The Definition of God

[Delphi]

God is often defined as having various extraordinary characteristics. Infinitely loving, all powerful, omniscient, the creator of the Universe, etc.

How can we know that this is indeed true? How can we verify such grandiose assertions? No greater claims could possibly be made!

Normally, we make definitions based on verifiable evidence and observation. For example, we define a giraffe as being a large four-legged grazing mammal with a long neck, hooves, a mouth, a tongue, teeth, and two eyes. We can rationally define a giraffe this way based on verifiable observation. We define a giraffe by going out and finding a giraffe, then defining it based on its attributes.

Yet somehow, God is defined in the opposite manner. We do not go out and find god and define it based on its attributes. Instead, we apply god's characteristics to him without ever observing god. Definitions seem to fabricated out of imagination. I find this extremely dubious.

It seems to me that we are applying these definitions to the concept of a god. We cannot verify nor falsify these attributes.

What is going on here?

[JLB32168]

Definitions seem to fabricated out of imagination. I find this extremely dubious.

No – they come from the Bible, which is authoritative on this board.

If your question is on God’s existence then it isn’t appropriate to this board, which presupposes that God exists – a presupposition that isn’t up for debate.

In any case, God is the Uncreated Creator of all things im/material.

[theStudent]

[Replying to post 6 by wiploc]

You have many arrows that point to a creator? You can be famous if you show us a reasonable one.

If theists had good arguments, they wouldn't rely exclusively on terrible ones. And yet they do rely on things like Pascal's wager, lame arguments that shouldn't fool a child.

It is reasonable to conclude, then, that you don't have any "arrows" that would withstand scrutiny.

arrows that point to a creator
#1
Biblical
(Hebrews 3:4) . . .Of course, [It is an obvious, ovservable fact] every house is constructed by someone, but the one who constructed all things is God.

Scientific
Causality (also referred to as causation or cause and effect) is the agency or efficacy that connects one process (the cause) with another process or state (the effect), where the first is understood to be partly responsible for the second, and the second is dependent on the first.

[2timothy316]

To define God is to deny God.

This is a very curious statement. I am not sure that I understand what you mean. Could you please elaborate?

It is indeed a curious statement. 'To define God is to deny God' is not in the Bible. The Bible says, "This means everlasting life, their coming to know you, the only true God..." John 17:3. So it seems it is quite the contrary of 'to define God is to deny God'. The Bible says our eternal life depends on if we know God.

[wiploc]

[Replying to post 6 by wiploc]

You have many arrows that point to a creator? You can be famous if you show us a reasonable one.

If theists had good arguments, they wouldn't rely exclusively on terrible ones. And yet they do rely on things like Pascal's wager, lame arguments that shouldn't fool a child.

It is reasonable to conclude, then, that you don't have any "arrows" that would withstand scrutiny.

arrows that point to a creator
#1
Biblical
(Hebrews 3:4) . . .Of course, [It is an obvious, ovservable fact] every house is constructed by someone, but the one who constructed all things is God.

Scientific
Causality (also referred to as causation or cause and effect) is the agency or efficacy that connects one process (the cause) with another process or state (the effect), where the first is understood to be partly responsible for the second, and the second is dependent on the first.

Those are so muddled that it's hard to respond. You don't have arguments, but mere hints that you think you might be able to produce an argument as yet unstated. But let me ask you this:

Who constructed god?

Who caused god?

[theStudent]

[Replying to post 14 by wiploc]

Those are so muddled that it's hard to respond. You don't have arguments, but mere hints that you think you might be able to produce an argument as yet unstated. But let me ask you this:

Who constructed god?

Who caused god?

One thing at a time.
What is" muddled" about the evidence, may I ask?

[theStudent]

Okay.
Let me try to be clearer.

arrows that point to a creator
#1
Biblical
(Hebrews 3:4) . . .Of course, [It is an obvious, ovservable fact] every house is constructed by someone, but the one who constructed all things is God.

Scientific
Causality (also referred to as causation or cause and effect) is the agency or efficacy that connects one process (the cause) with another process or state (the effect), where the first is understood to be partly responsible for the second, and the second is dependent on the first.

Every effect has a cause.
When a person happens upon a house (effect), whether it be in a desert, or the sea, or in a tree, reasonably they conclude that the house was built by someone (cause).
Especially if the house is well designed and decorated - there is more to learn about its builder.

When we happen upon well designed things in nature, reasonably we conclude that someone was the dsigner, or creator. And we learn something about the designer from the design in nature.

This is in line with true science.

The Bible speaks of the reasonable ones, who acknowledged these facts.

(Psalm 8:3, 4) . . .When I see your heavens, the works of your fingers, The moon and the stars that you have prepared,  4 What is mortal man that you keep him in mind, And a son of man that you take care of him?

(Psalm 19:1, 2) . . .The heavens are declaring the glory of God; The skies above proclaim the work of his hands.  2 Day after day their speech bubbles forth, And night after night they reveal knowledge.

Is this any clearer?

[Delphi]

The chances that mankind came into existence accidentally is 1 in 10 to the power of 10 to the power of 320.

That is a very improbable number, to be sure! How did you calculate that probability?

It seems to me that mankind only exists on one planet that we know of, so we have nothing else to compare mankind with. I am not aware that anybody knows how to demonstrate how life began, so I don't understand how anybody can confidently calculate its statistical probability.

Even if we grant that mankind was directly created by God, is that not mind-bogglingly improbable as well?

[theStudent]

If the above is clear...

Who constructed god?

Who caused god?

If we wanted to know what caused old age, gray hair, wrinkles... we may pass through a series of causes that led to a series of effects. Some of those effects will also be a cause, but eventually we will arrive at a point - a primary cause. That primary cause will not be the effect in relation to the cause of old age, gray hair, wrinkles. It is in effect the first cause for effects of old age, gray hair, wrinkles.

In the same way there is a first cause to every effect. That cause is not the effect of anything. It is the point of everything - the beginning.
God had no beginning. He is the beginning.

(Psalm 90:2) . . .From everlasting to everlasting, you are God. . .
(Revelation 15:3) . . .“Great and wonderful are your works, Jehovah God, the Almighty. Righteous and true are your ways, King of eternity. . .
(1 Timothy 1:17) . . .Now to the King of eternity, incorruptible, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory forever and ever. Amen.

I hope that's clear.

EDIT:
Let me just make one clarification.
It would not be reasonable to attribute avery effect to the first cause.
For example, the dropping of the atom bomb on Hiroshima, the woman stabbing her husband 41 times and then dismembering him... etc.
There is a cause for those effects, which can be traced back to their cause.
Principally, every cause has an effect.

[2timothy316]

The chances that mankind came into existence accidentally is 1 in 10 to the power of 10 to the power of 320.

That is a very improbable number, to be sure! How did you calculate that probability?

I didn't Paul Davies did.

It seems to me that mankind only exists on one planet that we know of, so we have nothing else to compare mankind with. I am not aware that anybody knows how to demonstrate how life began, so I don't understand how anybody can confidently calculate its statistical probability.

Even if we grant that mankind was directly created by God, is that not mind-bogglingly improbable as well?

Well, then show how to create something living from something non-living and lets go from there. So far all we know is living matter from non-living matter appears to be a scientific impossibility, seeing how it has never been observed nor can it be recreated in an experiment. So stating life came from another living being is not mind-bogglingly impossible, it's actually it's the only answer as it is the only thing we have seen or even can prove to be true.

[Delphi]

So far all we know is living matter from non-living matter appears to be a scientific impossibility, seeing how it has never been observed nor can it be recreated in an experiment.

Could it be possible that simple inorganic chemistry gave rise to a simple molecule that was able to reproduce itself? Perhaps we cannot currently demonstrate how this happened, but does it not seem reasonable to think that the complexity of today's life came from simple origins?

After all, we have little evidence of complexity springing into being without graduated steps.

Saying that this is a 'scientific impossibility' is a bold assertion. The burden of proof would then be shifted to you in order show that a form of simple proto-life could not possibly arise.

Perhaps it is an unlikely chance event, or perhaps it is inevitable. The point is, we just don't know. One might be accused of constructing a god-of-the-gaps argument by inserting a divinity as an 'explanation'. No?