Do you belive in God?

[Norstal]

That's what we're asking for with God. You don't have to define every tiny detail of God, just fucking agree on, say, if God is a physical being or not. Agree on whether God is a conscious entity of some kind or not. Agree on whether God is a NOUN or not.

That's the level we're asking from theists. Can't manage that? Then your concept is worthless, irrelevant, and pointless to discuss.

I am in favor of establishing Bottle as a god. Anyone else?

[Takaram]

That's what we're asking for with God. You don't have to define every tiny detail of God, just fucking agree on, say, if God is a physical being or not. Agree on whether God is a conscious entity of some kind or not. Agree on whether God is a NOUN or not.

That's the level we're asking from theists. Can't manage that? Then your concept is worthless, irrelevant, and pointless to discuss.

I am in favor of establishing Bottle as a god. Anyone else?

Meh, why not?

[Farnhamia]

That's what we're asking for with God. You don't have to define every tiny detail of God, just fucking agree on, say, if God is a physical being or not. Agree on whether God is a conscious entity of some kind or not. Agree on whether God is a NOUN or not.

That's the level we're asking from theists. Can't manage that? Then your concept is worthless, irrelevant, and pointless to discuss.

I am in favor of establishing Bottle as a god. Anyone else?

Goddess, but sure. I started a thread ages ago back in Jolt called "Bottle of the Gods," the equivalent of today's "What's Your Poison?"

Welcome to the club, Bottle.

[Distruzio]

We can and do.

You do realize that even CHRISTIANS don't all agree on that, right?

Those that don't, aren't christians.

[Grave_n_idle]

I think it's fair to say that if people want to have a discussion about whether or not God exists, then first the God-believers will need to provide a definition of "God." If y'all can't even agree on that, then why should anybody waste time on such a meaningless discussion?

We can and do.

That's not evidence of a definition of 'god' that y'all can agree on.

Hell, it doesn't even cover all 'Christians'.

[Grave_n_idle]

You do realize that even CHRISTIANS don't all agree on that, right?

Those that don't, aren't christians.

Or scotsmen.

*nods*

[Sociobiology]

I don't see how it would be hard to define an individual at all. Simply lay out your criteria, and measure.

The fact that some people may LIKE your qualities to different degrees does not change the fact that you HAVE those qualities.

For instance:

Some people find fair hair attractive, and therefore might like my hair. Other people do not find fair hair attractive, and therefore might find my hair unappealing. But neither of these will change the actual shade of my hair.

Some people might find me loud and obnoxious, because compared to them I am. Other people might find me sedate and shy (quit fucking laughing, it could happen). These people might see the exact same behavior from me and react to it very differently. But the behavior was the same.

Etc.

Not quite that easy. One must also consider the individual circumstances of the person in question. One cannot simply define an individual because an individual defies quick definition, aside to say "That's Mike. He's... well, Mike."

There's no way to completely define Mike, as Mike has many many nuances. Sure, you can say that he's 6' 2" and has blonde hair, but you cannot say whether he is nice or not, because that could depend greatly on how you treat him, the circumstance, whether he woke up on the wrong side of bed, etc. You cannot define if he's intelligent or not, because no one can agree on a good definition of intelligence. When you cannot agree on a method of measurement, you cannot agree on a definition.

there is a big diffrence betewwen suficently define and compltetely define,
Mike X of country X born in city X on date X with social security number ending in XXXX, sufficently defines mike to exclude all other mikes.

[Galloism]

Not quite that easy. One must also consider the individual circumstances of the person in question. One cannot simply define an individual because an individual defies quick definition, aside to say "That's Mike. He's... well, Mike."

There's no way to completely define Mike, as Mike has many many nuances. Sure, you can say that he's 6' 2" and has blonde hair, but you cannot say whether he is nice or not, because that could depend greatly on how you treat him, the circumstance, whether he woke up on the wrong side of bed, etc. You cannot define if he's intelligent or not, because no one can agree on a good definition of intelligence. When you cannot agree on a method of measurement, you cannot agree on a definition.

there is a big diffrence betewwen suficently define and compltetely define,
Mike X of country X born in city X on date X with social security number ending in XXXX, sufficently defines mike to exclude all other mikes.

And a being of superhuman power who has ultimate authority over the entire universe sufficiently defines an entity in such a way to exclude all other entities.

[Farnhamia]

God is a maximally great being that created the universe and designed it.

As far as things that help prove the existence of God, well, I'm glad people asked for this:

Kalam Cosmological Argument

Ontological Argument

The second one is a bit heavier so I won't link to too many resources here, but a couple should be enough to give the Atheists something to scratch their heads with. I like to hear from the more philosophically inclined atheists, they are more fun and generally smarter.

And frankly, the arguments I've seen from the nontheist side of the house are just so much weaker, it's hard to accept them as true. It would help if their great intellectual minds stayed in their lane, I think Dawkins and the Rational Response Squad are examples of this.

I don't really enjoy watching scenes like this anymore, because the non-religious simply can't get past the "science proves everything rhetoric 98 percent of the time, and it's sad.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gkBD20edOco

It's no more sad than having to listen to the "what we can't explain must be God" or the "everything has a beginning therefore God" or the "if we can think of the greatest being ever it must be God" rhetoric over and over. That last one, by the way, reminds me of the movie "Field of Dreams": "if you worship him, he will come." They explain nothing more than the inability of people to deal with the fact that some aspects of existence and the universe are not well understood.

[No true scotsman]

You do realize that even CHRISTIANS don't all agree on that, right?

Those that don't, aren't christians.

If you build it, they will come.

[Galloism]

Those that don't, aren't christians.

If you build it, they will come.

Ah... he has returned.

[Farnhamia]

there is a big diffrence betewwen suficently define and compltetely define,
Mike X of country X born in city X on date X with social security number ending in XXXX, sufficently defines mike to exclude all other mikes.

And a being of superhuman power who has ultimate authority over the entire universe sufficiently defines an entity in such a way to exclude all other entities.

Yes, but only because his fan club says so. Many other deities beside Yahweh - that is who we're talking about ultimately in a Western context - are worshipped. They are as real as he is, which is to say, not at all.

[Galloism]

And a being of superhuman power who has ultimate authority over the entire universe sufficiently defines an entity in such a way to exclude all other entities.

Yes, but only because his fan club says so. Many other deities beside Yahweh - that is who we're talking about ultimately in a Western context - are worshipped. They are as real as he is, which is to say, not at all.

Perhaps.

We cannot exclude fantasy Mikes, who could fit all those criteria (although the Social Security Administration would have a fit at having multiple people with the same social security number. They usually call the FBI about that sort of thing.)

[Farnhamia]

Yes, but only because his fan club says so. Many other deities beside Yahweh - that is who we're talking about ultimately in a Western context - are worshipped. They are as real as he is, which is to say, not at all.

Perhaps.

We cannot exclude fantasy Mikes, who could fit all those criteria (although the Social Security Administration would have a fit at having multiple people with the same social security number. They usually call the FBI about that sort of thing.)

If Scully and Mulder were to look into the question, I would consider reviewing their findings.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

If we're to become gods and goddesses, can I call a place on the cat god pantheon?

[Grave_n_idle]

there is a big diffrence betewwen suficently define and compltetely define,
Mike X of country X born in city X on date X with social security number ending in XXXX, sufficently defines mike to exclude all other mikes.

And a being of superhuman power who has ultimate authority over the entire universe sufficiently defines an entity in such a way to exclude all other entities.

What a strange assumption.



The scholars disagree.

[SaintB]

I don't believe in religion. My belief in god is yet to be determined.

[Galloism]

Perhaps.

We cannot exclude fantasy Mikes, who could fit all those criteria (although the Social Security Administration would have a fit at having multiple people with the same social security number. They usually call the FBI about that sort of thing.)

If Scully and Mulder were to look into the question, I would consider reviewing their findings.

I'll admit it... I never really got into the X-Files.

I always liked The Twilight Zone better.

Anyway, you're asking for him to make a definition that everyone agrees on. This is impossible for him to do, given he cannot control the beliefs of others. It's like asking for you to give a sufficiently nuanced definition of global climate change that everyone in the world agrees on. You simply can't do it. That doesn't make it any more or less real.

[Galloism]

And a being of superhuman power who has ultimate authority over the entire universe sufficiently defines an entity in such a way to exclude all other entities.

What a strange assumption.

The scholars disagree.

You went there.

Of course, Q's authority wasn't ultimate. He had to answer to the continuum.

[Sociobiology]

God is a maximally great being that created the universe and designed it.

As far as things that help prove the existence of God, well, I'm glad people asked for this:

Kalam Cosmological Argument

Ontological Argument

The second one is a bit heavier so I won't link to too many resources here, but a couple should be enough to give the Atheists something to scratch their heads with. I like to hear from the more philosophically inclined atheists, they are more fun and generally smarter.

And frankly, the arguments I've seen from the nontheist side of the house are just so much weaker, it's hard to accept them as true. It would help if their great intellectual minds stayed in their lane, I think Dawkins and the Rational Response Squad are examples of this.

I don't really enjoy watching scenes like this anymore, because the non-religious simply can't get past the "science proves everything rhetoric 98 percent of the time, and it's sad.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gkBD20edOco

Imagine the most perfect god possible, said god would only create the most perfect universe, now imagine the universe said god would create, does that universe match this universe, No, thus god does not exist.
BS logic is fun can I try some more.

Kalam for instance
1. false premise
2. true premise
3. false conclusion
4. non sequitur leap
5. false conclusion


imagine the perfect country, no war, no desease, no fetal death,since existence is more perfect than non-existance(false premise) said country must exist, so were is it?

[Grave_n_idle]

What a strange assumption.

The scholars disagree.

You went there.

Of course, Q's authority wasn't ultimate. He had to answer to the continuum.

And the all the other entities of the Continuum are also omni-potent.

If you ignore all the other gods, your description describes the only one you're discussing reasonably well (arguably). And, if we ignore the Q Continuum...

[Sociobiology]

I don't see why you can't measure and define all those qualities. Sure, it's going to take a ton of variables, but it really doesn't seem impossible at all.

Impossible is a big word. I don't generally use it.

However, to define "God", one would first have to agree on a method of measurement, and we can't even do that with individual humans we can see. I don't see how we could have the Starship Enterprise without having the Apollo rockets first.

How about just a god with properties X, Y, and Z

[Galloism]

You went there.

Of course, Q's authority wasn't ultimate. He had to answer to the continuum.

And the all the other entities of the Continuum are also omni-potent.

If you ignore all the other gods, your description describes the only one you're discussing reasonably well (arguably). And, if we ignore the Q Continuum...

Actually, the Q were not omnipotent. They were just absurdly powerful.

See Voyager: Death Wish and and Voyager: Q and the Grey.

[Sociobiology]

there is a big diffrence betewwen suficently define and compltetely define,
Mike X of country X born in city X on date X with social security number ending in XXXX, sufficently defines mike to exclude all other mikes.

And a being of superhuman power who has ultimate authority over the entire universe sufficiently defines an entity in such a way to exclude all other entities.

but said a being has no claim to moral prerogative.
so your definition is not of a god from whom you could claim moral authority nor reason for worship.
to claim those things would need a more distinct definition.
no definition that grant moral authority and has been demonstrated to be true has been put forward.
Oh and it does exclude other gods, I can name several thousand gods, many are attributed those criteria you list.

[Galloism]

And a being of superhuman power who has ultimate authority over the entire universe sufficiently defines an entity in such a way to exclude all other entities.

but said a being has no claim to moral prerogative.
so your definition is not of a god from whom you could claim moral authority nor reason for worship.
to claim those things would need a more distinct definition.
no definition that grant moral authority and has been demonstrated to be true has been put forward.
Oh and it does exclude other gods, I can name several thousand gods, many are attributed those criteria you list.

But, obviously, only one god could exist that possessed ultimate authority. If any other gods possessed such authority, then neither could have such ultimate authority.

Thus, only one such being could possibly exist.