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?

[hoghead1]

[Replying to Delphi]

No, true , Batman is mythic, but only partly so. History is full if vigilantes and warriors who did all sorts of fantastic, heroic things. Today, fore example, you have special forces that consists of super- tough individuals who get to use all sorts of high-tech equipment. As I said before, myths always have a solid footing in reality.

Also, again, the Op said nothing about proving the existence of God. Although I have provided some proofs here, really, that topic belongs in a separate thread.

So, OK, let's get serious and also let's stay on topic. The OP asked why those attributes are given. You have been provided an ample rationale for some. If you wish to disagree, OK. But then you need to show why you feel these do not represent ultimate perfections.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 160 by hoghead1]

That isn't a good analogy, I'm afraid. No, you really can't define Batman just any old way.

I'd have to ask: "Why not?"

Some definitions are gong to make more logical sense than others, just as some actors are way better for the part than others.

Well, sometimes, in Gotham City, things don't always make a lot of sense. Supervillans abound.

Do you believe that humans with superpowers makes a lot of sense?
As long as the Batman story is ENTERTAINING, Bob's your uncle.

If Batman gets in a REAL jam, maybe Superman will save the day. And we all know that secretly, unbeknownst to us all, Batman is Superman's gay cousin from Delaware.
( a very successful shooting instructor, I hear )

Likewise, you can't just ascribe any old attributes to God.

Why not?

God is understood to be the most perfect of all beings.

Understood by whom?
By everyone?
Not by me.

So any definitions understood to make God appear less than that are clearly wrong.

Wrong to whom?

[hoghead1]

[Replying to Blastcat]

Words have definite definitions associated with them. Batman has been well established as the name of a certain kind of superhero. It may even have a copyright on it. If therefore, you ere to put a show on TV called "Batman," and the main character was anything les than some sort of superhero, it would not be well accepted, would be viewed as downright silly.

In order for languages to function, words are given specific definitions. Otherwise, no one could be sure what you are talking about. Simple, no? In religion, theology, and philosophy, in English, "God" is the term used to designate the supreme being. Check your dictionary. Hence, asking one to justify such a definition is as silly as if you asked someone to justify using the term "baseball" to designate " a game of ball played by two sides of nine players each." Using the term "God" to denote something inferior would be a absurd as using the term "baseball" to denote a game of chess.

[Delphi]

"God" is the term used to designate the supreme being.

The monotheistic Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Islam, and Christianity) assume a singular 'being'. That which nothing greater can be conceived. This is not a demonstration, it is an assumption.

While on the other hand, conversely, Hinduistic tradition would espouse a pluralistic aggregation of multiple gods. This is not a demonstration, it is an assumption.

Think of the thousands of proposed gods, from Athena to Zeus, Egyptian gods, native american gods, south american gods, Egyptian, Aztec, Australian aborignal gods.

There is no universally agreed upon definition of a god. How do we determine which theistic attributes are accurate and which are not?

The rational person should require justification, reason, and verifiable evidence in order to devote their lives to such a hotly debated and important subject.

Who holds the patent on the definition of God? The Catholic, the Muslim, the African Aborigine? Most importantly, which criteria do we use to determine which definition of God is the correct one?

[Monta]

[Replying to Delphi]

"Who holds the patent on the definition of God? The Catholic, the Muslim, the African Aborigine? Most importantly, which criteria do we use to determine which definition of God is the correct one?"

This is the beauty of freewill.

The world is your oyster as they say and we individually have to find our
reasons for beliving in one God or many gods or none.

[FinalEnigma]

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?

I do not think that it is possible to define an individual except by reference.

I imagine that we could possibly define what an entity 'God' would be, although that it itself would be extremely difficult! But that is like defining 'a human' without defining an individual human.

I mean that we may be able to define WHAT 'God' is, but I do not think that we can define WHO 'God' is.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 173 by hoghead1]


[center]The Importance of Defining Terms:
Part One: Batman vs. Blastman.[/center]

Words have definite definitions associated with them. Batman has been well established as the name of a certain kind of superhero. It may even have a copyright on it. If therefore, you ere to put a show on TV called "Batman," and the main character was anything les than some sort of superhero, it would not be well accepted, would be viewed as downright silly.

If I have to be honest, all superhero comic books are a little bit silly to me... flying people?

But lets say that someone from DC Comics describes Batman in a totally new and weird way. How is re-inventing a story book character "silly"?

Are you saying that using the term "Batman" in a different way than other people is silly because the comics might not sell? Is that what you're talking about.. marketing?

If so, you are missing the point.
As an author, I can assure you that most everything I write IS very very silly.

I make things up as I please. Editors aren't lining up to purchase my material.
But what we were REALLY talking about isn't marketing.. it is about defining philosophical terms. ( for the record, in my opinion, when a term is central to a philosophical discussion, that term can be deemed "philosophical" in nature. )

When one is IMAGINING concepts, like "Batman", only the limits of our IMAGINATION prohibit us from imagining ANYTHING WE LIKE in there... give Batman purple wings .. and a magic wand.. WHO CARES about the label for that concept?

In order for languages to function, words are given specific definitions.

I agree.
Especially in philosophical discussions, this becomes VITALLY important.

One should always clearly define the terms one seeks to debate.

I'm defining "Batman" from here on in as a white guy who wears tight black clothing, has purple wings and uses a magic wand from time to time with great success at fighting bad guys in Gotham City.

That's going to be MY definition, and I'm gonna stick to it.
What's YOUR definition of "Batman"?

The more standard one from DC Comics?
Good for you.. you can define Batman any way that you like.

Otherwise, no one could be sure what you are talking about. Simple, no?

Alas, philosophy is not always very "simple".

In order to know what we are talking about, sometimes, we have to bother defining our terms as well as we possibly can.

In philosophy, one always has to DEFINE THE TERMS to be discussed. IF one wishes to discuss another VERSION of Batman, than the standard one found in DC Comics, one has the RESPONSIBILITY to clearly define the Batman.

There is NO problem for a philosopher to DEFINE HIS TERMS the way that HE OR SHE likes. As long as it's internally consistent, and is CLEARLY explained.

Hence below, as an example, of defining terms, allow me to clarify how it is Blastcat uses the term "Batman".

____________


Definition: The term "Batman"

• When Blastcat uses the term "Batman" he is referring to a middle aged white guy who wears black tights, has purple wings and sports a magic wand with great success at fighting crime in Gotham City.

____________

So, yeah, parts of philosophical discussions are a bit tedious.
CLEAR definitions maybe are one of those necessary, but less glamorous parts.

In religion, theology, and philosophy, in English, "God" is the term used to designate the supreme being. Check your dictionary.

Dictionaries do not dictate meaning.
IF you want to discuss the concept "God", you would have to clearly define the term, as I have demonstrated with my definition for "Batman".

Hence, asking one to justify such a definition is as silly as if you asked someone to justify using the term "baseball" to designate " a game of ball played by two sides of nine players each."

Blastcat be silly.
( and good on grammar not )

Using the term "God" to denote something inferior would be a absurd as using the term "baseball" to denote a game of chess.

Blastcat be absurd.
( Not grammar well, either )

Lets try to focus on the Batman... Lets say that you comprehend my ( rather simplified ) definition of Batman, but you don't happen to agree with it. You object for some pretty darn good reason. Now, the discussion about the concept "Batman" is stalled.

Now what?
What can we do to help that situation?

How about.... I don't use the term "Batman" which might be too confusing due to the associations with the DC Comics character of the same name, and coin a new term so that we better understand the concept I am trying to talk about?

How about I propose to change my use of "Batman" to "BLASTMAN"? After all, it's not the label "Batman" that's important but what the label represents. I want the label to represent a middle aged white guy who wears black tights, has purple wings and sports a magic wand with great success at fighting crime in Gotham City.

I'd be fine if we don't use the term "Batman".. but I still want to talk about the concept.. is labeling that concept "Blastman" acceptable to you?

And below is what I mean when I use the newly coined term "Blastman":
( note that it's not a lot different than my term "Batman", oddly enough. )

___________

Definition: The term "Blastman"

• When Blastcat uses the term "Blastman" he is referring to a middle aged white guy who wears black tights, has purple wings and sports a magic wand with great success at fighting crime in Gotham City.

____________
____________


Questions:

• 1. In philosophical discussions, are the LABELS for concepts more important than the concepts themselves?
  2. In philosophical discussions, are we not responsible for clearly defining and agreeing on what our terms mean?
  3. Is it important to seek agreement about terms?
  4. Who bears the burden of clearly defining the terms of a philosophical debate?
  5. How does marketing considerations concerning a product like "Batman" have anything to do with the philosophical concept "Batman"?
  6. IF Blastcat were REALLY nice, and changed "Batman" to "Blastman", would that help or detract from our philosophical discussion concerning the concept "Batman"?
  7. Is an concept ( like the Batman concept ) the same as it's label ( the word "Batman" ) ?
  8. How does changing the label "Batman" to "Blastman" change the CONCEPT we are trying to debate?
  9. Finally, in your opinion, is it even POSSIBLE that two people not have the same definition for "Batman"?

___________

[polonius]

[Replying to Blastcat]

Words have definite definitions associated with them. Batman has been well established as the name of a certain kind of superhero. It may even have a copyright on it. If therefore, you ere to put a show on TV called "Batman," and the main character was anything les than some sort of superhero, it would not be well accepted, would be viewed as downright silly.

RESPONSE:

On the other hand, many of us who have been in the military realize that a "batman" is job description for a member of military assigned to a specific job.

"A batman is a soldier or airman assigned to a commissioned officer as a personal servant. Before the advent of motorized transport, an officer's batman was also in charge of the officer's "bat-horse" that carried the pack saddle with his officer's kit during a campaign.

"The U.K. English term is derived from the obsolete bat, meaning "pack saddle" (from French bât, from Old French bast, from Late Latinbastum)."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Batman_(military)

[onewithhim]

I thought I had presented some very compelling verifiable evidence as to the existence of an intelligent Creator.

Not so much compelling nor verifiable. Sorry to dissent.

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.

I love this question. Unambiguous and thoughtful.

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.

How are colors necessary for our survival? As I said, colorblind people get along. "Greatly helpful" is not on the table here. You argue against altruism. What besides this attribute could explain the existence of the ability to see in color at all? And you bring up a very good point. We COULD get along without arms or legs or vision (or taste), so why do we have these things?

[onewithhim]

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?

I do not think that it is possible to define an individual except by reference.

I imagine that we could possibly define what an entity 'God' would be, although that it itself would be extremely difficult! But that is like defining 'a human' without defining an individual human.

I mean that we may be able to define WHAT 'God' is, but I do not think that we can define WHO 'God' is.

If you created humans and then wished for them to understand who you were, what would you do? (1) Speak audibly to them, (2) throw a letter down from your abode, or (3) motivate and inspire other humans to write down your thoughts?

God started out speaking audibly to His first created humans. They turned against Him and thus broke up that whole avenue of communication. Then what? He chose to influence other humans to write down His thoughts. He could've thrown down a message from above, but He chose another way. The way you are thinking seems to say that you wouldn't believe that a Creator would care to let humans know about Him. I feel that He would care.

If I am correct and He would care, then, if He inspired any message, which would it be? After analyzing most of the "sacred texts" of the various religions, I personally feel that the Bible makes the most sense, and it identifies the Creator by name. The Muslim faith does not ("Allah" simply means "God," a title). Buddhism does not. Hinduism, to me, reveals a pantheon of such malicious and hideous gods that I could not accept them (as you can observe if you do some research).

So....God cared enough to move men to write the Bible and explain who He is. It is reasonable to think that He would do so. He wants us to know Him.

"Seek Jehovah, all ye humble of the land...Seek righteousness, seek humility. It may be ye are hidden in a day of the anger of Jehovah." (Zephaniah 2:3, Young's Literal Translation of the Holy Bible)

"This [means] eternal life, that they may know You [God], the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent." (John 17:3, New American Standard Bible)