Atheists, define 'God'

[Non sequitur]

Ok, let's start with that one this time, what do you mean by 'God'?

Initially, the same thing as 'Thurp'.

After that, it's the 'thing' that people call stuff that is unexplained, given their current knowledge/understanding.

Then later, it is that same 'thing', plus the attributes that people gave it.

 

[mark kennedy]

Perhaps I'm getting a little too semantic but I think the word god (God, gods) in their many forms have an inherent meaning. One definition included God as creator but as I mentioned, in pagan mythology the elementals gave rise to the gods. Another includes the supernatural but that begs the question of what can be considered natural.

Once again, I think a literal meaning of the word would render it as 'good'. This is important in Christian theism because the concept of holiness is a kind of 'separation'. It's also described in terms of aseity or God's utter independence.

Before this plunges into the rabbit hole I would just ask, does 'good' sound like a reasonably accurate core/root meaning?

I'm actually serious about this and don't mean to dismiss your definitions. I'm even curious if subjective/objective duality might offer a useful paradigm approach.

 

[Davian]

Perhaps I'm getting a little too semantic but I think the word god (God, gods) in their many forms have an inherent meaning. One definition included God as creator but as I mentioned, in pagan mythology the elementals gave rise to the gods. Another includes the supernatural but that begs the question of what can be considered natural.

Once again, I think a literal meaning of the word would render it as 'good'. This is important in Christian theism because the concept of holiness is a kind of 'separation'. It's also described in terms of aseity or God's utter independence. ...

A deistic god I would consider... apathetic.

From my limited exposure to Christian theology, the word 'good' does not come to mind. At all. Perhaps this is just from the the impression I get from the 'warnings' of what supposedly will happen to me that I have received from fellow members here (that are on the theistic side of the fence) for my lack of belief. From what I have read of the bible this God does not seem like a cheery fellow. No humour at all. Lots of death and killing. All those families and children drowned in the Flood...

 

[quatona]

Perhaps I'm getting a little too semantic but I think the word god (God, gods) in their many forms have an inherent meaning.

I don´t think that words have an inherent meaning (actually I can´t even fathom what that´s supposed to mean). Maybe this lies at the core of our differences here.

Before this plunges into the rabbit hole I would just ask, does 'good' sound like a reasonably accurate core/root meaning?

Etymologically? Most certainly.

 

[Paradoxum]

Before this plunges into the rabbit hole I would just ask, does 'good' sound like a reasonably accurate core/root meaning?

If it were possible to make a perfectly good robot would you call it God? Or would you say good angels are God?

 

[jpcedotal]

"Atheism, pragmatically is built upon suspicion and skepticism of other people's claims of God. It is not the intrinsic denial or dismissal of all concepts of God."

Is this accurate?

Atheists by nature seem more at home attacking a principle or opinion or belief than defending one or coming up with one of their own. When asked "what do you think" or "how do you define", atheists seem to get real vague almost generic and actually seem to get offended by the question even to the point of deflection or they go right into attacking some "interior motive" they think the question is trying to prove. Nothing is taken at face value.

I mean, the simple question asked by the OP is getting turned into this "It's your word, you define it so I can tell you how stupid you are" instead of just objectively answering the question.

Why so defensive?

 

[Eudaimonist]

Atheists by nature seem more at home attacking a principle or opinion or belief than defending one or coming up with one of their own.

I don't think that is accurate. I've seen too much evidence to the contrary. It's just that when discussing Apologetics atheists tend to focus on the God issue because there simply is no need to develop a positive alternative in that discussion. Alternatives simply are not the point, since the issue of whether or not there is a God stands or falls on its own merits, or lack thereof.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[KCfromNC]

I have found it puzzling that atheists not only don't define 'god' as a dialectical entity, they never demand a definition.

That's because there isn't a definition. There's lots of different ones. If you drill down enough, basically one per believer. The fact that none of them can agree on what this alleged god actually is provides more evidence that none (or charitably, very few) of them know what they're talking about.

Very curious, very curious indeed.

Why? Do you demand specific concrete definitions for all the mythological beings you reject? I'm not sure that the conflicting treatment of them in different works of fiction makes them any more likely to be real. Same for gods - there's nothing curious about the fact that a being that exists only in people's imagination is hard to pin down.

 

[KCfromNC]

I noticed that, just sounds more like a description. It might interest you to know that 'God' has often been redefined in atheistic terms.

You're assuming there's a correct definition to begin with.

I'm kind of an old school Calvinist so naturally I'm going to believe God to be self-existing as well as self-evident.

You know, that just sounds more like a description.

You just don't have this in other philosophical pursuits, determining the meaning of the core terminology is invariably the first order of business.

And when believers in an philosophical idea can't provide these meanings, those ideas are rejected. Reviewers aren't asked to make up their own definitions to try and salvage someone else's arguments. Not sure why you think god deserves special treatment here.

 

[gav1nzdad]

God is good

 

[KCfromNC]

Before this plunges into the rabbit hole I would just ask, does 'good' sound like a reasonably accurate core/root meaning?

Not to me. Since you claim to be a Christian, I doubt very strongly that you actually believe that god is simply a human judgement about the moral worth of an action. I have a strong suspicion that if we agree to this definition, it's very quickly going to change into something else right before our eyes.

 

[gav1nzdad]

If it were possible to make a perfectly good robot would you call it God? Or would you say good angels are God?

God is good. All that is good comes from God, but is not itself God.

 

[jpcedotal]

See how quickly the thread goes from a simple question to atheists to an offensive assault on theism.

Why not just answer the question simply? I mean, even atheists must agree with theists that there is such a word as "god"...right? And this word does have a personal meaning to each of them...even if it a completely negative one So why be scared to share, honestly and without having to lash out (defense mechanism).

Why turn it back around on theists when the question wasn't meant to "box in" but to simply inquire?

 

[jpcedotal]

God is good. All that is good comes from God, but is not itself God.

Same with love...

God is love. All that is love comes from God, but is not itself God.

 

[gav1nzdad]

Same with love...

God is love. All that is love comes from God, but is not itself God.

Yes, and these are the most simplistic terms we can use to define Him. Holy is another term. Of course, holy differs in that, holy IS God. Although, we may be asked what is the definition of holy. In that case, Holy equals good and love, but not all good and love are holy.

The argument that a "good" God and a "loving" God would not allow for Hell, is countered by the fact that God is also Holy. And if God is Holy, then there has to be a Hell. There can be no reward for unholiness.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

See how quickly the thread goes from a simple question to atheists to an offensive assault on theism.

Do you think that Mark* is launching an offensive assault on theism? I mean, sure, defining God is not exactly the strongest point of theism etc ... But merely drawing attention to a weakness is not necessarily an offensive assault.


ETA: *Mark Kennedy that is.

 

[Skavau]

"Atheism, pragmatically is built upon suspicion and skepticism of other people's claims of God. It is not the intrinsic denial or dismissal of all concepts of God."

Is this accurate?

Well, pragmatically so I think so.

Atheists by nature seem more at home attacking a principle or opinion or belief than defending one or coming up with one of their own. When asked "what do you think" or "how do you define", atheists seem to get real vague almost generic and actually seem to get offended by the question even to the point of deflection or they go right into attacking some "interior motive" they think the question is trying to prove. Nothing is taken at face value.

On God, the fact that atheists become "generic" or deflect is to be expected. It is not our claim. We do not propose God. Other people propose God and atheists respond to it.

That isn't a sign of being defensive, or suggesting an ulterior motive but a mark of reality of atheists. We do not own the God concept and thus we don't in a way get a say on what it is our ought be. 'God' broadly refers to a number of different things. You can generalise it if you like but a Christian will see things differently than a Muslim who will view things differently than a Sikh etc. We respond differently depending on what kind of arguments the theist makes and what kind of God the theist proposes.

I mean, the simple question asked by the OP is getting turned into this "It's your word, you define it so I can tell you how stupid you are" instead of just objectively answering the question.

Why so defensive?

We're not defensive at all and it is not a "simple question."

There's no right answer to what 'God' objectively is.

 

[Skavau]

See how quickly the thread goes from a simple question to atheists to an offensive assault on theism.

What are you talking about? There's been no "offensive assault on theism." This thread is directed towards atheists who of course likely have their own preconceptions about theism broadly and their own opinions on the validity of any God claim but nonetheless you're getting fairly apt replies.

I daresay there's a good deal of humility amongst the atheists on here. We're pointing out that we're not in much of a position to actually give a concise answer. Not our claim.

Why not just answer the question simply? I mean, even atheists must agree with theists that there is such a word as "god"...right? And this word does have a personal meaning to each of them...even if it a completely negative one So why be scared to share, honestly and without having to lash out (defense mechanism).

Atheists are giving you a positive answer. There is no universal definition for God unless you're speaking in generalities which really are so vague and useless (each theist of course views their own assertion and understanding of 'God' as the correct one) that it doesn't mean anything.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

Yes, and these are the most simplistic terms we can use to define Him. Holy is another term. Of course, holy differs in that, holy IS God. Although, we may be asked what is the definition of holy. In that case, Holy equals good and love, but not all good and love are holy.

The argument that a "good" God and a "loving" God would not allow for Hell, is countered by the fact that God is also Holy. And if God is Holy, then there has to be a Hell. There can be no reward for unholiness.

So let me recap ...

1) God is good.
2) God is love.
3) God is holy.
4) God is a "He".
5) God "allows" for stuff.
6) God has got something to do with rewards.
(7) And "Hell" figures into this, too, somehow)

Anything else you wish to amend.

 

[gav1nzdad]

I think that to try to define something, you are in essence putting it in a box. And I think for any mere mortal to try to define something as magnificent and all powerful as God is an exercise in futility. There is no way we could accurately define God with our feeble vocabulary.

1John 4:12 NLT
No one has ever seen God. But if we love each other, God lives in us, and his love is brought to full expression in us.

We, as Christians, live by faith. We don't require a definition. When you know, you just know.