference materials, I must wonder why it is perceived as annoying? Are you saying that only member responses that you deem worthy may be expressed?

[DTho]

otseng: I appreciate your answer. Could you --do you think?-- distill that into a single sentence?

TransW, ST88, and Anyone Else: Same question.

If a members definition of God seems pre-made to you (a value judgment) or coincides with the definition of God found in reference materials, I must wonder why it is perceived as annoying? Are you saying that only member responses that you deem worthy may be expressed?

PP: Oh, come now. Are you actually serious?

It is not a value judgment to call a spade a spade. otseng knows as well as I that he simply copied several definitions of God (with perfectly good intent, I assume) without actually providing his own (as the question prompted (and, BTW, respect and thanks for his relent)). If someone should choose to adopt a pre-made definition of God, I am perfectly fine with that. There is nothing wrong with that; there are, after all, thousands of brilliant minds, over the course of thousands of years, that have worked diligently to understand God; however, I did not find his answer annoying because it may have perfectly jived with someone else's definition, but because he (prior to this point in time) refused to offer his personal ideas about God (as the question asked).

If your definition of God corresponds exactly with another's, that's perfectly fine and good. A “worthy” response, in my opinion, is simply a response that actually has something to do with the question as asked.

Now, if you’re done being “pissy,” PP , I'd still be, honestly and sincerely, interested in your personal definition of “God” (be that original or not) . . .

Respectfully,

-DT

P.S. I have to assume you, PP, have watched “2001: A Space Odyssey” and read Descartes' “Meditations on First Philosophy.” The former is of little interest to me; however, do you have any (original or not) thoughts on the latter?

[otseng]

otseng: I appreciate your answer. Could you --do you think?-- distill that into a single sentence?

The creator of the universe that has revealed itself through the Bible and seeks to have a love relationship with humans.

Now, if you’re done being “pissy,” PP , I'd still be, honestly and sincerely, interested in your personal definition of “God” (be that original or not) . . .

Bad use of humor DTho. It's being disrespectful and uncivil towards Piper Plexed.

Please make sure you read and abide by the rules, otherwise your next warning might be a formal warning.

[Piper Plexed]

PP: Oh, come now. Are you actually serious?

It is not a value judgment to call a spade a spade. otseng knows as well as I that he simply copied several definitions of God (with perfectly good intent, I assume) without actually providing his own (as the question prompted (and, BTW, respect and thanks for his relent)). If someone should choose to adopt a pre-made definition of God, I am perfectly fine with that. There is nothing wrong with that; there are, after all, thousands of brilliant minds, over the course of thousands of years, that have worked diligently to understand God; however, I did not find his answer annoying because it may have perfectly jived with someone else's definition, but because he (prior to this point in time) refused to offer his personal ideas about God (as the question asked).

Now, if you’re done being “pissy,” PP , I'd still be, honestly and sincerely, interested in your personal definition of “God” (be that original or not) . . .

Yes I am serious, because the parameters of the question beg a simple and concise definition of an abstract perception, knowable to only the person responding to the question, I choose Otsengs 1st response. Any other response would be my perception of God (not a definition) and require me to discuss my thoughts and perceptions, this would not be an appropriate response to the question asked. Respectfully, I find the question too restricting.

[DTho]

Bad use of humor DTho. It's being disrespectful and uncivil towards Piper Plexed.

Please make sure you read and abide by the rules, otherwise your next warning might be a formal warning.

I apologize if I offended anyone and/or bent a rule.

A) I figured “pissy” was a fairly innocuous term unlikely, at best, to offend anyone (I think “disrespectful and uncivil” is an extreme overreaction not at all appropriate to the reality of the situation; additionally, it is, after all, not within my power to offend anyone. Being offended is a choice people make, and, where I come from, people are responsible for their own choices).
B) I followed up the comment with a “wink” (;)) which was intended to indicate that my comment was not made with malicious intent. Perhaps I don’t know my “emoticons” like I think I do.
However, C) It’s your forum, your rules. I’ll endeavor to be “better behaved” in the future. I certainly wouldn’t want a formal warning!

(Note “wink,” and refer to the above given intention behind same).

Respectfully, I find the question too restricting.

That’s perfectly fine! I’m okay with that! Then a “worthy” answer, in my opinion, would be one which starts out something like, “I understand the question as written, but, respectfully, I find it too restrictive as asked . . . here’s why I feel that way . . . therefore, my answer is . . .”

You are, equally respectfully, not required to answer my question (no one I’m aware of has a gun to your head, or some-such); however, if you do choose to participate, I simply request that you answer the question as asked, or, offer something similar to my above example. Perhaps I’m way out of line, but I don’t think that’s unreasonable of me.

In a single sentence (if possible), please provide your definition of the word/term/concept: "God." (emphasis added)

I realize some people may not be able to distill their idea of God into a single sentence, thus I provided this “out.” I just feel it requires a bit of thought to figure out what you mean when you say “God,” and even more thought to attempt to break that down into the simplest definition possible. That, as I said previously, is one of the reasons I asked the question: to get people thinking. And, again, I have no problem with people adopting a pre-existing definition of God. Heck, look at my definition! It’s about 95% unoriginal itself.

I’m not trying to tick you (or anyone else) off, PP (given your last answer I assume you at least understood that); if you walked away with the impression that I was attempting to offend you, I, A) Apologize, and, B) Hope you now understand I wasn’t trying to “start anything.”

With all due respect,

-DT

[science1]

My definition of God is a creature that humans created to satisfy the answers to the questions that they could not answer.

[neozen]

Define "God"

God is existence/the universe/reality/the all/truth/being.