Total Posts:34|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

What does the word 'God' mean?

murdokahn
Posts: 67
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2017 5:51:33 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
"God" is probably the word that has the most ambiguous meanings in the English language.

How can we discuss the existence of something without having a clear definition of what it is we're discussing beforehand?
EtrnlVw
Posts: 6,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2017 5:53:56 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/23/2017 5:51:33 PM, murdokahn wrote:
"God" is probably the word that has the most ambiguous meanings in the English language.


How can we discuss the existence of something without having a clear definition of what it is we're discussing beforehand?

What word do you like that we could call the Creator? I don't think there is anything ambiguous about it's understanding. The problem more precisely is that the word covers a lot of ground, to say the least.
murdokahn
Posts: 67
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2017 6:03:33 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/23/2017 5:53:56 PM, EtrnlVw wrote:
At 5/23/2017 5:51:33 PM, murdokahn wrote:
"God" is probably the word that has the most ambiguous meanings in the English language.


How can we discuss the existence of something without having a clear definition of what it is we're discussing beforehand?

What word do you like that we could call the Creator? I don't think there is anything ambiguous about it's understanding. The problem more precisely is that the word covers a lot of ground, to say the least.

So God means "the Creator"?

It's interesting that the 'C' is capitalized as if we were referring to a proper noun - a single, identifiable entity. Creator of what? Why not creator (lowercase 'c') or creators? If there were two creators would they both be God or neither?

Is there any dictionary definition of God as "the Creator"?

I think what you're saying is that there are various versions of a creator God but "creator" is always a part of the meaning?
janesix
Posts: 8,233
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2017 6:07:47 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/23/2017 6:03:33 PM, murdokahn wrote:
At 5/23/2017 5:53:56 PM, EtrnlVw wrote:
At 5/23/2017 5:51:33 PM, murdokahn wrote:
"God" is probably the word that has the most ambiguous meanings in the English language.


How can we discuss the existence of something without having a clear definition of what it is we're discussing beforehand?

What word do you like that we could call the Creator? I don't think there is anything ambiguous about it's understanding. The problem more precisely is that the word covers a lot of ground, to say the least.

So God means "the Creator"?

It's interesting that the 'C' is capitalized as if we were referring to a proper noun - a single, identifiable entity. Creator of what? Why not creator (lowercase 'c') or creators? If there were two creators would they both be God or neither?

Is there any dictionary definition of God as "the Creator"?

I think what you're saying is that there are various versions of a creator God but "creator" is always a part of the meaning?

There have been plenty of Gods who weren't creators, especially where there are pantheons of Gods.
janesix
Posts: 8,233
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2017 6:08:58 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/23/2017 5:51:33 PM, murdokahn wrote:
"God" is probably the word that has the most ambiguous meanings in the English language.


How can we discuss the existence of something without having a clear definition of what it is we're discussing beforehand?

There should be a clear definition worked out before the discussion begins, because there are multiple definitions of God.
Polytheist_Witch
Posts: 4,423
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2017 6:10:14 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/23/2017 5:53:56 PM, EtrnlVw wrote:
At 5/23/2017 5:51:33 PM, murdokahn wrote:
"God" is probably the word that has the most ambiguous meanings in the English language.


How can we discuss the existence of something without having a clear definition of what it is we're discussing beforehand?

What word do you like that we could call the Creator? I don't think there is anything ambiguous about it's understanding. The problem more precisely is that the word covers a lot of ground, to say the least.

Not all gods are creator gods. Most of them have a name. God with a capital G is usually associated with the God of Abraham.

Not sure how you define a god/deity.
janesix
Posts: 8,233
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2017 6:13:02 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/23/2017 6:10:14 PM, Polytheist_Witch wrote:
At 5/23/2017 5:53:56 PM, EtrnlVw wrote:
At 5/23/2017 5:51:33 PM, murdokahn wrote:
"God" is probably the word that has the most ambiguous meanings in the English language.


How can we discuss the existence of something without having a clear definition of what it is we're discussing beforehand?

What word do you like that we could call the Creator? I don't think there is anything ambiguous about it's understanding. The problem more precisely is that the word covers a lot of ground, to say the least.

Not all gods are creator gods. Most of them have a name. God with a capital G is usually associated with the God of Abraham.

Not sure how you define a god/deity.

Maybe, " An immortal being with supernatural powers"?
Polytheist_Witch
Posts: 4,423
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2017 6:16:02 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/23/2017 6:13:02 PM, janesix wrote:
At 5/23/2017 6:10:14 PM, Polytheist_Witch wrote:
At 5/23/2017 5:53:56 PM, EtrnlVw wrote:
At 5/23/2017 5:51:33 PM, murdokahn wrote:
"God" is probably the word that has the most ambiguous meanings in the English language.


How can we discuss the existence of something without having a clear definition of what it is we're discussing beforehand?

What word do you like that we could call the Creator? I don't think there is anything ambiguous about it's understanding. The problem more precisely is that the word covers a lot of ground, to say the least.

Not all gods are creator gods. Most of them have a name. God with a capital G is usually associated with the God of Abraham.

Not sure how you define a god/deity.

Maybe, " An immortal being with supernatural powers"?

Not all gods are immortal. There are myths were gods die. Most do have some kind of power. Many represent natural forces as well. So a supernatural being with magical powers that may or may represent creation or natural forces. Maybe?
janesix
Posts: 8,233
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2017 6:18:33 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/23/2017 6:16:02 PM, Polytheist_Witch wrote:
At 5/23/2017 6:13:02 PM, janesix wrote:
At 5/23/2017 6:10:14 PM, Polytheist_Witch wrote:
At 5/23/2017 5:53:56 PM, EtrnlVw wrote:
At 5/23/2017 5:51:33 PM, murdokahn wrote:
"God" is probably the word that has the most ambiguous meanings in the English language.


How can we discuss the existence of something without having a clear definition of what it is we're discussing beforehand?

What word do you like that we could call the Creator? I don't think there is anything ambiguous about it's understanding. The problem more precisely is that the word covers a lot of ground, to say the least.

Not all gods are creator gods. Most of them have a name. God with a capital G is usually associated with the God of Abraham.

Not sure how you define a god/deity.

Maybe, " An immortal being with supernatural powers"?

Not all gods are immortal. There are myths were gods die. Most do have some kind of power. Many represent natural forces as well. So a supernatural being with magical powers that may or may represent creation or natural forces. Maybe?

Hmmm..this is a hard one. I'm not sure.
EtrnlVw
Posts: 6,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2017 6:26:42 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/23/2017 6:03:33 PM, murdokahn wrote:
At 5/23/2017 5:53:56 PM, EtrnlVw wrote:
At 5/23/2017 5:51:33 PM, murdokahn wrote:
"God" is probably the word that has the most ambiguous meanings in the English language.


How can we discuss the existence of something without having a clear definition of what it is we're discussing beforehand?

What word do you like that we could call the Creator? I don't think there is anything ambiguous about it's understanding. The problem more precisely is that the word covers a lot of ground, to say the least.

So God means "the Creator"?


Certainly one aspect. I was more or less using it as a name though.

It's interesting that the 'C' is capitalized as if we were referring to a proper noun - a single, identifiable entity. Creator of what? Why not creator (lowercase 'c') or creators? If there were two creators would they both be God or neither?


Because the Creator is an Entity, a conscious Being. Why not capitalize it? but I really don't care either way it just makes sense. Certainly nothing to carry on about.

Is there any dictionary definition of God as "the Creator"?


I don't know what you are looking for here. I was just asking what word you prefer....

I think what you're saying is that there are various versions of a creator God but "creator" is always a part of the meaning?

Sure, but I was just using this as a name because you seem to not like "God". But yes, the Creator creates. That should be pretty obvious. Of course, I'm mainly referring to the All, the single Source, not incarnations though it's possible incarnations create worlds or things.
EtrnlVw
Posts: 6,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2017 6:30:02 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/23/2017 6:10:14 PM, Polytheist_Witch wrote:
At 5/23/2017 5:53:56 PM, EtrnlVw wrote:
At 5/23/2017 5:51:33 PM, murdokahn wrote:
"God" is probably the word that has the most ambiguous meanings in the English language.


How can we discuss the existence of something without having a clear definition of what it is we're discussing beforehand?

What word do you like that we could call the Creator? I don't think there is anything ambiguous about it's understanding. The problem more precisely is that the word covers a lot of ground, to say the least.

Not all gods are creator gods. Most of them have a name. God with a capital G is usually associated with the God of Abraham.


I know, I was referring to the One source. Not incarnations but I understand our beliefs are probably different. I was mainly referring to the Godhead, the One. Where all of creation and being originate.

Not sure how you define a god/deity.

Yeah like I said it does cover a lot of ground, but it makes it easier when you pull back to the one Source of the all. This makes it mush easier, incarnations could be for another topic.
janesix
Posts: 8,233
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2017 6:32:21 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/23/2017 6:26:42 PM, EtrnlVw wrote:
At 5/23/2017 6:03:33 PM, murdokahn wrote:
At 5/23/2017 5:53:56 PM, EtrnlVw wrote:
At 5/23/2017 5:51:33 PM, murdokahn wrote:
"God" is probably the word that has the most ambiguous meanings in the English language.


How can we discuss the existence of something without having a clear definition of what it is we're discussing beforehand?

What word do you like that we could call the Creator? I don't think there is anything ambiguous about it's understanding. The problem more precisely is that the word covers a lot of ground, to say the least.

So God means "the Creator"?


Certainly one aspect. I was more or less using it as a name though.

It's interesting that the 'C' is capitalized as if we were referring to a proper noun - a single, identifiable entity. Creator of what? Why not creator (lowercase 'c') or creators? If there were two creators would they both be God or neither?


Because the Creator is an Entity, a conscious Being. Why not capitalize it? but I really don't care either way it just makes sense. Certainly nothing to carry on about.

Is there any dictionary definition of God as "the Creator"?


I don't know what you are looking for here. I was just asking what word you prefer....

I think what you're saying is that there are various versions of a creator God but "creator" is always a part of the meaning?

Sure, but I was just using this as a name because you seem to not like "God". But yes, the Creator creates. That should be pretty obvious. Of course, I'm mainly referring to the All, the single Source, not incarnations though it's possible incarnations create worlds or things.

If there is only one God, I think it would have to be the creator. I tend to believe this, but really I have no proof of it. There is the possibility there are multiple Gods.

What is your reasoning that there is only one God?
EtrnlVw
Posts: 6,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2017 6:36:20 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/23/2017 6:32:21 PM, janesix wrote:
At 5/23/2017 6:26:42 PM, EtrnlVw wrote:
At 5/23/2017 6:03:33 PM, murdokahn wrote:
At 5/23/2017 5:53:56 PM, EtrnlVw wrote:
At 5/23/2017 5:51:33 PM, murdokahn wrote:
"God" is probably the word that has the most ambiguous meanings in the English language.


How can we discuss the existence of something without having a clear definition of what it is we're discussing beforehand?

What word do you like that we could call the Creator? I don't think there is anything ambiguous about it's understanding. The problem more precisely is that the word covers a lot of ground, to say the least.

So God means "the Creator"?


Certainly one aspect. I was more or less using it as a name though.

It's interesting that the 'C' is capitalized as if we were referring to a proper noun - a single, identifiable entity. Creator of what? Why not creator (lowercase 'c') or creators? If there were two creators would they both be God or neither?


Because the Creator is an Entity, a conscious Being. Why not capitalize it? but I really don't care either way it just makes sense. Certainly nothing to carry on about.

Is there any dictionary definition of God as "the Creator"?


I don't know what you are looking for here. I was just asking what word you prefer....

I think what you're saying is that there are various versions of a creator God but "creator" is always a part of the meaning?

Sure, but I was just using this as a name because you seem to not like "God". But yes, the Creator creates. That should be pretty obvious. Of course, I'm mainly referring to the All, the single Source, not incarnations though it's possible incarnations create worlds or things.

If there is only one God, I think it would have to be the creator. I tend to believe this, but really I have no proof of it. There is the possibility there are multiple Gods.


Yes all of creation come from a single source. This is the infinite, formless, non-special conscious Being that is incredibly intelligent, as a matter of fact the universal mind would blow anyone's individual mind away lol. Pretty amazing stuff!
The multiple gods are incarnations, nothing is separate or from another source.

What is your reasoning that there is only one God?

That's a winded question, wow, I would start with the nature of formless consciousness. Once that's understood you then can know that nothing is outside the One.
Polytheist_Witch
Posts: 4,423
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2017 6:36:33 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/23/2017 6:30:02 PM, EtrnlVw wrote:
At 5/23/2017 6:10:14 PM, Polytheist_Witch wrote:
At 5/23/2017 5:53:56 PM, EtrnlVw wrote:
At 5/23/2017 5:51:33 PM, murdokahn wrote:
"God" is probably the word that has the most ambiguous meanings in the English language.


How can we discuss the existence of something without having a clear definition of what it is we're discussing beforehand?

What word do you like that we could call the Creator? I don't think there is anything ambiguous about it's understanding. The problem more precisely is that the word covers a lot of ground, to say the least.

Not all gods are creator gods. Most of them have a name. God with a capital G is usually associated with the God of Abraham.


I know, I was referring to the One source. Not incarnations but I understand our beliefs are probably different. I was mainly referring to the Godhead, the One. Where all of creation and being originate.

Not sure how you define a god/deity.

Yeah like I said it does cover a lot of ground, but it makes it easier when you pull back to the one Source of the all. This makes it mush easier, incarnations could be for another topic.

I am sure it makes it easier for monotheists but you don't get to own god cause you have just one. There are other gods and even other beings worshiped like gods. They should be excluded cause it's hard on everyone to keep up.
janesix
Posts: 8,233
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2017 6:43:52 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/23/2017 6:36:20 PM, EtrnlVw wrote:
At 5/23/2017 6:32:21 PM, janesix wrote:
At 5/23/2017 6:26:42 PM, EtrnlVw wrote:
At 5/23/2017 6:03:33 PM, murdokahn wrote:
At 5/23/2017 5:53:56 PM, EtrnlVw wrote:
At 5/23/2017 5:51:33 PM, murdokahn wrote:
"God" is probably the word that has the most ambiguous meanings in the English language.


How can we discuss the existence of something without having a clear definition of what it is we're discussing beforehand?

What word do you like that we could call the Creator? I don't think there is anything ambiguous about it's understanding. The problem more precisely is that the word covers a lot of ground, to say the least.

So God means "the Creator"?


Certainly one aspect. I was more or less using it as a name though.

It's interesting that the 'C' is capitalized as if we were referring to a proper noun - a single, identifiable entity. Creator of what? Why not creator (lowercase 'c') or creators? If there were two creators would they both be God or neither?


Because the Creator is an Entity, a conscious Being. Why not capitalize it? but I really don't care either way it just makes sense. Certainly nothing to carry on about.

Is there any dictionary definition of God as "the Creator"?


I don't know what you are looking for here. I was just asking what word you prefer....

I think what you're saying is that there are various versions of a creator God but "creator" is always a part of the meaning?

Sure, but I was just using this as a name because you seem to not like "God". But yes, the Creator creates. That should be pretty obvious. Of course, I'm mainly referring to the All, the single Source, not incarnations though it's possible incarnations create worlds or things.

If there is only one God, I think it would have to be the creator. I tend to believe this, but really I have no proof of it. There is the possibility there are multiple Gods.


Yes all of creation come from a single source. This is the infinite, formless, non-special conscious Being that is incredibly intelligent, as a matter of fact the universal mind would blow anyone's individual mind away lol. Pretty amazing stuff!
The multiple gods are incarnations, nothing is separate or from another source.

What is your reasoning that there is only one God?

That's a winded question, wow, I would start with the nature of formless consciousness. Once that's understood you then can know that nothing is outside the One.

Ok I don't understand the nature of formless consciousness. What does that mean?
murdokahn
Posts: 67
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2017 6:50:15 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/23/2017 6:26:42 PM, EtrnlVw wrote:
At 5/23/2017 6:03:33 PM, murdokahn wrote:
At 5/23/2017 5:53:56 PM, EtrnlVw wrote:
At 5/23/2017 5:51:33 PM, murdokahn wrote:
"God" is probably the word that has the most ambiguous meanings in the English language.


How can we discuss the existence of something without having a clear definition of what it is we're discussing beforehand?

What word do you like that we could call the Creator? I don't think there is anything ambiguous about it's understanding. The problem more precisely is that the word covers a lot of ground, to say the least.

So God means "the Creator"?


Certainly one aspect. I was more or less using it as a name though.

So is "creator" just an aspect of the word "God" or is "creator" what the word 'God' means? For example, you could say "outgoing" is an aspect of "personality" but does "outgoing" describe the meaning of the word "personality"? Of course not. I'm only trying what the word 'God' *means.*

It's interesting that the 'C' is capitalized as if we were referring to a proper noun - a single, identifiable entity. Creator of what? Why not creator (lowercase 'c') or creators? If there were two creators would they both be God or neither?


Because the Creator is an Entity, a conscious Being. Why not capitalize it? but I really don't care either way it just makes sense. Certainly nothing to carry on about.

News to me! Your response implies that a non-amiguous definition of God is not important. If you're trying to convince me that you have a "doodamabob" then you'd better clarify what it is you're actually referring to.

Is there any dictionary definition of God as "the Creator"?


I don't know what you are looking for here. I was just asking what word you prefer....

A definition of God. If you told me that the word "chair" means a type of cheese from France, then I'd expect to see this definition from at least one reputable dictionary. Unless you have a cutting-edge definition and the dictionaries just haven't caught up yet I have no idea whether there is or isn't a dictionary definition of God as "the Creator".

I think what you're saying is that there are various versions of a creator God but "creator" is always a part of the meaning?

Sure, but I was just using this as a name because you seem to not like "God". But yes, the Creator creates. That should be pretty obvious. Of course, I'm mainly referring to the All, the single Source, not incarnations though it's possible incarnations create worlds or things.

A person named Person Is obviously a person. Is Person what a person is, or is person what Person is?
Silly_Billy
Posts: 1,253
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2017 7:04:07 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/23/2017 5:51:33 PM, murdokahn wrote:
"God" is probably the word that has the most ambiguous meanings in the English language.


How can we discuss the existence of something without having a clear definition of what it is we're discussing beforehand?

The problem with defining God is that everybody has its own tweaked idea of what God is and that means that the discussion about whether or not a God exists would simply be morphed into a new, equally never-ending discussion, about what the definition would have to be. Additionally, if there is a God, then to define this God would be a pointless exercise because no matter what words you would use to define him, ultimately he would still be what he is no matter what the definition says that he is. If I define a chair to exclude all chairs that are made out of wood, I would not be able to call a wooden chair a chair but I would still be able to sit on it.
murdokahn
Posts: 67
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2017 7:18:46 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/23/2017 7:04:07 PM, Silly_Billy wrote:
At 5/23/2017 5:51:33 PM, murdokahn wrote:
"God" is probably the word that has the most ambiguous meanings in the English language.


How can we discuss the existence of something without having a clear definition of what it is we're discussing beforehand?

The problem with defining God is that everybody has its own tweaked idea of what God is and that means that the discussion about whether or not a God exists would simply be morphed into a new, equally never-ending discussion, about what the definition would have to be. Additionally, if there is a God, then to define this God would be a pointless exercise because no matter what words you would use to define him, ultimately he would still be what he is no matter what the definition says that he is. If I define a chair to exclude all chairs that are made out of wood, I would not be able to call a wooden chair a chair but I would still be able to sit on it.

So are we unable to have a meaningful discussion about whether "God" does or doesn't exist? Seemingly so!
Polytheist_Witch
Posts: 4,423
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2017 7:25:25 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/23/2017 7:18:46 PM, murdokahn wrote:
At 5/23/2017 7:04:07 PM, Silly_Billy wrote:
At 5/23/2017 5:51:33 PM, murdokahn wrote:
"God" is probably the word that has the most ambiguous meanings in the English language.


How can we discuss the existence of something without having a clear definition of what it is we're discussing beforehand?

The problem with defining God is that everybody has its own tweaked idea of what God is and that means that the discussion about whether or not a God exists would simply be morphed into a new, equally never-ending discussion, about what the definition would have to be. Additionally, if there is a God, then to define this God would be a pointless exercise because no matter what words you would use to define him, ultimately he would still be what he is no matter what the definition says that he is. If I define a chair to exclude all chairs that are made out of wood, I would not be able to call a wooden chair a chair but I would still be able to sit on it.

So are we unable to have a meaningful discussion about whether "God" does or doesn't exist? Seemingly so!

Of course not. Even if you define what a god is there will always be those who don't believe and those who do. Talking about it rarely changes minds.
murdokahn
Posts: 67
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2017 7:33:41 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/23/2017 7:25:25 PM, Polytheist_Witch wrote:
At 5/23/2017 7:18:46 PM, murdokahn wrote:
At 5/23/2017 7:04:07 PM, Silly_Billy wrote:
At 5/23/2017 5:51:33 PM, murdokahn wrote:
"God" is probably the word that has the most ambiguous meanings in the English language.


How can we discuss the existence of something without having a clear definition of what it is we're discussing beforehand?

The problem with defining God is that everybody has its own tweaked idea of what God is and that means that the discussion about whether or not a God exists would simply be morphed into a new, equally never-ending discussion, about what the definition would have to be. Additionally, if there is a God, then to define this God would be a pointless exercise because no matter what words you would use to define him, ultimately he would still be what he is no matter what the definition says that he is. If I define a chair to exclude all chairs that are made out of wood, I would not be able to call a wooden chair a chair but I would still be able to sit on it.

So are we unable to have a meaningful discussion about whether "God" does or doesn't exist? Seemingly so!

Of course not. Even if you define what a god is there will always be those who don't believe and those who do. Talking about it rarely changes minds.

What someone believes is true is distinct from what's most rational to believe is true. If we forgoe the presupposition that both parties are interested in what's most rational to believe is the truth, then the conversation is indeed meaningless.
.
Silly_Billy
Posts: 1,253
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2017 7:35:37 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/23/2017 7:25:25 PM, Polytheist_Witch wrote:
At 5/23/2017 7:18:46 PM, murdokahn wrote:
At 5/23/2017 7:04:07 PM, Silly_Billy wrote:
At 5/23/2017 5:51:33 PM, murdokahn wrote:
"God" is probably the word that has the most ambiguous meanings in the English language.


How can we discuss the existence of something without having a clear definition of what it is we're discussing beforehand?

The problem with defining God is that everybody has its own tweaked idea of what God is and that means that the discussion about whether or not a God exists would simply be morphed into a new, equally never-ending discussion, about what the definition would have to be. Additionally, if there is a God, then to define this God would be a pointless exercise because no matter what words you would use to define him, ultimately he would still be what he is no matter what the definition says that he is. If I define a chair to exclude all chairs that are made out of wood, I would not be able to call a wooden chair a chair but I would still be able to sit on it.

So are we unable to have a meaningful discussion about whether "God" does or doesn't exist? Seemingly so!

Of course not. Even if you define what a god is there will always be those who don't believe and those who do. Talking about it rarely changes minds.

I agree. You can define a God to be something other that what people believe in, but the result would be that people will still belief what they belief though they would have to invent a new word to define what it is that they belief.
Polytheist_Witch
Posts: 4,423
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2017 7:42:24 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/23/2017 7:33:41 PM, murdokahn wrote:
At 5/23/2017 7:25:25 PM, Polytheist_Witch wrote:
At 5/23/2017 7:18:46 PM, murdokahn wrote:
At 5/23/2017 7:04:07 PM, Silly_Billy wrote:
At 5/23/2017 5:51:33 PM, murdokahn wrote:
"God" is probably the word that has the most ambiguous meanings in the English language.


How can we discuss the existence of something without having a clear definition of what it is we're discussing beforehand?

The problem with defining God is that everybody has its own tweaked idea of what God is and that means that the discussion about whether or not a God exists would simply be morphed into a new, equally never-ending discussion, about what the definition would have to be. Additionally, if there is a God, then to define this God would be a pointless exercise because no matter what words you would use to define him, ultimately he would still be what he is no matter what the definition says that he is. If I define a chair to exclude all chairs that are made out of wood, I would not be able to call a wooden chair a chair but I would still be able to sit on it.

So are we unable to have a meaningful discussion about whether "God" does or doesn't exist? Seemingly so!

Of course not. Even if you define what a god is there will always be those who don't believe and those who do. Talking about it rarely changes minds.

What someone believes is true is distinct from what's most rational to believe is true. If we forgoe the presupposition that both parties are interested in what's most rational to believe is the truth, then the conversation is indeed meaningless.
.

Like I said. When one party also assumes every theist who ever lived is irrational what point is there. Not sure why those people frequent religion boards other than to try and convert theists.
Omniverse
Posts: 1,576
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2017 7:47:21 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/23/2017 7:42:24 PM, Polytheist_Witch wrote:
At 5/23/2017 7:33:41 PM, murdokahn wrote:
At 5/23/2017 7:25:25 PM, Polytheist_Witch wrote:
At 5/23/2017 7:18:46 PM, murdokahn wrote:
At 5/23/2017 7:04:07 PM, Silly_Billy wrote:
At 5/23/2017 5:51:33 PM, murdokahn wrote:
"God" is probably the word that has the most ambiguous meanings in the English language.


How can we discuss the existence of something without having a clear definition of what it is we're discussing beforehand?

The problem with defining God is that everybody has its own tweaked idea of what God is and that means that the discussion about whether or not a God exists would simply be morphed into a new, equally never-ending discussion, about what the definition would have to be. Additionally, if there is a God, then to define this God would be a pointless exercise because no matter what words you would use to define him, ultimately he would still be what he is no matter what the definition says that he is. If I define a chair to exclude all chairs that are made out of wood, I would not be able to call a wooden chair a chair but I would still be able to sit on it.

So are we unable to have a meaningful discussion about whether "God" does or doesn't exist? Seemingly so!

Of course not. Even if you define what a god is there will always be those who don't believe and those who do. Talking about it rarely changes minds.

What someone believes is true is distinct from what's most rational to believe is true. If we forgoe the presupposition that both parties are interested in what's most rational to believe is the truth, then the conversation is indeed meaningless.
.

Like I said. When one party also assumes every theist who ever lived is irrational

I'm sure you could back up that claim with one or two, even three posters. But "party" implies the majority of forum members subscribing to that position.

Can you show the majority of atheists here think "every theist that ever lived is irrational"?

what point is there. Not sure why those people frequent religion boards other than to try and convert theists.

And what would be the problem of that? Why is trying to de-convert someone not good enough of a reason frequent this board?

Just to refresh your memory, theists have been doing it for millennia now and they haven't always been pleasant about it.
Polytheist_Witch
Posts: 4,423
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2017 7:48:12 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/23/2017 7:47:21 PM, Omniverse wrote:
At 5/23/2017 7:42:24 PM, Polytheist_Witch wrote:
At 5/23/2017 7:33:41 PM, murdokahn wrote:
At 5/23/2017 7:25:25 PM, Polytheist_Witch wrote:
At 5/23/2017 7:18:46 PM, murdokahn wrote:
At 5/23/2017 7:04:07 PM, Silly_Billy wrote:
At 5/23/2017 5:51:33 PM, murdokahn wrote:
"God" is probably the word that has the most ambiguous meanings in the English language.


How can we discuss the existence of something without having a clear definition of what it is we're discussing beforehand?

The problem with defining God is that everybody has its own tweaked idea of what God is and that means that the discussion about whether or not a God exists would simply be morphed into a new, equally never-ending discussion, about what the definition would have to be. Additionally, if there is a God, then to define this God would be a pointless exercise because no matter what words you would use to define him, ultimately he would still be what he is no matter what the definition says that he is. If I define a chair to exclude all chairs that are made out of wood, I would not be able to call a wooden chair a chair but I would still be able to sit on it.

So are we unable to have a meaningful discussion about whether "God" does or doesn't exist? Seemingly so!

Of course not. Even if you define what a god is there will always be those who don't believe and those who do. Talking about it rarely changes minds.

What someone believes is true is distinct from what's most rational to believe is true. If we forgoe the presupposition that both parties are interested in what's most rational to believe is the truth, then the conversation is indeed meaningless.
.

Like I said. When one party also assumes every theist who ever lived is irrational

I'm sure you could back up that claim with one or two, even three posters. But "party" implies the majority of forum members subscribing to that position.

Can you show the majority of atheists here think "every theist that ever lived is irrational"?

what point is there. Not sure why those people frequent religion boards other than to try and convert theists.

And what would be the problem of that? Why is trying to de-convert someone not good enough of a reason frequent this board?

Just to refresh your memory, theists have been doing it for millennia now and they haven't always been pleasant about it.

No, monotheists. But thanks for the input.
Silly_Billy
Posts: 1,253
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2017 7:49:05 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/23/2017 7:18:46 PM, murdokahn wrote:
At 5/23/2017 7:04:07 PM, Silly_Billy wrote:
At 5/23/2017 5:51:33 PM, murdokahn wrote:
"God" is probably the word that has the most ambiguous meanings in the English language.


How can we discuss the existence of something without having a clear definition of what it is we're discussing beforehand?

The problem with defining God is that everybody has its own tweaked idea of what God is and that means that the discussion about whether or not a God exists would simply be morphed into a new, equally never-ending discussion, about what the definition would have to be. Additionally, if there is a God, then to define this God would be a pointless exercise because no matter what words you would use to define him, ultimately he would still be what he is no matter what the definition says that he is. If I define a chair to exclude all chairs that are made out of wood, I would not be able to call a wooden chair a chair but I would still be able to sit on it.

So are we unable to have a meaningful discussion about whether "God" does or doesn't exist? Seemingly so!

I think the discussion ought not to be about whether or not a God exists. The real problem is not the idea of God but the fact that almost every religion uses the idea of God to push through their own agenda's and God has been made into the ultimate argument to justify whatever they want to justify if there is nothing else to justify it with. If religion says that we all have to wear funny hats, whether we want it or not, we will all have to wear funny hats because 'God' wants for us all to wear funny hats.
Omniverse
Posts: 1,576
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2017 7:51:29 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/23/2017 7:48:12 PM, Polytheist_Witch wrote:
At 5/23/2017 7:47:21 PM, Omniverse wrote:
At 5/23/2017 7:42:24 PM, Polytheist_Witch wrote:
At 5/23/2017 7:33:41 PM, murdokahn wrote:
At 5/23/2017 7:25:25 PM, Polytheist_Witch wrote:
At 5/23/2017 7:18:46 PM, murdokahn wrote:
At 5/23/2017 7:04:07 PM, Silly_Billy wrote:
At 5/23/2017 5:51:33 PM, murdokahn wrote:
"God" is probably the word that has the most ambiguous meanings in the English language.


How can we discuss the existence of something without having a clear definition of what it is we're discussing beforehand?

The problem with defining God is that everybody has its own tweaked idea of what God is and that means that the discussion about whether or not a God exists would simply be morphed into a new, equally never-ending discussion, about what the definition would have to be. Additionally, if there is a God, then to define this God would be a pointless exercise because no matter what words you would use to define him, ultimately he would still be what he is no matter what the definition says that he is. If I define a chair to exclude all chairs that are made out of wood, I would not be able to call a wooden chair a chair but I would still be able to sit on it.

So are we unable to have a meaningful discussion about whether "God" does or doesn't exist? Seemingly so!

Of course not. Even if you define what a god is there will always be those who don't believe and those who do. Talking about it rarely changes minds.

What someone believes is true is distinct from what's most rational to believe is true. If we forgoe the presupposition that both parties are interested in what's most rational to believe is the truth, then the conversation is indeed meaningless.
.

Like I said. When one party also assumes every theist who ever lived is irrational

I'm sure you could back up that claim with one or two, even three posters. But "party" implies the majority of forum members subscribing to that position.

Can you show the majority of atheists here think "every theist that ever lived is irrational"?

what point is there. Not sure why those people frequent religion boards other than to try and convert theists.

And what would be the problem of that? Why is trying to de-convert someone not good enough of a reason frequent this board?

Just to refresh your memory, theists have been doing it for millennia now and they haven't always been pleasant about it.

No, monotheists. But thanks for the input.

Fair point.

You didn't answer my first question, though.
12_13
Posts: 2,575
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2017 8:42:27 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/23/2017 5:51:33 PM, murdokahn wrote:
"God" is probably the word that has the most ambiguous meanings in the English language.


How can we discuss the existence of something without having a clear definition of what it is we're discussing beforehand?

That is because god is like title, similar to king, but higher. Many things can be and have been kept as god. For example, some made golden calf to be kept as their god. Some think good guitar players are gods. God is something that is the highest authority for the person. What you keep as your god can be seen for example by what you serve or what defines your right and wrong. Those who have fear as their god, act on fear, those who lie, serve the father of lies and those who love, serve the God, who according to the Bible is love.

He who doesn't love doesn't know God, for God is love.
1 John 4:8
EtrnlVw
Posts: 6,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2017 9:47:56 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/23/2017 6:50:15 PM, murdokahn wrote:
At 5/23/2017 6:26:42 PM, EtrnlVw wrote:
At 5/23/2017 6:03:33 PM, murdokahn wrote:
At 5/23/2017 5:53:56 PM, EtrnlVw wrote:
At 5/23/2017 5:51:33 PM, murdokahn wrote:
"God" is probably the word that has the most ambiguous meanings in the English language.


How can we discuss the existence of something without having a clear definition of what it is we're discussing beforehand?

What word do you like that we could call the Creator? I don't think there is anything ambiguous about it's understanding. The problem more precisely is that the word covers a lot of ground, to say the least.

So God means "the Creator"?


Certainly one aspect. I was more or less using it as a name though.

So is "creator" just an aspect of the word "God" or is "creator" what the word 'God' means? For example, you could say "outgoing" is an aspect of "personality" but does "outgoing" describe the meaning of the word "personality"? Of course not. I'm only trying what the word 'God' *means.*


Creator is a single aspect of God. What exactly are you fixated on here. I'm trying to keep this simple....if you want to know what the word God means look at a dictionary.

It's interesting that the 'C' is capitalized as if we were referring to a proper noun - a single, identifiable entity. Creator of what? Why not creator (lowercase 'c') or creators? If there were two creators would they both be God or neither?


Because the Creator is an Entity, a conscious Being. Why not capitalize it? but I really don't care either way it just makes sense. Certainly nothing to carry on about.

News to me! Your response implies that a non-amiguous definition of God is not important. If you're trying to convince me that you have a "doodamabob" then you'd better clarify what it is you're actually referring to.


I don't know what you are talking about my friend :) you asked why I capitalize Creator, if you are going to continue this discussion you are going to have to start making some kind of sense.

Is there any dictionary definition of God as "the Creator"?


I don't know what you are looking for here. I was just asking what word you prefer....

A definition of God. If you told me that the word "chair" means a type of cheese from France, then I'd expect to see this definition from at least one reputable dictionary. Unless you have a cutting-edge definition and the dictionaries just haven't caught up yet I have no idea whether there is or isn't a dictionary definition of God as "the Creator".


WHAT....WORD would you like to call God, is my original point!! show me what you think would make sense since the definition of God is obviously puzzling to you.
I'm not sure what you don't get, God means....
"the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being."
"God is conceived of as the Supreme Being and principal object of faith.[3] The concept of God, as described by most theologians, includes the attributes of omniscience (infinite knowledge), omnipotence (unlimited power), omnipresence (present everywhere), divine simplicity, and as having an eternal and necessary existence. "
God is most often held to be incorporeal (immaterial),[3] and to be without gender,"
the one "true" Supreme Being and creator of the universe"

Pretty straight forward....let me know what you wish to know.

I think what you're saying is that there are various versions of a creator God but "creator" is always a part of the meaning?

Sure, but I was just using this as a name because you seem to not like "God". But yes, the Creator creates. That should be pretty obvious. Of course, I'm mainly referring to the All, the single Source, not incarnations though it's possible incarnations create worlds or things.

A person named Person Is obviously a person. Is Person what a person is, or is person what Person is?

Make some sense. Make a point or ask a question. Are you tipsy this evening?
murdokahn
Posts: 67
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2017 9:50:13 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/23/2017 8:42:27 PM, 12_13 wrote:
At 5/23/2017 5:51:33 PM, murdokahn wrote:
"God" is probably the word that has the most ambiguous meanings in the English language.


How can we discuss the existence of something without having a clear definition of what it is we're discussing beforehand?

That is because god is like title, similar to king, but higher. Many things can be and have been kept as god. For example, some made golden calf to be kept as their god. Some think good guitar players are gods. God is something that is the highest authority for the person. What you keep as your god can be seen for example by what you serve or what defines your right and wrong. Those who have fear as their god, act on fear, those who lie, serve the father of lies and those who love, serve the God, who according to the Bible is love.

He who doesn't love doesn't know God, for God is love.
1 John 4:8



I love puppies. They're adorable. Is my love for puppies God?

I like what you said here: "God is something that is the highest authority for the person." It's consistent with how many people use the term "God."
EtrnlVw
Posts: 6,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2017 10:00:07 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/23/2017 6:43:52 PM, janesix wrote:
At 5/23/2017 6:36:20 PM, EtrnlVw wrote:
At 5/23/2017 6:32:21 PM, janesix wrote:
At 5/23/2017 6:26:42 PM, EtrnlVw wrote:
At 5/23/2017 6:03:33 PM, murdokahn wrote:
At 5/23/2017 5:53:56 PM, EtrnlVw wrote:
At 5/23/2017 5:51:33 PM, murdokahn wrote:
"God" is probably the word that has the most ambiguous meanings in the English language.


How can we discuss the existence of something without having a clear definition of what it is we're discussing beforehand?

What word do you like that we could call the Creator? I don't think there is anything ambiguous about it's understanding. The problem more precisely is that the word covers a lot of ground, to say the least.

So God means "the Creator"?


Certainly one aspect. I was more or less using it as a name though.

It's interesting that the 'C' is capitalized as if we were referring to a proper noun - a single, identifiable entity. Creator of what? Why not creator (lowercase 'c') or creators? If there were two creators would they both be God or neither?


Because the Creator is an Entity, a conscious Being. Why not capitalize it? but I really don't care either way it just makes sense. Certainly nothing to carry on about.

Is there any dictionary definition of God as "the Creator"?


I don't know what you are looking for here. I was just asking what word you prefer....

I think what you're saying is that there are various versions of a creator God but "creator" is always a part of the meaning?

Sure, but I was just using this as a name because you seem to not like "God". But yes, the Creator creates. That should be pretty obvious. Of course, I'm mainly referring to the All, the single Source, not incarnations though it's possible incarnations create worlds or things.

If there is only one God, I think it would have to be the creator. I tend to believe this, but really I have no proof of it. There is the possibility there are multiple Gods.


Yes all of creation come from a single source. This is the infinite, formless, non-special conscious Being that is incredibly intelligent, as a matter of fact the universal mind would blow anyone's individual mind away lol. Pretty amazing stuff!
The multiple gods are incarnations, nothing is separate or from another source.

What is your reasoning that there is only one God?

That's a winded question, wow, I would start with the nature of formless consciousness. Once that's understood you then can know that nothing is outside the One.

Ok I don't understand the nature of formless consciousness. What does that mean?

You do indeed know what consciousness means or is....so now imagine a Being who is conscious yet without form (no body), non-spacial, non-temporal and non-material. Now you have a conscious Being that pervades all of existence and all of the universe within this formless reality. Everything is within the reality of the Creator, we are within the formless consciousness of God. All living activity is of the same source, just stepped down into fractions, bits, pieces and expressions of the Whole.

God had to create material bodies in this dimension to experience beyond Itself. To create little individualized aspects of itself to then move on and create creators out the those individualized entities, is absolutely mind-blowing :)

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.