Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Ok, let's start with that one this time, what do you mean by 'God'?
A deistic god I would consider... apathetic.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. ...
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.Perhaps I'm getting a little too semantic but I think the word god (God, gods) in their many forms have an inherent meaning.
Etymologically? Most certainly.Before this plunges into the rabbit hole I would just ask, does 'good' sound like a reasonably accurate core/root meaning?
Before this plunges into the rabbit hole I would just ask, does 'good' sound like a reasonably accurate core/root meaning?
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 have found it puzzling that atheists not only don't define 'god' as a dialectical entity, they never demand a definition.
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.Very curious, very curious indeed.
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 know, that just sounds more like a description.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.
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.You just don't have this in other philosophical pursuits, determining the meaning of the core terminology is invariably the first order of business.
Before this plunges into the rabbit hole I would just ask, does 'good' sound like a reasonably accurate core/root meaning?
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.
See how quickly the thread goes from a simple question to atheists to an offensive assault on theism.
"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?
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.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?
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.See how quickly the thread goes from a simple question to atheists to an offensive assault on theism.
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.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).
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?