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?
The Definition of God
Moderator: Moderators
Post #161
[Replying to post 158 by Delphi]
No, what I am asserting is that it is counterintuitive to assume God is not the most perfect of all beings. Your argument is that there is no God, no being who is the most perfect of all beings. OK, but that belongs in another thread, one devoted to proofs for the existence of God.
No, what I am asserting is that it is counterintuitive to assume God is not the most perfect of all beings. Your argument is that there is no God, no being who is the most perfect of all beings. OK, but that belongs in another thread, one devoted to proofs for the existence of God.
Post #162
How is it that one can ascribe ANY attributes to God?hoghead1 wrote: Likewise, you can't just ascribe any old attributes to God.
The Hindu Goddess Kali is defined as having multiple arms, blue skin, and red eyes. My ascription of qualities to the concept of this Goddess must surely be akin to the panentheistic God, no? How does one decide which deity is more true than the other? The criteria are identical in terms of their verifiablility.
Perfection may be your asserted definition, but this issue has certainly not been outrightly demonstrated.hoghead1 wrote: God is understood to be the most perfect of all beings.
-
onewithhim
- Savant
- Posts: 9249
- Joined: Sat Oct 31, 2015 7:56 pm
- Location: Norwich, CT
- Has thanked: 1265 times
- Been thanked: 329 times
Post #163
I thought I had presented some very compelling verifiable evidence as to the existence of an intelligent Creator.Delphi wrote:I am not here to defend evolution. In fact I think you may be the first person to bring up the subject.onewithhim wrote: the universe, and particularly this planet & humans, evidences altruism, which would not exist if "Evolution" were in control without any intelligence behind it. Evolution's way is survival of the fittest, and altruism doesn't enter in anywhere.
Evolution is irrelevant to the topic at hand. Even if biological evolution were completely false and discredited (which has not come close to occurring), this would not render an intelligent designer true by default. One would require verifiable evidence of this alleged creator, would you not agree?
Check out THIS ARTICLE about altruism and biological evolution.
It seems to me that the reason our eyes can see colors is because our retinas have photoreceptors. Rods and cones detect different frequencies and intensity of photons entering our eyes.onewithhim wrote: The fact that we see colors and there is such immeasurable variety, and we have delicious things to eat, has altruism written all over it.
I don't recognize altruism playing any part to our vision whatsoever.
I am quite curious. Why would humans NEED to see colors? If everything came into existence by chance, OR by the "laws?" of evolution and survival of the fittest, why would we have developed the photoreceptors that aid us in seeing colors? There are colorblind people that get along very nicely in this world.
Post #164
[Replying to post 162 by Delphi]
It's never enough for anyone to say they believe in God and leave just go at that, leaving God, or the gods, as just an undefined X. Everyone gives God an affirmative content. Otherwise, the concept is meaningless.
Your initial question was why do persons assume that God is all-loving, all knowing, creator, etc. Why do persons attribute those particular attributes to God? The answer is that we are thinking of God as the most perfect of all beings, and that these attributes represent what we take to be ultimate perfection.
This same principle applies to Kali. The characteristics attributed to Kali are understood to represent their model of ultimate power and perfection. So the same logic and same definition apply here as elsewhere.
Choosing between Kali and, say, a Western, Christian model of God would involve discussing which model of of God embodies the most perfection, which attributes the highest level of power and perfection to God. Do Kali followers agree that love is a virtue? Is Kali all-loving, etc.? For example, a conservative Christian, going strictly on the tenets of classical theism, would find it abhorrent to attribute anything physical to God. Arms, etc., are absolutely out of the question. On the other hand, I might argue that there considerable truth in Kali, as the stripping of anything physical from God was a result of an undue Hellenic prejudice against things material, and that I don't see how a wholly immaterial entity could move matter. So I would have no trouble attributing a physical dimension, something analogous to arms, to God. I don't assume matter is a privation of perfection. Whatever the specifics, however, all sides agree that God represents the most perfect of all beings. The argument is over what we consider perfections, which is where our discussion should focus.
Since you continually want to [push the discussion over into proofs for the existence of God, I suggest you try the ontological argument. According to Anselm God must exist, because God is the most perfect of all beings, and it is more perfect to exist than not to exist. A la Hartshorne, we can amend his proof a bit. No atheist has ever been able to rationally claim that there is no God. The rationally based atheists are probabilistic atheists. They admit there is some possibility, however slim, that God might exist. Rationally speaking, God is always a possibility. That being the case, and as actuality is always superior to potentiality, God must exist.
It's never enough for anyone to say they believe in God and leave just go at that, leaving God, or the gods, as just an undefined X. Everyone gives God an affirmative content. Otherwise, the concept is meaningless.
Your initial question was why do persons assume that God is all-loving, all knowing, creator, etc. Why do persons attribute those particular attributes to God? The answer is that we are thinking of God as the most perfect of all beings, and that these attributes represent what we take to be ultimate perfection.
This same principle applies to Kali. The characteristics attributed to Kali are understood to represent their model of ultimate power and perfection. So the same logic and same definition apply here as elsewhere.
Choosing between Kali and, say, a Western, Christian model of God would involve discussing which model of of God embodies the most perfection, which attributes the highest level of power and perfection to God. Do Kali followers agree that love is a virtue? Is Kali all-loving, etc.? For example, a conservative Christian, going strictly on the tenets of classical theism, would find it abhorrent to attribute anything physical to God. Arms, etc., are absolutely out of the question. On the other hand, I might argue that there considerable truth in Kali, as the stripping of anything physical from God was a result of an undue Hellenic prejudice against things material, and that I don't see how a wholly immaterial entity could move matter. So I would have no trouble attributing a physical dimension, something analogous to arms, to God. I don't assume matter is a privation of perfection. Whatever the specifics, however, all sides agree that God represents the most perfect of all beings. The argument is over what we consider perfections, which is where our discussion should focus.
Since you continually want to [push the discussion over into proofs for the existence of God, I suggest you try the ontological argument. According to Anselm God must exist, because God is the most perfect of all beings, and it is more perfect to exist than not to exist. A la Hartshorne, we can amend his proof a bit. No atheist has ever been able to rationally claim that there is no God. The rationally based atheists are probabilistic atheists. They admit there is some possibility, however slim, that God might exist. Rationally speaking, God is always a possibility. That being the case, and as actuality is always superior to potentiality, God must exist.
Post #165
[Replying to post 163 by onewithhim]
Well, we are getting a bit off-track here, pardon the pun. I just felt compelled to say that seeing colors is definitely adaptive. Not only are colors are of reality, but seeing colors greatly enhances our functioning. Colorblind people do not function as well as others. Matter of fact, on many railroads, colorblind individuals weren't allowed to run trains. Couldn't determine if it as a red or a green signal. The Pennsylvania Railroad compensated for this by installing only yellow, positional lights, with three lights in a row. Straight up and down meant go, etc. This worked, but was very expensive and many railroads couldn't afford it. A prime example of how colorblind persons create real problems in society.
Well, we are getting a bit off-track here, pardon the pun. I just felt compelled to say that seeing colors is definitely adaptive. Not only are colors are of reality, but seeing colors greatly enhances our functioning. Colorblind people do not function as well as others. Matter of fact, on many railroads, colorblind individuals weren't allowed to run trains. Couldn't determine if it as a red or a green signal. The Pennsylvania Railroad compensated for this by installing only yellow, positional lights, with three lights in a row. Straight up and down meant go, etc. This worked, but was very expensive and many railroads couldn't afford it. A prime example of how colorblind persons create real problems in society.
Post #166
Not so much compelling nor verifiable. Sorry to dissent.onewithhim wrote: I thought I had presented some very compelling verifiable evidence as to the existence of an intelligent Creator.
I love this question. Unambiguous and thoughtful.onewithhim wrote:I am quite curious. Why would humans NEED to see colors? If everything came into existence by chance, OR by the "laws?" of evolution and survival of the fittest, why would we have developed the photoreceptors that aid us in seeing colors? There are colorblind people that get along very nicely in this world.
Again, I am not a bona fide evolutionary biologist, but here are my thoughts.
It has been shown that primates can perceive trichromatic color vision. Other animals like bees, some birds, and butterflies have pentachromatic vision. These little animals can 'see' even better than we can!
Perhaps rather than asking why we can merely see trichromatic color, we should ask why we do not see the infrared, or the x-ray or microwave spectrum.
Seeing in trichromatic color is beneficial over seeing only in a color-blind monochromatic way.
A great proportion of our brains are used for the processing of visual stimulus. Colors, depth perception, distance, all of these are greatly helpful for our survival.
I suppose that one could argue that we do not need vision at all in order to survive. Nor do we need arms or legs. Blind worms and prokaryotic bacteria do well without vision or appendages or the luxury of internet forums.
I am not sure that the existence or non-existence of color vision is an evidence or non-evidence of an intelligent creator.
Post #167
When you say "affirmative content", this rings in my ears as "non-affirmed vacuity". There is an old saying that goes "just because you say it and believe it with great conviction, it does not make it so."hoghead1 wrote: Everyone gives God an affirmative content. Otherwise, the concept is meaningless.
The fact that "everyone gives God an affirmative content" is exactly our point of contention, my friend.
For these purposes, my dispute is not over the existence of a dipolar God, but rather how one comes to justify applying attributes to this God.
These descriptive attributes still seem utterly arbitrary and unverifiable to me.
Post #168
[Replying to Delphi]
I already explained that human beings seek meaningful speech, and that it would make no sense to say, then, we believe in an undefined X. Most people would not at all be satisfied, praying before an alter with "To Whom it May Concern" written on it. Even if you were, you are still asserting something affirmative, that there is a ""Whom," some form of something that may be concerned. Even a blank X is not always a completely blank X.
Next, I have pointed out to God that people attribute to God what they consider to be ultimate perfections. I also pointed out to you how and why neo-classical theist, such as myself, feel that classical theism presented a lopsided concept of perfection. So there is nothing here arbitrary or just out of thin air.
You continue fault believers for providing no hard evidence, without providing any definition of what you would consider to be hard evidence, I might add. Most people here are probably going on faith, rather than direct, immediate revelatory experience. So, too, are you. Unless you turned over every stone in the universe, you have absolutely no proof God does not exist, not one shred of evidence against anything any believers say here. So you, too, are flying on faith. However, the Judeo-Christian tradition is founded on revelation, on persons having a direct, immediate personal encounter with God, such as you find in Paul and also in the literature of the later Christian mystical tradition. Human imagination is not all that free. All our concepts, however imaginatively we might have elaborated them, point back to an actual, real experience with reality. All myths have a solid basis in fact. Hence, if there had never been any tangible evidence of God, had no experience ever encountered God, then we wouldn't have such a word in our vocabulary.
I already explained that human beings seek meaningful speech, and that it would make no sense to say, then, we believe in an undefined X. Most people would not at all be satisfied, praying before an alter with "To Whom it May Concern" written on it. Even if you were, you are still asserting something affirmative, that there is a ""Whom," some form of something that may be concerned. Even a blank X is not always a completely blank X.
Next, I have pointed out to God that people attribute to God what they consider to be ultimate perfections. I also pointed out to you how and why neo-classical theist, such as myself, feel that classical theism presented a lopsided concept of perfection. So there is nothing here arbitrary or just out of thin air.
You continue fault believers for providing no hard evidence, without providing any definition of what you would consider to be hard evidence, I might add. Most people here are probably going on faith, rather than direct, immediate revelatory experience. So, too, are you. Unless you turned over every stone in the universe, you have absolutely no proof God does not exist, not one shred of evidence against anything any believers say here. So you, too, are flying on faith. However, the Judeo-Christian tradition is founded on revelation, on persons having a direct, immediate personal encounter with God, such as you find in Paul and also in the literature of the later Christian mystical tradition. Human imagination is not all that free. All our concepts, however imaginatively we might have elaborated them, point back to an actual, real experience with reality. All myths have a solid basis in fact. Hence, if there had never been any tangible evidence of God, had no experience ever encountered God, then we wouldn't have such a word in our vocabulary.
Post #169
[Replying to hoghead1]
P.S. I also provided you with teh ontological argument for God, just one of the many proofs. So, given personal encounters and these proofs, what more evidence do you need?
I'm curious just how much stock you put into the scientific method. Is it just God you are skeptical about, or should you maybe also include science. I ask that, because much of science depends on faith and speculation. There is not way, for example, to verify the verification principle, there is no scientific way of demonstrating the reality of causality, and most scientists will admit that we have but a limited window into our distant past and out into the cosmos, so that we are really dealing with degrees of probability of something being right or not, we are speculating, not providing absolute truth based on absolute evidence.
P.S. I also provided you with teh ontological argument for God, just one of the many proofs. So, given personal encounters and these proofs, what more evidence do you need?
I'm curious just how much stock you put into the scientific method. Is it just God you are skeptical about, or should you maybe also include science. I ask that, because much of science depends on faith and speculation. There is not way, for example, to verify the verification principle, there is no scientific way of demonstrating the reality of causality, and most scientists will admit that we have but a limited window into our distant past and out into the cosmos, so that we are really dealing with degrees of probability of something being right or not, we are speculating, not providing absolute truth based on absolute evidence.
Post #170
I have no idea what this means, but it sounds cool. I hope to use it as the hooky chorus to one of my new songs! I hope to give you a lyric credit.hoghead1 wrote: Even a blank X is not always a completely blank X.
This logic is terrible. We have a word for Batman in our vocabulary. This does not mean that Batman exists. Or that a god who is defined as all knowing, all powerful, and who created the universe exists.hoghead1 wrote: Hence, if there had never been any tangible evidence of God, had no experience ever encountered God, then we wouldn't have such a word in our vocabulary.
Let's get serious again!
