Define God

Post Reply New Topic

philosophy: the itch you can never outscratch


yeah, that does sound perfectly valid to me, and it's actually 100% compatible with the definition i offered (which it didn't necessarily have to be). it's a matter of context (semantics: the contagious itch that you can't quite put your finger on )

yep, semantics again

the whole thing with these abstract debates is usually two possible problems, combined to varying degrees:

1. people use the same word to mean different things, and words have different meanings in different contexts. these facts are often neglected throughout a debate (very much on topic here. the original question was an excellent one)

2. people have inflexible views, and neglect the fact that the domain of those views of theirs doesn't overlap or even intersect with the domain of logic. systematic cherry-picking and taking things out of context is the usual sign of this

has anyone here watched the second season of fargo? i loved the ending. semantics...

A belief in all religion (and non-religion) is based on "faith."

There has never been tangible proof of the existence of a Supreme Being.

There has never been tangible proof of the nonexistence of a Supreme Being.

I thoroughly believe in the nonexistence of a Supreme Being; hence, I'm an atheist.

I'm agnostic in the sense that my atheistic view can be revised upon presentation of the tangible evidence of a Supreme Being.

If you reduce problems to semantics, then philosophy is pointless. I refuse to believe that.
Thinking is still the best way to travel.

So, yes, my definition is compatible with yours, but mine is a subset of yours, and more restrictive.
Your definition is so broad, it's unlikely "god" doesn't exist, but it's also unlikely that that's what most people would agree on what "god" is.
Something outside and undefineable, unthinkable... That does not narrow it down to the properties needed, that's just the precondition. The "sky" in sky fairy if you will.
But that undefineable, unthinkable does need a defineable, thinkable property, and that is its capability to act in our world, without being explaonable or restricted by the rules of our world. The "fairy" part. Magic, in scientific terms.
And that breaks it,- I can, no, must believe in the existence of something I can't even think of. But scientific, logical thought is incompatible with magic.

The "god outside of imaginability" is incompatible with the "god inside of our world".
And the god outside of imaginability is not some sort of 3D god looking down on flatland, because I can imagine that.
He must stay outside.
But also he's required to interact with our world.
Mutually exclusive, if you ask me.

like i said, context. it depends entirely on what you're trying to define the word for. i enjoy finding unexpectedly universal principles behind seemingly unrelated or incompatible things, so that's what i was going for

A universal principle that's useless is ... Useless. One should make things as simple as possible, but not simpler.
Your epiphany appears to be mere apophenia.
The art is in narrowing it down to make use of it.

I'm out of wisdom-like things to add to this.
But luckily, your "god" is very easy to live with.

well, when you go for a jog, it doesn't usually matter much where you're going, and in the end you know you'll be back home. what matters to me is only the exercise itself

Oh. Now I get it. You're not out to go somewhere, but to run in a circle.
Well, good for you.