Searching for GOD...

[Shaker]

No, I meant determine whether God exists or not (which is in itself not a methodology but requires one).

What do you mean by "God"?

I don't mean anything by God - that's why I don't believe in such a thing.

Bashers claims to and so do you, I understand, so shouldn't you know? Or would you just like to heave around a few more goalposts before you get down to giving a straight question a straight answer for a change?

[Alien]

No, I meant determine whether God exists or not (which is in itself not a methodology but requires one).

What do you mean by "God"?

I don't mean anything by God - that's why I don't believe in such a thing.

So you used a term which, to you, doesn't mean anything? Does that not make your question meaningless, at least to you? You don't have to believe that something exists to be able to use the term properly.

Bashers claims to and so do you, I understand, so shouldn't you know? Or would you just like to heave around a few more goalposts before you get down to giving a straight question a straight answer for a change?

OK, thanks for that ad hominem. Always handy.

As I understand the term God, it means, "the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being" (OED definition). That seems a good enough place to start. Christians claim to be able to fill in some more details, but do you have any problem with that OED definition?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No, I meant determine whether God exists or not (which is in itself not a methodology but requires one).

What do you mean by "God"?

I don't mean anything by God - that's why I don't believe in such a thing.

So you have no concept of God but are sure you don't believe it.

[Shaker]

So you used a term which, to you, doesn't mean anything?

Only in quoting BashfulAnthony and then you.

Does that not make your question meaningless, at least to you?

To me? Yes. But since Bashers and you don't think it's meaningless, I'm asking you what you mean by it. 

You don't have to believe that something exists to be able to use the term properly.

What does "using the term properly" mean?

As I understand the term God, it means, "the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being" (OED definition). That seems a good enough place to start. Christians claim to be able to fill in some more details, but do you have any problem with that OED definition?

Many.

[Shaker]

So you have no concept of God but are sure you don't believe it.

Exactly so. Because to believe in something for which you have no definition (never mind evidence - the matter of evidence always comes second to definition) would be patently ridiculous, wouldn't it Vladdles?

[Leonard James]

As I understand the term God, it means, "the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being" (OED definition). That seems a good enough place to start. Christians claim to be able to fill in some more details, but do you have any problem with that OED definition?

Sounds OK to me, but how do we go about ascertaining the truth of this 'definition'?

[Hope]

So you have no concept of God but are sure you don't believe it.

Exactly so. Because to believe in something for which you have no definition (never mind evidence) would be patently ridiculous, wouldn't it Vladdles?

Not really Shaker.  Plenty of scientists down the centuries have believed in things that they have no definition of - often resulting, after lives of hard graft, in the discovery of that thing that was only an idea beforehand.

[Alien]

So you used a term which, to you, doesn't mean anything?

Only in quoting BashfulAnthony and then you.

Does that not make your question meaningless, at least to you?

To me? Yes. But since Bashers and you don't think it's meaningless, I'm asking you what you mean by it. 

You don't have to believe that something exists to be able to use the term properly.

What does "using the term properly" mean?

Meaningfully. I don't believe in the existence of Atlantis, but can use the term in a sentence properly. Actually, I'm OK with the way you used the term so would be happy to move on to the next bit below if you are.

As I understand the term God, it means, "the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being" (OED definition). That seems a good enough place to start. Christians claim to be able to fill in some more details, but do you have any problem with that OED definition?

Many.

Please would you give us the important ones.

[Shaker]

Not really Shaker. Plenty of scientists down the centuries have believed in things that they have no definition of

Examples?

often resulting, after lives of hard graft, in the discovery of that thing that was only an idea beforehand.

Well you've just pissed all over your own would-be pseudo-point here. If it was an idea beforehand it was an idea beforehand - there was some sort of prior concept in mind. 

[Shaker]

Meaningfully. I don't believe in the existence of Atlantis, but can use the term in a sentence properly.

I don't believe in Atlantis either but I can also use it within a standard English sentence meanigfully - that's because there's a more or less unified, coherent definition of the word. This doesn't apply to gods.

Please would you give us the important ones.

1. It's predicated on monotheism - that if any gods exist there's only the one of them. Not every theist is a monotheist.

2. It omits deism, for example - deists believe in a God who was the creator of the universe but can't be said to be the ruler of it thereafter.

3. It omits maltheism/dystheism - those who believe that a god exists but is not the source of moral authority in being actively malevolent.

4. Perhaps most tellingly, it omits the fact that there almost as many definitions of a god as there people who believe in such things. Conduct a poll with a sample size as large as you like and you'll get any number of different definitions of a god, of which the OED is just one. It may well be the most prevalent one amongst monotheists especially, but that just makes it common, not true.

[Gordon]

So you have no concept of God but are sure you don't believe it.

Exactly so. Because to believe in something for which you have no definition (never mind evidence) would be patently ridiculous, wouldn't it Vladdles?

Not really Shaker.  Plenty of scientists down the centuries have believed in things that they have no definition of - often resulting, after lives of hard graft, in the discovery of that thing that was only an idea beforehand.

Not really Hope. There is a difference between theorising based on empirical evidence, such as Darwin did, and speculating on supernatural myth and ancient religious superstitions that are immune to both naturalistic investigation or meaningful definition.

[Alien]

Meaningfully. I don't believe in the existence of Atlantis, but can use the term in a sentence properly.

I don't believe in Atlantis either but I can also use it within a standard English sentence meanigfully - that's because there's a more or less unified, coherent definition of the word. This doesn't apply to gods.

Please would you give us the important ones.

1. It's predicated on monotheism - that if any gods exist there's only the one of them. Not every theist is a monotheist.

2. It omits deism, for example - deists believe in a God who was the creator of the universe but can't be said to be the ruler of it thereafter.

3. It omits maltheism/dystheism - those who believe that a god exists but is not the source of moral authority in being actively malevolent.

4. Perhaps most tellingly, it omits the fact that there almost as many definitions of a god as there people who believe in such things. Conduct a poll with a sample size as large as you like and you'll get any number of different definitions of a god, of which the OED is just one. It may well be the most prevalent one amongst monotheists especially, but that just makes it common, not true.

OK, but when an English-speaking person uses the term "God" (with a capital "G") they usually mean what the OED says. Specifically, if you ask a Christian what they mean by "God" they mean what the OED says. If you ask them whether that is all there is to God, they will reply "No" and be able to give you some more details of their understanding, usually tied up with the bible and particularly with Jesus Christ.

You wrote, "This doesn't apply to gods." I would agree, but we are not speaking of "gods", plural, when speaking of God. You stated elsewhere recently (sorry, I've looked for it, but can't find it) that you have not heard a coherent definition of God (please correct me if I've not put that well). There are one or two atheists here who claim this, but as far as I know atheists are no more intellectually challenged than other people as a group. Other people know what is meant by "God". I wonder why you don't (or won't?).

[Alien]

...

Not really Hope. There is a difference between theorising based on empirical evidence, such as Darwin did, and speculating on supernatural myth and ancient religious superstitions that are immune to both naturalistic investigation or meaningful definition.

Are you too saying you don't understand what the term "God" means?

[Nearly Sane]

...

Not really Hope. There is a difference between theorising based on empirical evidence, such as Darwin did, and speculating on supernatural myth and ancient religious superstitions that are immune to both naturalistic investigation or meaningful definition.

Are you too saying you don't understand what the term "God" means?

Does a four sided triangle have meaning to you? I can't speak for Shaker or Gordon but what I have laid out  before is that I don't find any individual concept I have been given of god logically coherent, nor do I find it makes all real difference to me if you stick a capital in it or not.
The OED definition just seems to be filled with begged questions, sticking in 'moral arbiter' which does not seem to make sense in any concept of morality I understand, or 'supreme being' which again makes no sense in my concept of existence.

[Shaker]

OK, but when an English-speaking person uses the term "God" (with a capital "G") they usually mean what the OED says. Specifically, if you ask a Christian what they mean by "God" they mean what the OED says. If you ask them whether that is all there is to God, they will reply "No" and be able to give you some more details of their understanding, usually tied up with the bible and particularly with Jesus Christ.

I see that repetition is the order of the day:

4. Perhaps most tellingly, it omits the fact that there almost as many definitions of a god as there people who believe in such things. Conduct a poll with a sample size as large as you like and you'll get any number of different definitions of a god, of which the OED is just one. It may well be the most prevalent one amongst monotheists especially, but that just makes it common, not true.

You wrote, "This doesn't apply to gods." I would agree, but we are not speaking of "gods", plural, when speaking of God.

Capital G god/Judaeo-Christian god/Abrahamic god is one of the subset (running into the tens of thousands) of all gods. It may well be the god-concept in which you believe. It may well be the god-concept with which you're most familiar, conditioned as you are by a long history of Judaeo-Christianity. But it's not the only one - very, very far from it - and I don't believe in being parochial.

You stated elsewhere recently (sorry, I've looked for it, but can't find it) that you have not heard a coherent definition of God (please correct me if I've not put that well). There are one or two atheists here who claim this, but as far as I know atheists are no more intellectually challenged than other people as a group. Other people know what is meant by "God". I wonder why you don't (or won't?).

Because I seem to have thought about it more and because I don't believe in limiting my thinking to the parochial, nearest-at-hand culturally-conditioned god-concept. Intellectually speaking that's akin to never moving out of the street you live in - there are other streets elsewhere, and you'll have an exceedingly limited view of the world if you only ever consider your own street whilst ignoring all the others.

[Alien]

...

Not really Hope. There is a difference between theorising based on empirical evidence, such as Darwin did, and speculating on supernatural myth and ancient religious superstitions that are immune to both naturalistic investigation or meaningful definition.

Are you too saying you don't understand what the term "God" means?

Does a four sided triangle have meaning to you? I can't speak fir Shaker or Gordon but what I have laid out to humanities before is that I don't find any individual concept I have been given of god logically coherent, nor do I find it makes all real difference to me if you stick a capital in it or not.
The ODD definition just seems to be filled with begged questions, sticking in 'moral arbiter' which dies not seem to make sense in anticancer of morality I understand, or 'supreme being' which again makes no sense in concept of existence.

Feel free to sort out your Autotext thingy problems. When you've done that, I'll try to respond.

[Alien]

OK, but when an English-speaking person uses the term "God" (with a capital "G") they usually mean what the OED says. Specifically, if you ask a Christian what they mean by "God" they mean what the OED says. If you ask them whether that is all there is to God, they will reply "No" and be able to give you some more details of their understanding, usually tied up with the bible and particularly with Jesus Christ.

I see that repetition is the order of the day:

4. Perhaps most tellingly, it omits the fact that there almost as many definitions of a god as there people who believe in such things. Conduct a poll with a sample size as large as you like and you'll get any number of different definitions of a god, of which the OED is just one. It may well be the most prevalent one amongst monotheists especially, but that just makes it common, not true.

Er, yes, but we were discussing the definition of God, not yet whether he exists.

You wrote, "This doesn't apply to gods." I would agree, but we are not speaking of "gods", plural, when speaking of God.

Capital G god/Judaeo-Christian god/Abrahamic god is one of the subset (running into the tens of thousands) of all gods. It may well be the god-concept in which you believe. It may well be the god-concept with which you're most familiar, conditioned as you are by a long history of Judaeo-Christianity. But it's not the only one - very, very far from it - and I don't believe in being parochial.

You stated elsewhere recently (sorry, I've looked for it, but can't find it) that you have not heard a coherent definition of God (please correct me if I've not put that well). There are one or two atheists here who claim this, but as far as I know atheists are no more intellectually challenged than other people as a group. Other people know what is meant by "God". I wonder why you don't (or won't?).

Because I seem to have thought about it more and because I don't believe in limiting my thinking to the parochial, nearest-at-hand culturally-conditioned god-concept. Intellectually speaking that's akin to never moving out of the street you live in - there are other streets elsewhere, and you'll have an exceedingly limited view of the world if you only ever consider your own street whilst ignoring all the others.

When discussing whether God exists with a Christian, it means discussing whether God, as understood in the Christian sense, exists. It's that simple.

[Nearly Sane]

Feel free to sort out your Autotext thingy problems. When you've done that, I'll try to respond.

Done, though I quite like the anticancer of morality

[Shaker]

When discussing whether God exists with a Christian, it means discussing whether God, as understood in the Christian sense, exists. It's that simple.

It would be that simple if and only if you're dealing with a Christian who stonewalls any mere suggestion that there are (perhaps literally) countless other definitions of a god, all with their own distinct characteristics, in whom other people have believed and do believe every bit as staunchly as they do in theirs.

It's a statement of the obvious (indeed, a tautology) that people believe to be true what they believe in, but in the case of gods, where there are so many on offer and so many different conceptions even if you narrow the field to monotheism, it's never as simple as you wish to make it.

[Gordon]

...

Not really Hope. There is a difference between theorising based on empirical evidence, such as Darwin did, and speculating on supernatural myth and ancient religious superstitions that are immune to both naturalistic investigation or meaningful definition.

Are you too saying you don't understand what the term "God" means?

I've always said that, Alan, since it seems to me that 'God' means for theists whatever they decide that they want it to mean for their own internal consumption - I hear what they say: however, what they say doesn't translate into anything meaningful.

[Gordon]

When discussing whether God exists with a Christian, it means discussing whether God, as understood in the Christian sense, exists. It's that simple.

Simple only if the 'understood in the Christian sense' is in itself an understandable claim - and it isn't!

[Walt Zingmatilder]

...

Not really Hope. There is a difference between theorising based on empirical evidence, such as Darwin did, and speculating on supernatural myth and ancient religious superstitions that are immune to both naturalistic investigation or meaningful definition.

Are you too saying you don't understand what the term "God" means?

I've always said that, Alan, since it seems to me that 'God' means for theists whatever they decide that they want it to mean for their own internal consumption - I hear what they say: however, what they say doesn't translate into anything meaningful.

First antitheism on the part of those exhibiting it puts a question mark on any claim of meaninglessness.
Secondly, why do you hang around theists? Naturalism is meaningful, materialism is meaningful and theism is meaningful.

[Gordon]

First antitheism on the part of those exhibiting it puts a question mark on any claim of meaninglessness.

Translation please.

Secondly, why do you hang around theists?

They are endlessly entertaining (your good self included).

Naturalism is meaningful, materialism is meaningful and theism is meaningful.

As Meatloaf once said, 'two out of three ain't bad'.

[Alien]

When discussing whether God exists with a Christian, it means discussing whether God, as understood in the Christian sense, exists. It's that simple.

It would be that simple if and only if you're dealing with a Christian who stonewalls any mere suggestion that there are (perhaps literally) countless other definitions of a god, all with their own distinct characteristics, in whom other people have believed and do believe every bit as staunchly as they do in theirs.

It's a statement of the obvious (indeed, a tautology) that people believe to be true what they believe in, but in the case of gods, where there are so many on offer and so many different conceptions even if you narrow the field to monotheism, it's never as simple as you wish to make it.

But when discussing whether the Christian God we aren't talking about "gods", but about the Christian God. Hindu definitions of God/gods are irrelevant to such a discussion, are they not?

[Alien]

...

Not really Hope. There is a difference between theorising based on empirical evidence, such as Darwin did, and speculating on supernatural myth and ancient religious superstitions that are immune to both naturalistic investigation or meaningful definition.

Are you too saying you don't understand what the term "God" means?

I've always said that, Alan, since it seems to me that 'God' means for theists whatever they decide that they want it to mean for their own internal consumption - I hear what they say: however, what they say doesn't translate into anything meaningful.

So how come the Oxford English Dictionary can come up with a useful definition, but you don't understand it?