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
Re: The Definition of God
Post #41Yah is an abbreviation of Yahweh. The Old Testament God of Israel. Some people in Christianity and Judaism still worship this god today in the 21st century.Monta wrote: Who what is Yah?
The names Jehovah and Lord also refer to Yahweh.
Re: The Definition of God
Post #42QUESTION: Then how do we know black holes really exist? Or is it just an assumption that they exist? What evidence can you present?Talishi wrote:No mystique here. We also define a black hole as a region of space where the escape velocity exceeds the speed of light, without ever having observed a black hole.Delphi wrote: 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.
Re: The Definition of God
Post #43[Replying to post 42 by polonius.advice]
You are right to be skeptical about the existence of Black Holes.
However, these are not mere fictional inventions of our imagination. They are gravitational predictions made by General Relativity, one of the most robust scientific theories ever devised.
By definition, black holes cannot be directly observed, since they emit no light photons. However astronomers using powerful radio telescopes can observe the accretion of gas and dust clouds that are drawn into the black hole's gravitational event horizon.
READ THIS ARTICLE
Gravitation is well understood and Black Holes are a consequence of a very concentrated massive object in a small amount of space.
You are right to be skeptical about the existence of Black Holes.
However, these are not mere fictional inventions of our imagination. They are gravitational predictions made by General Relativity, one of the most robust scientific theories ever devised.
By definition, black holes cannot be directly observed, since they emit no light photons. However astronomers using powerful radio telescopes can observe the accretion of gas and dust clouds that are drawn into the black hole's gravitational event horizon.
READ THIS ARTICLE
Gravitation is well understood and Black Holes are a consequence of a very concentrated massive object in a small amount of space.
- Talishi
- Guru
- Posts: 1156
- Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2016 11:31 pm
- Location: Seattle
- Been thanked: 2 times
- Contact:
Re: The Definition of God
Post #44The LIGO detector in Eastern Washingon recently observed gravitational waves consistent with two black holes merging into one. The collision was detected, and the data is best explained by assuming they were black holes, but the black holes themselves do not present.polonius.advice wrote: QUESTION: Then how do we know black holes really exist? Or is it just an assumption that they exist? What evidence can you present?
Thank you for playing Debating Christianity & Religion!
Re: The Definition of God
Post #45Talishi wrote:The LIGO detector in Eastern Washingon recently observed gravitational waves consistent[???}with two black holes merging into one. The collision was detected, and the data is best explained by assuming they were black holes, but the black holes themselves do not present.polonius.advice wrote: QUESTION: Then how do we know black holes really exist? Or is it just an assumption that they exist? What evidence can you present?
RESPONSE: Thank you. It's prudent not base conclusions on "assumptions".
Re: The Definition of God
Post #46Yah is the short form of Yahweh or Yahuvah or ... depending on how YHVH is pronounced.Monta wrote:
Ok, so we have Yahu here posting who want to define the attributes of Yah.
Who what is Yah?
The short form, 'Yah' is used in many prophet names for example. Eli-'yah', Jeremia-yah, Isi-yah. Yah is the short form of the name of God.
Ps 68:4 Sing unto God, sing praises to his name: extol him that rideth upon the heavens by his name JAH (Yah in Hebrew), and rejoice before him.
Hallelujah means 'praise Yah' in Hebrew.
Post #48
I disagree, but let’s move to better things.Blastcat wrote: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.
Yes, you can express an opinion that doesn’t challenge the authority of the Bible. I’m glad we understand each other.Blastcat wrote: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.
And if that definition comports with descriptions of the Judeo-Christian deity then we’re good. It’s that simple.Blastcat wrote:And I have an alternate definition for "God".
And the Bible, which is authoritative on this board, says that God is uncreated but created nature; therefore, he cannot be nature since he is uncreated and nature is created.Blastcat wrote:My definition of "God" sometimes is “all of nature.�
Your opinion of my credibility could not possibly interest me less.Blastcat wrote:If you did that, your credibility . . .
Pretty much.Blastcat wrote:Does the Nicene Creed give a rigorous definition for God?
For those who hold the Bible is authoritative – they pretty much agree.Blastcat wrote:Do people agree on a definition of God, or do they DISAGREE?
The rest of your post doesn’t really address what the concept “God� is and it’s replete with unnecessary hits of the “return� key so you’ll forgive me for not reading it.
Post #49
[Replying to post 48 by JLB32168]
If you make a CHARGE against me, you better back it up with EVIDENCE or DROP IT.
Take it back or back it up.
Blastcat wrote: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.
Of COURSE you would disagree !JLB32168 wrote: I disagree, but let’s move to better things.
If you make a CHARGE against me, you better back it up with EVIDENCE or DROP IT.
Take it back or back it up.
Post #50
[Replying to post 48 by JLB32168]
Try this definition for God, it's pretty simple, really:
God is an evil monster from another dimension who wants to torture humans as much as possible for it's own pleasure. Whenever this monster says anything nice, it's lying, you can bet on it, and it's a set up for even MORE torture and suffering. I base my definition of this god by the Judeo-Christian Bible, which I take to be in this subforum, authoritative on such matters.
Are we good?
What a MOMENTOUS occasion !!JLB32168 wrote:
Yes, you can express an opinion that doesn’t challenge the authority of the Bible. I’m glad we understand each other.
Blastcat wrote:And I have an alternate definition for "God".
You seem to really like simplicity, don't you?JLB32168 wrote:
And if that definition comports with descriptions of the Judeo-Christian deity then we’re good. It’s that simple.
Try this definition for God, it's pretty simple, really:
God is an evil monster from another dimension who wants to torture humans as much as possible for it's own pleasure. Whenever this monster says anything nice, it's lying, you can bet on it, and it's a set up for even MORE torture and suffering. I base my definition of this god by the Judeo-Christian Bible, which I take to be in this subforum, authoritative on such matters.
Are we good?