Total Posts:42|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Definition of GOD

prephysics
Posts: 20
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2011 11:35:24 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
To have a debate of the existence or absence of the concept of GOD, we need to be defined what a GOD is. Based on that definition we can then determine if such an entity exist.

I'll begin by defining GOD as a jointly exhaustive physical and non-physical dichotomous entity. Which means that there exist two GODs; a GOD of existence and a GOD non-existence. Together, both GODs consist of everything that is and is not.

Please point out if my definition has missed anything.
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2011 12:20:54 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
to be technical here's what god is:

the one Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe. [2]
OR
Christian Science . the Supreme Being, understood as Life, Truth, love, Mind, Soul, Spirit, Principle. [1]
OR
Christian Science . the Supreme Being, understood as Life, Truth, love, Mind, Soul, Spirit, Principle. [1]
OR
the Supreme Being considered with reference to a particular attribute: the God of Islam. [1]
http://dictionary.reference.com...[1]

there's your definition
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
logicrules
Posts: 1,721
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2011 5:02:29 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/9/2011 11:35:24 PM, prephysics wrote:
To have a debate of the existence or absence of the concept of GOD, we need to be defined what a GOD is. Based on that definition we can then determine if such an entity exist.

I'll begin by defining GOD as a jointly exhaustive physical and non-physical dichotomous entity. Which means that there exist two GODs; a GOD of existence and a GOD non-existence. Together, both GODs consist of everything that is and is not.

Please point out if my definition has missed anything

So you defined your subjective potion of god, yest claimed to be defining God.

God...Any entity considered to be above all others: One, of many mythological entities in ancient Greece and Rome; The creator of all that is; The unmoved mover, no longer needed

Pick one to suit your paradigm. If you aren't a nominalist, it can not be proved.
prephysics
Posts: 20
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2011 9:54:39 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/10/2011 5:02:29 AM, logicrules wrote:
At 12/9/2011 11:35:24 PM, prephysics wrote:
To have a debate of the existence or absence of the concept of GOD, we need to be defined what a GOD is. Based on that definition we can then determine if such an entity exist.

I'll begin by defining GOD as a jointly exhaustive physical and non-physical dichotomous entity. Which means that there exist two GODs; a GOD of existence and a GOD non-existence. Together, both GODs consist of everything that is and is not.

Please point out if my definition has missed anything

So you defined your subjective potion of god, yest claimed to be defining God.

God...Any entity considered to be above all others: One, of many mythological entities in ancient Greece and Rome; The creator of all that is; The unmoved mover, no longer needed

Pick one to suit your paradigm. If you aren't a nominalist, it can not be proved.

You've hit this debate on the head. Those who have accepted the notion of a GOD, have a problem with defining what GOD is. You cannot debate something if you do not know what that something is in the first place. I've given my basis for the definition of GOD, absent of the stigma of morality, for a reason. The man made notion of morality corrupts our understanding of the singularity postulate we call GOD. So by the definition proposed, GOD exist as a dichotomy, or their exist two GODs, or GOD does not exist at all.

If we define that GOD is a singularity then GOD, in moral terms, is both good and evil.

If we define GOD by the existence of the two behavior states of existence, then their are two GODs.

This brings us back to why a definition is required for this topic, without definition there is no GOD.
logicrules
Posts: 1,721
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2011 10:16:32 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/10/2011 9:54:39 AM, prephysics wrote:
At 12/10/2011 5:02:29 AM, logicrules wrote:
At 12/9/2011 11:35:24 PM, prephysics wrote:
To have a debate of the existence or absence of the concept of GOD, we need to be defined what a GOD is. Based on that definition we can then determine if such an entity exist.

I'll begin by defining GOD as a jointly exhaustive physical and non-physical dichotomous entity. Which means that there exist two GODs; a GOD of existence and a GOD non-existence. Together, both GODs consist of everything that is and is not.

Please point out if my definition has missed anything

So you defined your subjective potion of god, yest claimed to be defining God.

God...Any entity considered to be above all others: One, of many mythological entities in ancient Greece and Rome; The creator of all that is; The unmoved mover, no longer needed

Pick one to suit your paradigm. If you aren't a nominalist, it can not be proved.

You've hit this debate on the head. Those who have accepted the notion of a GOD, have a problem with defining what GOD is. You cannot debate something if you do not know what that something is in the first place. I've given my basis for the definition of GOD, absent of the stigma of morality, for a reason. The man made notion of morality corrupts our understanding of the singularity postulate we call GOD. So by the definition proposed, GOD exist as a dichotomy, or their exist two GODs, or GOD does not exist at all.

If we define that GOD is a singularity then GOD, in moral terms, is both good and evil.

If we define GOD by the existence of the two behavior states of existence, then their are two GODs.

This brings us back to why a definition is required for this topic, without definition there is no GOD.

I disagree. I would say that your "notions" and scatoma prohibit you from understanding the theological nuances pertaining to God. In the same way as I would not use a calculus therum to support a sociological premise, to try to use anything but theology for God, is silly. One of the differences of the post modern world from those preceding the modern era is that in the post modern what was once considered a trade is now considered expertise. Those who ask for proof of God, will never accept anything as proof, and those who claim to e able to prove God exist (or has existed) usually deny their faith in the assertion.

For those who study Theology, God can not be defined, ergo, you embark on a fools errand. Now, gods, can be defined as they are man made, distinction and difference. Hence it is precisely the absence of a definition that establishes God, but not god(s). You clearly accept gods, like say money, the God of the US religion.
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2011 10:53:18 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/10/2011 10:49:18 AM, Wnope wrote:
At 12/10/2011 10:45:49 AM, logicrules wrote:
Prove Love exist. I have never seen it.

That explains SO much.

Funny response, but he is still spot on.
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2011 11:04:19 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/9/2011 11:35:24 PM, prephysics wrote:
To have a debate of the existence or absence of the concept of GOD, we need to be defined what a GOD is. Based on that definition we can then determine if such an entity exist.:

There is no defined concept of God, and more to the point, it's not something that is provable either way. This is a lesson in futility.

I'll begin by defining GOD as a jointly exhaustive physical and non-physical dichotomous entity. Which means that there exist two GODs; a GOD of existence and a GOD non-existence. Together, both GODs consist of everything that is and is not.

Please point out if my definition has missed anything.:

It's vague and therefore functionally useless, not to mention, speculative.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
ApostateAbe
Posts: 225
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2011 11:10:55 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/10/2011 10:45:49 AM, logicrules wrote:
Prove Love exist. I have never seen it.
Are you saying that God is analogous to a state or function of the human brain? If so, I agree.
ApostateAbe
Posts: 225
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2011 11:16:46 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
It just occurred to me that I don't disagree with the claim, "God is love," as much as I thought. They are both mental constructs.
logicrules
Posts: 1,721
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2011 11:41:25 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/10/2011 11:10:55 AM, ApostateAbe wrote:
At 12/10/2011 10:45:49 AM, logicrules wrote:
Prove Love exist. I have never seen it.
Are you saying that God is analogous to a state or function of the human brain? If so, I agree.

I a saying you cannot prove the existence of love, and emotion, either.
prephysics
Posts: 20
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2011 7:17:04 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/10/2011 10:16:32 AM, logicrules wrote:
You've hit this debate on the head. Those who have accepted the notion of a GOD, have a problem with defining what GOD is. You cannot debate something if you do not know what that something is in the first place. I've given my basis for the definition of GOD, absent of the stigma of morality, for a reason. The man made notion of morality corrupts our understanding of the singularity postulate we call GOD. So by the definition proposed, GOD exist as a dichotomy, or their exist two GODs, or GOD does not exist at all.

If we define that GOD is a singularity then GOD, in moral terms, is both good and evil.

If we define GOD by the existence of the two behavior states of existence, then their are two GODs.

This brings us back to why a definition is required for this topic, without definition there is no GOD.

I disagree. I would say that your "notions" and scatoma prohibit you from understanding the theological nuances pertaining to God. In the same way as I would not use a calculus therum to support a sociological premise, to try to use anything but theology for God, is silly. One of the differences of the post modern world from those preceding the modern era is that in the post modern what was once considered a trade is now considered expertise. Those who ask for proof of God, will never accept anything as proof, and those who claim to e able to prove God exist (or has existed) usually deny their faith in the assertion.

For those who study Theology, God can not be defined, ergo, you embark on a fools errand. Now, gods, can be defined as they are man made, distinction and difference. Hence it is precisely the absence of a definition that establishes God, but not god(s). You clearly accept gods, like say money, the God of the US religion.

Excellent rebuttal! So your definition of GOD is that, based on Theology, such an entity cannot be "defined". However, I am not talking about defining conjecture. If Theology cannot define the basis of the entity of which Theology is based upon, then how is such a practice even rational? Surely, Theology can do better then this. Nice try though...
prephysics
Posts: 20
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2011 7:30:52 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/10/2011 12:20:54 AM, 16kadams wrote:
to be technical here's what god is:

the one Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe. [2]
OR
Christian Science . the Supreme Being, understood as Life, Truth, love, Mind, Soul, Spirit, Principle. [1]
OR
Christian Science . the Supreme Being, understood as Life, Truth, love, Mind, Soul, Spirit, Principle. [1]
OR
the Supreme Being considered with reference to a particular attribute: the God of Islam. [1]
http://dictionary.reference.com...[1]

there's your definition

... then what makes a being supreme? If "Life, Truth, love, Mind, Soul, Spirit, Principle" defines such a being then by this definition we are all GOD.
prephysics
Posts: 20
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2011 7:57:31 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/10/2011 11:04:19 AM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
At 12/9/2011 11:35:24 PM, prephysics wrote:
To have a debate of the existence or absence of the concept of GOD, we need to be defined what a GOD is. Based on that definition we can then determine if such an entity exist.:

There is no defined concept of God, and more to the point, it's not something that is provable either way. This is a lesson in futility.

I'll begin by defining GOD as a jointly exhaustive physical and non-physical dichotomous entity. Which means that there exist two GODs; a GOD of existence and a GOD non-existence. Together, both GODs consist of everything that is and is not.

Please point out if my definition has missed anything.:

It's vague and therefore functionally useless, not to mention, speculative.

The notion of GOD is indeed speculation. I'll give you that. I am not talking about proof as much as I am talking about the premise of an entity that its "being" is all inclusive of anything that can and cannot exist. For such an entity to be anything less then all inclusive is indeed "functionally useless" in terms of being a GOD of course. If your definition of GOD is less than all encompassing, please clarify.
ApostateAbe
Posts: 225
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2011 6:45:01 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/10/2011 11:41:25 AM, logicrules wrote:
At 12/10/2011 11:10:55 AM, ApostateAbe wrote:
At 12/10/2011 10:45:49 AM, logicrules wrote:
Prove Love exist. I have never seen it.
Are you saying that God is analogous to a state or function of the human brain? If so, I agree.

I a saying you cannot prove the existence of love, and emotion, either.
OK, cool. Prove the existence of love seems kinda straightforward to me. It is the set of states of the brain that causes an individual to be attracted to someone or something else. I think that is pretty much how we typically define it. The existence of God is analogous, being a mental construct.
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2011 8:04:27 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The concept of God is as old as humanity, our need to explain from where we came. Therefore, in most religions, God is seen in anthropomorphic terms. As we all know, in the Western traditions, God says, "Let us make man in our image." Truly, it is better reasoned, this is our own projected idea of an anthropocentric significance. In an attempt at transparency, it would behoove us to conclude the statement is better worded, "And Man said, Let us make God in our image." I am not saying this to assert our dishonest efforts at superiority, but only making light of the fact, we cannot give meaning or significance to something apart from ourselves. In other words, and excuse me for being tautological, we can only relate to something in as far as it relates to us. Therefore, any significance given to God is based, solely, upon our relationship with God.
logicrules
Posts: 1,721
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2011 4:51:57 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/10/2011 7:17:04 PM, prephysics wrote:
At 12/10/2011 10:16:32 AM, logicrules wrote:
You've hit this debate on the head. Those who have accepted the notion of a GOD, have a problem with defining what GOD is. You cannot debate something if you do not know what that something is in the first place. I've given my basis for the definition of GOD, absent of the stigma of morality, for a reason. The man made notion of morality corrupts our understanding of the singularity postulate we call GOD. So by the definition proposed, GOD exist as a dichotomy, or their exist two GODs, or GOD does not exist at all.

If we define that GOD is a singularity then GOD, in moral terms, is both good and evil.

If we define GOD by the existence of the two behavior states of existence, then their are two GODs.

This brings us back to why a definition is required for this topic, without definition there is no GOD.

I disagree. I would say that your "notions" and scatoma prohibit you from understanding the theological nuances pertaining to God. In the same way as I would not use a calculus therum to support a sociological premise, to try to use anything but theology for God, is silly. One of the differences of the post modern world from those preceding the modern era is that in the post modern what was once considered a trade is now considered expertise. Those who ask for proof of God, will never accept anything as proof, and those who claim to e able to prove God exist (or has existed) usually deny their faith in the assertion.

For those who study Theology, God can not be defined, ergo, you embark on a fools errand. Now, gods, can be defined as they are man made, distinction and difference. Hence it is precisely the absence of a definition that establishes God, but not god(s). You clearly accept gods, like say money, the God of the US religion.

Excellent rebuttal! So your definition of GOD is that, based on Theology, such an entity cannot be "defined". However, I am not talking about defining conjecture. If Theology cannot define the basis of the entity of which Theology is based upon, then how is such a practice even rational? Surely, Theology can do better then this. Nice try though...

May God save me from the college sophomore. A definition by definition is a limiter. The infinite cannot be made finite just so you think about it. Thus, when you say you can define God either a) you are God or b) you deny that which makes God God...
prephysics
Posts: 20
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2011 8:14:03 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/11/2011 8:04:27 PM, s-anthony wrote:
The concept of God is as old as humanity, our need to explain from where we came. Therefore, in most religions, God is seen in anthropomorphic terms. As we all know, in the Western traditions, God says, "Let us make man in our image." Truly, it is better reasoned, this is our own projected idea of an anthropocentric significance. In an attempt at transparency, it would behoove us to conclude the statement is better worded, "And Man said, Let us make God in our image." I am not saying this to assert our dishonest efforts at superiority, but only making light of the fact, we cannot give meaning or significance to something apart from ourselves. In other words, and excuse me for being tautological, we can only relate to something in as far as it relates to us. Therefore, any significance given to God is based, solely, upon our relationship with God.

So by your definition, GOD could be pencil or stone that you consul with or pray to when the need arises. It is this "relationship" with something other than one's self that gives GOD its basis/definition. This would infer that by me relating to you, you are now GOD... Hmmm
prephysics
Posts: 20
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2011 9:04:20 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/12/2011 4:51:57 AM, logicrules wrote:
May God save me from the college sophomore. A definition by definition is a limiter. The infinite cannot be made finite just so you think about it. Thus, when you say you can define God either a) you are God or b) you deny that which makes God God...

"A definition by definition is a limiter." - that depends on the definition. The definition I stated is all encompassing. It is without limitation. It is inclusive of both infinite and finite states of existence and non-existence. If you take the time to look up the definition of the term "jointly exhaustive" you perhaps would not have made such a sophomoric statement.

So far what you and others have failed to miss with my definition of GOD is that for GOD to be all inclusive of everything that ever was, is, or ever shall be, then we are talking about a dichotomistic entity, not a singularity as defined by our understanding of the GOD of Abraham. The GOD of Abraham, by its own teachings/definition of being a singularity, is a lesser GOD "IF" it is not inclusive of both existence and non-existence, or in moral terms, good and evil. All the more reason why Theology needs to stop playing games by hiding behind conjecture and deal with the paradox of a supreme all inclusive entity being a singularity, a.k.a. GOD.

So lets assume that the GOD of Abraham exist. Then the question is, is this entity a singularity or a dichotomy? Who would like to challenge me to a debate to argue if "GOD is a singularity or a dichotomy?"
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2011 10:03:40 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/12/2011 8:14:03 AM, prephysics wrote:
So by your definition, GOD could be pencil or stone that you consul with or pray to when the need arises. It is this "relationship" with something other than one's self that gives GOD its basis/definition. This would infer that by me relating to you, you are now GOD... Hmmm

In primitive societies, there were gods made of stone.

Putting aside the fact, that, I'm a pantheist, I never said being able to relate to something qualified it as being God, but that which we define as God. A relationship gives only meaning and significance. The terminology we use to express that meaning and significance is left up to us.
logicrules
Posts: 1,721
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2011 10:06:03 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/12/2011 9:04:20 AM, prephysics wrote:
At 12/12/2011 4:51:57 AM, logicrules wrote:
May God save me from the college sophomore. A definition by definition is a limiter. The infinite cannot be made finite just so you think about it. Thus, when you say you can define God either a) you are God or b) you deny that which makes God God...

"A definition by definition is a limiter." - that depends on the definition. The definition I stated is all encompassing. It is without limitation. It is inclusive of both infinite and finite states of existence and non-existence. If you take the time to look up the definition of the term "jointly exhaustive" you perhaps would not have made such a sophomoric statement.

So far what you and others have failed to miss with my definition of GOD is that for GOD to be all inclusive of everything that ever was, is, or ever shall be, then we are talking about a dichotomistic entity, not a singularity as defined by our understanding of the GOD of Abraham. The GOD of Abraham, by its own teachings/definition of being a singularity, is a lesser GOD "IF" it is not inclusive of both existence and non-existence, or in moral terms, good and evil. All the more reason why Theology needs to stop playing games by hiding behind conjecture and deal with the paradox of a supreme all inclusive entity being a singularity, a.k.a. GOD.

So lets assume that the GOD of Abraham exist. Then the question is, is this entity a singularity or a dichotomy? Who would like to challenge me to a debate to argue if "GOD is a singularity or a dichotomy?"

LOL it must be a series of debates involving your responding to interrogatories. Otherwise you shall claim anything form some source and make it your own.

First question...Is everything that is able to be seen? No wiggle just yes or no.
prephysics
Posts: 20
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2011 7:59:54 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/12/2011 10:06:03 AM, logicrules wrote:
At 12/12/2011 9:04:20 AM, prephysics wrote:
At 12/12/2011 4:51:57 AM, logicrules wrote:
May God save me from the college sophomore. A definition by definition is a limiter. The infinite cannot be made finite just so you think about it. Thus, when you say you can define God either a) you are God or b) you deny that which makes God God...

"A definition by definition is a limiter." - that depends on the definition. The definition I stated is all encompassing. It is without limitation. It is inclusive of both infinite and finite states of existence and non-existence. If you take the time to look up the definition of the term "jointly exhaustive" you perhaps would not have made such a sophomoric statement.

So far what you and others have failed to miss with my definition of GOD is that for GOD to be all inclusive of everything that ever was, is, or ever shall be, then we are talking about a dichotomistic entity, not a singularity as defined by our understanding of the GOD of Abraham. The GOD of Abraham, by its own teachings/definition of being a singularity, is a lesser GOD "IF" it is not inclusive of both existence and non-existence, or in moral terms, good and evil. All the more reason why Theology needs to stop playing games by hiding behind conjecture and deal with the paradox of a supreme all inclusive entity being a singularity, a.k.a. GOD.

So lets assume that the GOD of Abraham exist. Then the question is, is this entity a singularity or a dichotomy? Who would like to challenge me to a debate to argue if "GOD is a singularity or a dichotomy?"

LOL it must be a series of debates involving your responding to interrogatories. Otherwise you shall claim anything form some source and make it your own.

First question...Is everything that is able to be seen? No wiggle just yes or no.

"Is everything that is able to be seen?" WHAT? Can you make your question understandable please?
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2011 8:10:25 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/9/2011 11:35:24 PM, prephysics wrote:
To have a debate of the existence or absence of the concept of GOD, we need to be defined what a GOD is. Based on that definition we can then determine if such an entity exist.

I'll begin by defining GOD as a jointly exhaustive physical and non-physical dichotomous entity. Which means that there exist two GODs; a GOD of existence and a GOD non-existence. Together, both GODs consist of everything that is and is not.

Please point out if my definition has missed anything.

Yes: a reason for existing. What necessitates a definition for any god?
prephysics
Posts: 20
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2011 8:27:21 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/12/2011 10:03:40 AM, s-anthony wrote:
At 12/12/2011 8:14:03 AM, prephysics wrote:
So by your definition, GOD could be pencil or stone that you consul with or pray to when the need arises. It is this "relationship" with something other than one's self that gives GOD its basis/definition. This would infer that by me relating to you, you are now GOD... Hmmm

In primitive societies, there were gods made of stone.

Putting aside the fact, that, I'm a pantheist, I never said being able to relate to something qualified it as being God, but that which we define as God. A relationship gives only meaning and significance. The terminology we use to express that meaning and significance is left up to us.

Pantheism - http://plato.stanford.edu...

... may very well be more aligned with our physical reality than most people realize. Interesting perspective.
prephysics
Posts: 20
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2011 8:56:26 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/13/2011 8:10:25 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 12/9/2011 11:35:24 PM, prephysics wrote:
To have a debate of the existence or absence of the concept of GOD, we need to be defined what a GOD is. Based on that definition we can then determine if such an entity exist.

I'll begin by defining GOD as a jointly exhaustive physical and non-physical dichotomous entity. Which means that there exist two GODs; a GOD of existence and a GOD non-existence. Together, both GODs consist of everything that is and is not.

Please point out if my definition has missed anything.

Yes: a reason for existing. What necessitates a definition for any god?

Thanks for weighing in. "a reason for existing"? From my understanding, the notion of a "GOD" is that it is existence. Mankind's reason for this existence is what the earliest form of science (religion) has been trying to answer via spirituality/conjecture. The current form of science tries to answer this question of existence via empirical physical evidence. However both approaches practice "Effectual Methodology". We try to understand our existence via effects instead of the cause. A practice known as hysteron proteron or in layman terms, putting the cart before the horse. Is it no wonder why we are so confused? We all know that such an approach is incorrect yet... here we are.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2011 9:46:34 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/13/2011 8:56:26 AM, prephysics wrote:
At 12/13/2011 8:10:25 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 12/9/2011 11:35:24 PM, prephysics wrote:
To have a debate of the existence or absence of the concept of GOD, we need to be defined what a GOD is. Based on that definition we can then determine if such an entity exist.

I'll begin by defining GOD as a jointly exhaustive physical and non-physical dichotomous entity. Which means that there exist two GODs; a GOD of existence and a GOD non-existence. Together, both GODs consist of everything that is and is not.

Please point out if my definition has missed anything.

Yes: a reason for existing. What necessitates a definition for any god?

Thanks for weighing in. "a reason for existing"? From my understanding, the notion of a "GOD" is that it is existence.

This is the way I see it. If "God" is identifical to "existence" then why do we need to define the word "God"? If "God" entails something in addition to mere "existence," then what is that?

Mankind's reason for this existence is what the earliest form of science (religion) has been trying to answer via spirituality/conjecture. The current form of science tries to answer this question of existence via empirical physical evidence. However both approaches practice "Effectual Methodology". We try to understand our existence via effects instead of the cause. A practice known as hysteron proteron or in layman terms, putting the cart before the horse. Is it no wonder why we are so confused? We all know that such an approach is incorrect yet... here we are.

"We all know" ?

I know no such thing. Do not lump me in. I'm not sure on what basis you claim to speak for my knowledge. Don't do it. It's presumptive.

Furthermore, effects are all we have to go on. We observe. Our observations are the effects, the product of the operation of the universe. We attempt to determine the causes of those effects.

In short, you didn't answer my question. If God is nothing more than existence, then we don't need to define it, we already have the word "existence" to describe existence. If God is more than existence, then what of God is more?
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2011 4:45:57 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Even the nonexistent exists in some form. Existence is the closest word to describe God, but then your ability to communicate is still contingent on a mutual understanding of semantics. The belief in the solidity of the human effectiveness in communication is naive. Words are not concrete.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp