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]

Seems to me that the Bible is authoritative to so many people, but .. they just can't agree on what it's an authority about... Maybe the Bible is authoritative about generating disagreements.. who knows.

eeeeeeeeee-Yeah – that’s pretty much a nonsense statement that implies that Christians’ beliefs are all over the place. Let’s interject some reality/evidence into this discussion.

Most Christian confessions – the overwhelming majority of them – subscribe to the twelve articles of the Nicene Creed. Most Christians (who follow the teachings of their church) agree on what’s right and wrong. Most Christians have great deference for Christ’s mother and the saints. Most Christians pray to them for assistance. Most Christians practice some form of Eucharistic celebration. Most Christians practice it at every meeting and have the same ideas about what it is.

You guys constantly proffer this ridiculous opinion that Christianity has 40k different beliefs – indicating your immunity to evidence. [smile, as always]

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 30 by JLB32168]


[center]
Fallacious Religious Reasoning:
It's MY interpretation or the highway. [/center]

Should the Christian have an alternative option – aside from “no God exists?� That question could be asked on another board where God’s existence isn’t a given.

First off, this sub-forum isn't limited to only Christians.

Now.. as to OTHER options.. have you considered that the authoritative Bible stories can be interpreted metaphorically?

So.. as an outsider to your faith.. I say that the proposition that "God exists" although TRUE.. is up for GRABS.

I take the word "God" to mean "the known universe". That's how I interpret the authoritative Bible. So, yeah, the universe exists, and "God" is just another word for "universe", so THEREFORE, "God" exists.

That's another alternative, but maybe not a Christian one.
Can you find a fault in that alternative?

[2timothy316]

The odds of that are like 1 to the 10th power to the 10th power to the 20th power.

Another repeated word about statistics: it is not possible to accurately determine the statistical probability of the unknown. We do not know what the first self-replicating molecule was, or what it was composed of. It may have been a single molecule, or a group of small molecules. However life began, it would have began simply. It is not possible to make a reasonable estimation of the odds if nobody knows what happened.

Then you'll have to go stand in line to go debate Paul Davies and his math.

Don't forget that our ancient oceans would have contained a volume of 1x10 to the 24th power litres of water containing about 1x10 to the 49th power potential nucleotide chains. All of these potential replicators drift about simultaneously, drastically reducing the statistical odds of combining and replicating.

There are some scientist that say that even if the whole universe was full of potential nucleotide chains it still wouldn't be enough to increase the odds enough to make a living cell accidentally. BTW did you read the article on the 9 scientific reasons why life can't happen by accident?

I am not talking about modern cells, but rather primitive proto-cells. Pre-life in the oceans is like working with a trillion test tubes on literally a global scale. The odds get even higher near hydrothermal vents and tide pools.

Amino acids and other organic compounds are ubiquitous on earth, and they even fall from the sky in meteorites so we know they are common. A molecular aggregate in the proper sequence would then be subject to selection pressures and evolution.

Bartel & Szostak's 1993 paper in Science showed that the complexity grew 7 million times greater in 5th generation cells than the randomized basic molecules of the first generation. Life from non life is not impossible, in fact it could be inevitable. Complexity from simplicity is common in our universe and it is the most likely scenario.

Or God-did-it. He is defined as The Creator after all.

No matter how likely you wish it to be. It hasn't happened and there is no experiment that has proven life from non-living chemicals. Sorry, you're still at zero proof. You might want to study more as to why they keep failing. One of the reasons is because we don't know how to duplicate a cell membrane. It's the simplest structure in a cell...but we can't make one that works like one in nature.

The funny thing about all this cell creation from non-living materials is that even if man does make a living cell from non-living materials it's still a created cell and doesn't prove it was made accidentally but must have been created. After all if I told you how a house was built and then told you it had no creator would you believe me? Thus if you told me how a cell was built and then told me there was no creator, why would you expect others to believe that?

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 31 by JLB32168]



[center]Fallacious Religious Reasoning:
Taking oneself as the representative of MOST of Christianity.[/center]

Seems to me that the Bible is authoritative to so many people, but .. they just can't agree on what it's an authority about... Maybe the Bible is authoritative about generating disagreements.. who knows.

eeeeeeeeee-Yeah – that’s pretty much a nonsense statement that implies that Christians’ beliefs are all over the place. Let’s interject some reality/evidence into this discussion.

You SURE like to argue about what you think I've IMPLIED, don't you?
eeeeeeeeee-Yeah.. it's almost as if you're IMPLYING that you know my ideas better than I know them myself. Now.. apparently, I would have to DEFEND myself against your interpretation, as IF they were my OWN.. but your wonderfully imaginative interpretation of what I wrote IS NOT what I meant. So, instead of jumping to YOUR conclusion.. about what I said.. how about you ask for a clarification of what I said.

Because, you don't seem to understand what I said at all.. you get an implication out of it that I did not mean. So, if you don't understand me.. ask me.

DON"T TELL ME.

That's kinda like what Christians are doing in theology.. defending their opinions.. in this case, opinions about what God is. It's odd that Christians who you imagine ALL agree are debating this topic.

IF ALL CHRISTIANS AGREED.. there would not BE a debate between Christians.
Oh well. Some people can interpret a disagreement as an AGREEMENT.

But I would say that these people are ... confused.

Most Christian confessions – the overwhelming majority of them – subscribe to the twelve articles of the Nicene Creed.

You present yourself for some kind of representative for MOST CHRISTIANS.. when did you get that title? How about you speak for yourself?

You would have to demonstrate that MOST Christians don't interpret what the Nicene Creed means to them. I know you have OPINIONS about "most Christians", but opinions are not facts, and at least in this sub-forum, if our statements are challenged, we must provide evidence for them.

You make a lot of CLAIMS.. I challenge them all.
I don't take you as AUTOMATICALLY accurate OR the representative of Christianity.

But of course, at least in this sub-forum, I take the Bible as authoritative.
THAT DOES NOT MEAN YOU.

And some Christians ( at least the ones in here ) are debating the definition of God... because they seem to have the need to.

Most Christians (who follow the teachings of their church) agree on what’s right and wrong.

Somehow, I'm a LITTLE skeptical that you speak for "most Christians".
How about you speak for yourself, and be more BELIEVABLE?

But since we are talking about defining God, people disagree.. We are presented in this forum with differing opinions about God.. we aren't talking about "right and wrong" in this discussion, but the nature of God.

You have opinions, and other people have their opinions. Heck, I even have a purely SECULAR opinion, too.

You like YOUR opinion best, and I happen to like MY opinion best..
People who are disagreeing about how to define best happen to like their own.. to each his own, right?

You guys constantly proffer this ridiculous opinion that Christianity has 40k different beliefs – indicating your immunity to evidence. [smile, as always]

How many kinds of Christians ARE there, in your opinion?
How many definitions for God are there, in your opinion?

Do you know that, TOO?

And.. are you SURE that you want to paint a whole GROUP of people with the same brush? How about you speak for yourself for a change and NOT attack a group? If you have something to discuss about what I wrote, I'll be happy to oblige, but I can't really DEBATE your .... opinions about atheists. You have em.

They aren't all that flattering, are they?

What do they call it when someone disparages an entire GROUP of people?
Do you think that it's more permissible to put down an entire GROUP than ONE individual?

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 33 by 2timothy316]



[center]Fallacious Religious Reasoning:
Presenting opinion as fact. [/center]

Then you'll have to go stand in line to go debate Paul Davies and his math.

The thing is.. in this sub forum, the BIBLE is taken as authoritative, not Paul Davies.
HIS ideas, or at least, YOUR presentation of his ideas are NOT taken as authoritative.

So, if you can't defend your propositions.. TAKE THEM BACK.

BTW did you read the article on the 9 scientific reasons why life can't happen by accident?

A lot of debaters in here are quite familiar with apologetic arguments. So, yes, many of us know quite a bit about this "What are the chances of THAT ?, therefore, God." kinds of arguments.

If 2Timothy316 hadn't ignored me, he might ponder this question:

Has 2Timothy316 EVER read why life COULD happen without a designer?
Maybe someone else will ask him the question.

No matter how likely you wish it to be. It hasn't happened and there is no experiment that has proven life from non-living chemicals.

OH well if you say so... but denial isn't exactly evidence, and I for one don't take you as the authority on what has or hasn't happened. Your "say so" just won't be enough evidence for creationism for those who aren't creationists, sorry.

It's a shame, right?
Because you are trying REAL hard to convince us of creationism.

Sorry, you're still at zero proof. You might want to study more as to why they keep failing.

I have to wonder.. failing at what.. being a creationist?
I don't need to win at that.

I'd rather know what is true than what some people believe is true.

[JLB32168]

First off, this sub-forum isn't limited to only Christians.

No one said that. On this board, it is stipulated that the Bible is authoritative. The Bible says God exists; therefore, God’s existence is a stipulation for any discussion that takes place here. It’s really that simple, BC.

You SURE like to argue about what you think I've IMPLIED, don't you?

A group of reasonable people would assume that “Seems to me that the Bible is authoritative to so many people, but .. they just can't agree on what it's an authority about... Maybe the Bible is authoritative about generating disagreements.. who knows� implies that Christian beliefs are all over the place. You’re free to disagree that this inference is way off, but I’ll disagree with you so let’s just move to better things.

You present yourself for some kind of representative for MOST CHRISTIANS.. when did you get that title? How about you speak for yourself?

Are you saying it is an unreasonable conclusion that the Lion’s share of Christian subscribe to the twelve articles of the Nicene Creed either by direct deference to the Creed or to the ideas contained in them? Let’s take “Who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven and was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary and became man.� Can you think of any major Christian confession that takes issue with that article?

I don't take you as AUTOMATICALLY accurate OR the representative of Christianity.

I’m cool with that. You’re wrong and I’m right. Stop being wrong and you’ll take what I say as accurate.

How about you speak for yourself, and be more BELIEVABLE?

Your opinion of my believability is of interest to you alone. I assure you.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 36 by JLB32168]

[center]Fallacious Religious Reasoning:
Mistaking interpretations for what is being interpreted.[/center]

First off, this sub-forum isn't limited to only Christians.

No one said that.

I didn't say that anyone said that. I SAID THAT. You interpret what I write and then refer your interpretations instead of what was actually written.

I was responding to this statement:

"Should the Christian have an alternative option – aside from “no God exists?� That question could be asked on another board where God’s existence isn’t a given."

I think my statement serves as a reminder that not only CHRISTIANS can have an alternative option... You wrote about the Christian.. but I'm not one of those, and I can have an alternative option. And in this board... I can express it.

I like precision, you see.
But you would prefer to discuss YOUR interpretation of what I write as if THAT interpretation was what I actually wrote.

Your interpretation about what I wrote IS NOT what I actually wrote.
Please, if you are going to debate my ideas... debate MY ideas.. not YOURS.

On this board, it is stipulated that the Bible is authoritative. The Bible says God exists; therefore, God’s existence is a stipulation for any discussion that takes place here. It’s really that simple, BC.

And I have an alternate definition for "God".
Is that as simple?

I asked if you found any fault to my Bible interpretation?

You SURE like to argue about what you think I've IMPLIED, don't you?

A group of reasonable people would assume that “Seems to me that the Bible is authoritative to so many people, but .. they just can't agree on what it's an authority about...

WHAT GROUP OF REASONABLE ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?
The one you can imagine?

See, this is where the "must provide evidence when challenged" rule comes in.
PLEASE PROVIDE EVIDENCE THAT THIS GROUP EXISTS OUTSIDE OF YOUR IMAGINATION.

I'm not disparaging Christians at all. Why would you assume that? I am pointing out that Christians disagree. What's WRONG with that?

Do you disagree that Christians disagree?
Or is your opinion that all Christians agree about how to define God?

Maybe the Bible is authoritative about generating disagreements.. who knows�
implies that Christian beliefs are all over the place.

It would be your OPINION that what I wrote there implies what you can imagine.
I don't KNOW about all the beliefs Christians have.. They may BE all over the darn place.. But those were not MY words.

You interpret what I say.. and then tell me that's what I meant or implied.
Stop TELLING me what I am trying to say.

TRY UNDERSTANDING.
And you if don't quite understand, ask me to clarify.

Don't just ASSUME the worst of me and then ARGUE with me about it.
That's SUCH an annoying waste of time.

And it's not as if you're getting away with it.
That kind of thing doesn't add to your credibility.

And.. you don't have to say it..
I KNOW you don't care about my opinions.

But you may not be the only person reading this.

So, maybe if you care about OTHER people's opinions.. I suggest you try to INCREASE your credibility, not LOWER it.

The Bible SEEMS to generate disagreements among believers.
Do you disagree?

After all, we HAVE theological debates.. does everyone AGREE?

You’re free to disagree that this inference is way off, but I’ll disagree with you so let’s just move to better things.

Are you going to disagree with me AUTOMATICALLY?
Is that what you consider to be an honest debate?

I'm asking what the definition of God is.. how is that an "interference"?
Do you mean that when some outsider to your faith writes in this thread.. that it INTERFERES with it?

My definition of "God" sometimes is "all of nature".
What's yours?

You present yourself for some kind of representative for MOST CHRISTIANS.. when did you get that title? How about you speak for yourself?

Are you saying it is an unreasonable conclusion that the Lion’s share of Christian subscribe to the twelve articles of the Nicene Creed either by direct deference to the Creed or to the ideas contained in them? Let’s take “Who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven and was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary and became man.� Can you think of any major Christian confession that takes issue with that article?

I'm saying that what you just quoted doesn't define God at all, and that therefore, it's completely IRRELEVANT to the debate you happen to find yourself in.

And I STILL do not take you as the representative of Christianity. Speak for YOURSELF, if you please. You are not the Pope... but you are entitled to YOUR OWN opinions.

I suggest that you stop pretending to speak for everyone else.
If you did that, your credibility would sky rocket.

Does the Nicene Creed give a rigorous definition for God?
Do people agree on a definition of God, or do they DISAGREE?

IF the Nicene Creed DOES give a definition of "God".. ok. Then that relates to the topic. OTHERWISE.. it is IRRELEVANT to the discussion.

We are TALKING about a definition for "God".
So, do Christians all agree or do they NOT on their definitions?

What is YOUR definition for "God"?
I gave you mine.

I don't take you as AUTOMATICALLY accurate OR the representative of Christianity.

I’m cool with that. You’re wrong and I’m right. Stop being wrong and you’ll take what I say as accurate.

Why would I grant you PERFECTION?
You're just a human like the rest of us.

Your ideas stand or fall on their own.. I won't JUST assume that you are perfectly right... You MAY be challenged on that.

Do you think a statement like what you just made is indicative of honest debate?

How about you speak for yourself, and be more BELIEVABLE?

Your opinion of my believability is of interest to you alone. I assure you.

You now pretend to speak for EVERYONE?

I don't take you as a representative of anyone else but YOURSELF.
But I think you make it quite clear that you don't CARE for my opinion.

To an outsider, you only seem to really care about your own.
Too bad.. I'm in here to understand and debate other people's opinion.

Some of us actually CARE for the opinions of others, and some of us apparently DO NOT. In this forum, when we are challenged to provide evidence, it's a RULE to do so.
So, I challenge you.

Provide evidence when asked.
That's how this works.

Now, you STILL have not demonstrated with any EVIDENCE.. ( we can check evidence ) that you REPRESENT MOST of Christianity.. or know that MOST Christians follow the Nicene Creed. Or how any of that would grant you some.. UNIQUE definition for God.

I STILL have to ask you how you know what I IMPLY.. ( Do you read minds? )

I STILL have to ask you why people would DEBATE about the definitions of God if MOST of them agreed. ( Is debate only agreement? )

I STILL have to ask you if there is any disagreement in this THREAD about the definition of God. ( do all Christians agree on a definition for God? )

I STILL have to ask you what YOUR definition of God is.

But at least you were CLEAR about not caring for my opinions.
That was VERY clear indeed. Thanks for THAT clarification. I find it very helpful.

So, moving right along:

How about you focus your attention to the topic of the DEBATE?
How about you answer some of my questions?
Or do you NOT CARE for those EITHER?

[Yahu]

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?

Well since this is the TD&D subforum, all we need to define attributes of Yah is to use scripture as the authority which isn't a problem for the TD&D area.

[Delphi]

Well since this is the TD&D subforum, all we need to define attributes of Yah is to use scripture as the authority which isn't a problem for the TD&D area.

If one decides to presuppose scriptures to be authoritative and the de facto standard, then there is no question that it is correct. Case closed.

God's attributes are defined in the scriptures that God himself has defined. Thus it is true and beyond reproach. For a mere man to question or criticize would be utter mortal foolishness. Is this correct?

I hope I have summarized this position correctly.

[Monta]

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?

Well since this is the TD&D subforum, all we need to define attributes of Yah is to use scripture as the authority which isn't a problem for the TD&D area.

Ok, so we have Yahu here posting who want to define the attributes of Yah.

Who what is Yah?