Define God

Post Reply New Topic

So often I see people saying they don't believe in God. Which is reasonable. But then they say they don't believe in a sky fairy. And I wonder just how many people actually understand the concept that they supposedly don't believe in.

This is a simple thread for the scientific inclined among us that really should be approaching the whole thing scientifically. Because you've got to define a concept before you can hope to disprove it.

So. Define God.

I will add my opinion and definition later.

A sentient being that exists outside our perceivable universe and has the capabilities to alter our physics, and has nothing better to do than do so.

If you add to that: "and cares about individual human beings and their actions" you have your sky fairy.

"Sky" being outside our perceivable universe, "the fairy" being the rest.

Sky fairy.

I can agree with this definition.

I would also like to posit to the OP that we (meaning athiests/agnostics) do not have to disprove god; "I don't believe your claim" is a perfectly valid position.
The theist/deist makes a positive claim ("god exists") and therefore they have to give the proof; the disbeliever has to do nothing of the sort

there's a problem with that though: define "sentient"

i like this quote i saw today about what god isn't though:


supposedly said by epicurus (apparently not confirmed)

in short: whether or not god exists just doesn't matter. some questions have no answer simply because they are invalid to begin with. the question of the existence of god is one of them

There are many definitions of "god" depending upon ones culture and background. If you define 'God' as the narcissistic, genocidal, despot of the Old Testament that supposedly created the universe and all life, then I do not believe such an entity exists. There is no physical evidence for such a god ever having existed. We pretty much know the mechanisms by which the solar system formed along with the countless other solar systems and galaxies in our universe. We also know that life evolved over many millions of years from simple organic compounds. There is no need to invent any creator type gods. Our knowledge has increased to the point there is no longer any room left or need for superstitions to explain these things.

Point taken.
Sentience is not easily defined.

@lantylam
Philosopher Peter sloterdijk suggests that "god had to die" in the 19th century, to spate him the embarrassment of us discovering that his creation is still unfinished.
I like that idea...

Also: religion used to serve several purposes, only one of which was to explain creation.
The others were: law and meaning.
We make our own laws now, but as a society, we're still struggling with meaning, which is the most personal of the 3 purposes of religion.
We're doing just fine in the other two departements.
But neither sience nor society exist to solve the last one.

Sky fairy does....

yes, that's exactly my thought as well. and that's where sky fairy rightfully belongs

i prefer to think of it as the extension of whatever it is that my very own sentient nature is. everyone and everything is a subset of that. the other day someone questioned me about my beliefs on consciousness and death. this was my response:

i believe that the question of what "god" is is directly tied to the question of what consciousness is. or sentience, if you will. which is itself one of those logically invalid questions. except it doesn't mean that there's no point in asking it. it's just that there's no point in expecting an answer. there is none, because it's not part of objective reality. it's determined exclusively by perception

edit: i'm talking about "god", by which i mean the broadest meaning of the word you can think of. not yahweh. except for his social/historical relevance, yahweh is a mythical/mythological character like any other

Unproven.

I find it rather sad that some people are unable to create their own meaning for life and prefer to have one imposed upon them by the particular religious beliefs of the society they find themselves born into. I guess that many people prefer not to think or ask the big questions themselves and prefer to just accept whatever "answers" are conveniently bundled up and offered to them by their culture. I must admit that I struggled with finding a sense of purpose and meaning with my own life, but I would rather that than simply accept what others blindly believe. I prefer uncomfortable truths over comfortable fiction. However, many people seem to prefer the latter.

Well... I guess if one is brought up with a fixed meaning for life and all that, the big questions just aren't questions at all.
It takes a certain kind of person to even ask if the earth maybe isn't flat..


And @ anagram:
Your view of conscience is an esoteric one, mine is a biological one.
Death means end of biological processes that keep "me" running. It seems unlikely that there is "me" without a correspending body.
I'm assuming a plant is not forming consciousness, whatever that is, because its body doesn't need one and has no facilities for it.

And hence, a sentient god outside our observable universe requires some sort of body as a substrate. Now that's perfectly possible in theory, but I'm not going to bet all my happiness on it. But then, that body would have to be able to interfere with our physics as a legislative body, so to speak.
...

That's your job. Do you understand the concept of burden of proof?

why reinvent the wheel when there's wikipedia?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deity
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_(disambiguation)

PS: there are many definitions of God so you'll have to define your context

It's also possible that the idea of God is completely incoherent. Thus the exact flavor of a God is irrelevant. Gods are usually defined in mutually exclusive terms. Words themselves have meanings that can be ambiguous sometimes, and when you combine them with other words, the combination doesn't necessarily make any sense whatsoever.

how do you define or describe consciousness biologically though?

the concept of self implies a separation from a larger body or system, which is presumably ended by death. but it says nothing about the nature of that body or system. i can't see how i could infer that a plant does or does not have consciousness. i just know that it doesn't speak any discernible languages and it doesn't have anything resembling a face

plants often do have moving limbs though, they just move very slowly. it's not hard to attribute intention (which implies sentience) to a plant if you think of it that way. granted, it's also not hard to see it as pure and direct consequence of its environment either, but then that leaves us subject to that same fate. these are fundamentally metaphysical questions, with no relevance to biology in particular and vice-versa

Define God ? In my perspective, the "First Cause" or "Origin". Sentience, supernatural or being "outside" are just facultative properties made because people like the idea.