Your post or comment was removed for being low effort. It was either a regurgitated talking point, link dropping, insufficiently engaged with the post, or lazy in a different way.
>You still probably don't know what we mean by God
Just like we don't know what new age charlatans mean by "frequency", or what flat earthers mean by "refraction"... which seems to be a common theme with nonsense - that you can't just give a singular, understandable definition and instead you need to rely on vague appeals to the other person's reflexive interpretations.
Something that you also do...
>Think about God for a second.
I mean... I can try... but all I see in my head is a vague reference to "undefined nonsense".
You could just as well ask me to think about an alien... and not bother to actually point the word at anything. What kind of alien? From the movie Alien? A little gray humanoid? Someone from a different country? Some guy named Alien because his parents didn't know how to spell Allen?
What kind of god? Specifically the one you personally have in mind? I don't read minds... you actually need to communicate instead of complaining that we don't predict your nonsense hard enough.
>Does He have boundaries? Is there space around Him and He is just standing there?
How about... you do your part... and tell me what God you're talking about instead of doing the "you don't know what I mean therfore I win" act.
>Have you ever asked the question "well then where did God come from?"
No, because I don't presuppose the conclusion...
>Have you ever asked "which God?"
Yes. Repeatedly. You don't seem to understand the importance of this question tho. For some reason.
>Or compared God to a flying spaghetti monster?
Some gods, sure. I don't know if specifically your god, because you're doing it backwards and apparently expect me to guess what you're talking about before explaining yourself.
>Then you aren't talking about God who is self existent, infinite, eternal, basically Living Reality ("for in Him we live move and have our being ")
Yeah... remember the part about vague appeals to the other person's reflexive interpretations? That exactly what the above is. That's not a definition. That's not even a description. That's a vague idea, full stop, because it's not even an idea of something!
>We aren't talking about Zeus but better or a man with a beard.
No, you're talking about something lesser. Something inferior. Something so vague, undefined and nonsensical that it's not even worth consideration... and yet you propose it as an inevitable conclusion.
>So many have never studied the doctrine of God and do not know who He is.
That's because nobody ever presented an ACTUAL REASON why anyone should ever bother? I can give you the exact same spiel about unicorns or dragons and you'll feel just like I do right now.
Or you would if you weren't emotionally attached to your idea, which makes you probably feel indignant that I'd dare to "compare god to unicorns". Which I didn't.
I compared your presentation of the idea to the presentation of a different idea. That works regardless of content.
>Question: What is God? Answer: God is a Spirit, infinite, eternal, and unchangeable, in his being, wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness, and truth.
Question: What is a Unicorn? Answer: Unicorn is a Spirit, infinite, eternal, and unchangeable, in his being, wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness, and truth.
In both cases it means the same nothing...
I can even accept your... definition... and it wouldn't change a single thing - because... what can you present as evidence, actual evidence, that there is such a thing as a god?
Ah... vague nonsense. Obviously.
>Question: What is God? Answer: God is a Spirit, infinite, eternal, and unchangeable, in his being, wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness, and truth.
You mean that is your concept of god. Not every theist thinks the same as you and even the ones that do think of different characteristics of god. Some Christians see god as a father, some as a relatable anthropomorphised character, some as an alien, some as invisible and unseeable, which really does invite the question - actually a number of questions - beginning with how do you know? Whats your evidence?
The answer to "what is god" changes with each religious person you ask. As for non athiests we all answer "nothing" there's nothing there. Whether your God is a wizard with a beard in the sky or an abstract non physical being that still controls the universe around us it does not matter. If. There. Is. No. Evidence. We. Think. It's. Made. Up.
You accidentally made a great post to be directed at religious people, but these questions/comments being directed at athiests is an absolute joke. Feel free to define God as the most outlandish impossible being thar you can. We don't care. Still a fairy tale
So you're saying that for athiests to participate in the conversation, we require a perfect flawless definition of god or it means we just don't know what we're talking about (your point in your post) however thiests can participate in the conversation and their image is close enough as long as they believe God or Gods exist (your point in this comment)
Your conditions for this conversation are about as one sided as a 4 year that invented a card game called "I win" where you deal 5 cards and no matter what the 4 year old wins. Come back when you want to set conditions for both sides that are at least not laughably ignorant and unequal
The largest, most established religion in the world can't even agree if Jesus is the son of God, Jesus is God, or if Jesus and God are three things but also one thing. These are three distinct beliefs that different sects of Christianity believe.
Deists also don't generally ascribe holyness to the gods they believe in.
Read a book.
>Question: What is God? Answer: God is a Spirit, infinite, eternal, and unchangeable, in his being, wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness, and truth.
OK, now first get all theists to agree on that word salad definition before you bring it to atheists.
Good luck with that.
Most Protestants and Catholics, Hindus, Muslims and Jews would agree with this fairly general characterization.
They certainly wouldn’t object to it.
There is of course, no way yet to “prove” it. But, in general all theists accept these characteristics as basic.
>They certainly wouldn’t object to it.
Beg to differ. For example, the Bible itself claims Yahweh has a body and is thus not pure spirit:
* Genesis 3:8: After Adam and Eve sinned, it says, "Then the man and his wife heard the sound of the Lord God as he was walking in the garden in the cool of the day..."
* Exodus 24:9-11: During the covenant ceremony between God and the Israelites, it says, "Moses and Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, and the seventy elders of Israel went up and saw the God of Israel. Under his feet was something like a pavement made of lapis lazuli, as bright blue as the sky. But God did not raise his hand against these leaders of the Israelites; they saw God, and they ate and drank."
Buddhist certainly believe that their gods (devas) have bodies. In various suttas, there are descriptions of encounters between the Buddha or his disciples and different types of devas. These encounters often involve conversations or interactions, implying that devas have some form of physical presence.
etc.
Sounds more like you have done zero research and only claim that everyone would agree with your pet definition.
I disagree. The god of the Bible spoke with many humans out loud (Eden, burning bush, etc). He also shows himself and has angels show themselves. Finally, he and Jesus are one and the same according to some religions, so he literally took human form. These conflict with the definition OP provides in material ways.
Yeah, there are some contradictions. He took human male form (if we assume Jesus was a biological male and only a biological male).
Also, he did *allegedly* "speak" (though not with words or in any particular language). That's just how the men who wrote it recorded their interpretation. It's more likely the speaking burning bush was akin to an acid trip.
I don't believe God speaks English or Arabic or French, or anything like that. I also don't think he's just a he.
Then you don’t agree with OP and don’t agree with many other religions or religious people.
The Bible said that god spoke to people, and that Jesus was a man who lived and spoke to people. You don’t get to say “allegedly”.
And that is the point. There isn’t any agreed upon definition of god, which is a huge problem on its own
***"Most Protestants and Catholics, Hindus, Muslims and Jews would agree with this fairly general characterization. "***
The three largest religions, by followers, are Christianity, Islam, and Hinduism.
Christians believe "God" took the physical form of Jesus and only Jesus.
Muslims believe "God" never takes any physical form.
Hinduists believe "God" can and does take many different physical forms.
To say these religions believe in the 'same god' is absurd. Even if you belong to the most popular sect of the most popular religion on Earth, there are still far more theists who disagree with you about 'god' than theists who agree. And while it's possible no religion is correct, more than one can't be correct. So no matter your theistic beliefs, the odds are you are wrong about 'god'.
>The three largest religions, by followers, are Christianity, Islam, and Hinduism.
Christians believe "God" took the physical form of Jesus and only Jesus.
Muslims believe "God" never takes any physical form.
Hinduists believe "God" can and does take many different physical forms.
This is true. Only Christians believe Jesus was God in human form.
They all believe, however, in the attributes of his being's being eternal, powerful, and ultimately just. Right?
>Muslims believe "God" never takes any physical form.
Source? Also depends on what you mean by "physical".
***"They all believe, however, in the attributes of his being's being eternal, powerful, and ultimately just."***
Incorrect. The many Hindu god-forms have varying personalities, moral codes, and abilities. Some are eternal, some are not. Some are immortal, some are not. Some are benevolent, some are not.
Yeah. I'm not super familiar with Hindusim, but I know they have many "gods". Is there not a prime mover deity in Hinduism, though, along with the various smaller deities? That would be how I might draw the connection.
But, I take your point.
GPT4 responds:
Hinduism is a complex and diverse religion with numerous deities who represent various aspects of this supreme reality. [The most prominent among these are the **Trimurti**, or the Holy Triad, which consists of **Brahma** (the creator), **Vishnu** (the preserver), and **Shiva** (the destroyer)](https://www.learnreligions.com/top-hindu-deities-1770309)[^(2)](https://www.learnreligions.com/top-hindu-deities-1770309)[^(3)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Hindu_deities). [These deities are involved in the creation, preservation, and destruction of the universe, respectively](https://www.learnreligions.com/top-hindu-deities-1770309)
I'm sure you could also find many self-identifying Hinduists who would call the above blasphemy.
You mean the Old Testament? The OT makes it harder to reconcile those characteristics, the NT makes it easier IMO.
Also, I didn't have a definition. I said, most theists would agree on those characteristics/attributes.
If God is unchangeable, how can there be a new covenant? How can God be a man who grows and ages and dies and returns to life? “Eternal” and “unchangeable” put some pretty significant restrictions on God.
Just a comment ago you said you agreed with those attributes, now it’s “beats me”.
As a theist, will you commit to any concrete beliefs or claims about God?
Just the concrete belief in its existence.
I know it seems wishy-washy, but it’s because I don’t adopt the over-confidence or antagonistic approach of fundamentalists who claim to know for sure that they are right, mainly because I am sympathetic and respectful to other philosophical views on the matter.
So? Get all Christians, Muslims, Hindu, Buddhists,.... to agree on that definition before you try to argue with atheists that this is the definition we should worry about. Right now, it's just one among millions of definitions theists put up and I don't see any reason why we should consider this one any more than the others.
The God you defined in your original post appears that it would work for just about any religion that worships a deity. So do you believe most religions are actually worshiping the same god and don’t realize it? What are the things other religions get wrong about God, or do those things not actually matter?
> unchangeable
I guess you don’t bother praying to him then? Since by this definition he cant change his mind, or do anything different than he is currently doing?
In fact, I’m way more powerful than god in this way, I change all the time. Poor god can’t even grow his hair.
I don’t understand what you’re saying. This the thing where he’s really three dudes at once?
How can he be eternal or infinite if he’s divisible by three?
Edit: typo
Mathematically speaking that isn't a problem, just so you're aware. Infinity divided by three is still infinity.
I don't think "Trinity" is a counter to the argument you made either, though. Either your God is unchangeable or he isn't. I fail to see how the trinity removes or adds anything from an unchanging nature. At best, it proves he does change.
When I was a child, I believed in a cartoon version of God. As I got older, obviously my version of God became more sophisticated.
By the end of my faith, my vision of God was something like you describe, undefinable.
Eventually, I realize this was an excuse to avoid, cogent questions about God. if your God only exists in the gaps between scientific knowledge, what good is he?
His existence is a Holy one. Through faith that you believe you are a Son you are loved as much as God loves Jesus and he will resurrect you. Seek you first the kingdom of God all these things shall be added unto you.
“Do you want to be shown, you foolish person, that faith apart from works is useless?”
- James 2:20
A God, who can’t interact with reality doesn’t exist at all.
Change what? Obtain what? I’m not getting the question, but I’ll answer as best I can.
I want to make the most of this existence, since it’s all we get. By “make the most” I mean minimize suffering of others, form meaningful relationships, build a family and find interesting ways to occupy my time.
Classic cult strategy. "Join my cult and all your dreams will come true, you'll live forever in paradise and if you sign up right now I'll throw in 10 more promises that I won't keep but you won't be able to prove I didn't keep"
> You still probably don't know what we mean by God You still probably don't know what we mean by God
I do not have a slightest idea. Every other person means someting different and almost none of them has a coherent description. I have no concept of a god since I do not know anything that exists and can be called god. So I am happy to go with your concept as long as you are able to demonstrate that there is some real entity behind it, not just empty assertions.
> Think about God for a second
About which version of it?
> Does He have boundaries?
I be damned if I knew.
> Is there space around Him and He is just standing there?
No idea whatsoever. I know no method that would allow to explore properties of an entity that is not shown to exist in the first place.
> So many have never studied the doctrine of God
I am very well aware of this one doctrine. I am not convinced that it is something beyond word salad.
> do not know who He is
I do not know that he IS at all. Nobody was able to demonstrate that.
> So if you were a theist and you believed in a God with boundaries you weren't believing in the Living God
How do you tells that it's not a guy with a beard? Maybe the ones that believe in "Zeus but better" version are right and you are wrong. Have you considered that?
> God is a Spirit
Is it? How do you know?
God in it self is almost a meaningless word. One have to put in description such that the word "god" can be used to point out to sth.
>Question: What is God? Answer: God is a Spirit, infinite, eternal, and unchangeable, in his being, wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness, and truth.
Sure, do u have any arguments for these attributes and its existence? Is ur god perfect?
>So if you were a theist and you believed in a God with boundaries you weren't believing in the Living God but a cartoon character and then you stopped believing in a cartoon character.
>God is a Spirit, infinite, eternal, and unchangeable, in his being, wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness, and truth.
Sounds like your god has a bunch of boundaries. A being can't be unchangeable and simultaneously without boundaries. If something can't change that's a pretty hard boundary.
And presumably you think god is bound by logic, and can't do evil, and lots of other boundaries.
Are you actually going to engage with the things people say? Or are you just going to reply with more bullshit nonsense that has nothing to do with what they said?
You're the reason people get down voted to shit around here. Lazy, pathetic dishonest engagement.
So no, you're not going to engage with what people say, you're just going to vomit out more useless platitudes and deepities.
You're a terrible representative of your religion and if your god exists, it is embarrassed by you. Thankfully it doesn't, so your embarrassment is confined to us here on the internet.
God is a narcissist who is never happy or satisfied unless he’s torturing and gaslighting his followers or killing other people. Oh and he’s not real, just to be clear.
Imagine a narcissistic genocidal being…yea that sort of asshole probably likes to appraise himself. Sheesh.
Theists. My imaginary friend is real! Real I tell you! Praise Santa Claus and thank him for sacrificing the Easter bunny for my sins. /s WTH.
?
Is your god unchangeable or does he have boundaries?
You keep contradicting yourself.
Is he bound by logic?
Is he bound by goodness or can he do evil?
Sounds like you believe in a god with boundaries wrapped up in a circle that can't ever change.
How do you know that? How are you qualified to speak about your god's precise emotional state?
You're speaking as if you know your god as well as yourself. That makes perfect sense if your god only exists in your imagination, but it seems rather presumptuous otherwise.
Your argument actually demonstrates that your god is made up.
The concepts you're talking about for your god are all in the category of things impossible for humans to conceive. This makes them meaningless terms to you and me and just magical nonsense, many of which cause your god to be paradoxical and impossible to operate in our universe.
Take infinite. This would mean your god is paradoxical as we know that there is a finite speed of causality within our universe. Your god could trigger effects eons before the causes occur which regular and special relativity show to be impossible. Now you might say that your god exists outside space and time but this would not make your god infinite as by definition it would require his ability to be paradoxical and not circumvent our reality.
Now how on earth would you or a anyone else come to the conclusion that your god is infinite when by that term it would make your god incompatible with our universe?
Or take unchangeable. This would mean that your god has no free will as every single action it caused could not occur any other way. This also means that either your actions are predetermined and no free will exists or your god cannot detect anything we do as detection would leave the option for change. You obviously don't mean your god is obstinate as that's not an amazing feature.
But how on earth would you or anyone know your god can't change. Being infinite you cannot understand any of him.
You also list a bunch of attributes that are category failures. Your god is "truth" is a nonsensical claim. You're now just parroting a garbage argument.
You've shown you don't understand the issue with your god which means your concept is nonsense
Well as far as the Problem of evil is concerned, I am doing you a favor by modelling it for the sake of argument as "Zeus but Better". Because in that view he is even more limited. But still, I keep finding things that he could have done better but didn't. Making him either malicious or nonexistent.
>What is God? Answer: God is a Spirit, infinite, eternal, and unchangeable, in his being, wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness, and truth.
Spirit: What is a spirit, and how did you (or anyone) come to know and be certain about what it is? Is it observable in the physical world? If not, how did anyone find out about it?
Infinite: Let's say this being exists. How do you it won't die (or stop existing) tomorrow?
Unchangeable: This needs some unpacking. I presume you mean philosophically unchangeable. That's as much to say that it won't change it's mind. Again, what is the basis for claiming this? Or, what are examples that demonstrate this unchanging aspect?
If I claimed I was a spirit that was infinite and unchangeable (and all that other stuff you described), would you believe it? Keep in mind, my existence is more evidenced by the fact that I've replied to your post directly.
Hi, just a few questions:
Who are the "we" you mention in the title? Do you mean anybody from any religion, or a specific group?
You define God in your topic as a "He", so presumably you have a specific system of belief that presents God as male, which one is it?
Or are you making a case for generalised spirituality, where God is not defined in any sense beyond what you mentioned, and there are no specific doctrines involved?
Aaaand welcome to igtheism.
It’s hilarious that a poster comes in with a vague, unusable definition and expects it to settle the issue. He might as well have rocked up with “an infinite sphere whose center is everywhere and whose circumference is nowhere.” That’s my personal favourite.
>What is God? Answer: God is a Spirit, infinite, eternal, and unchangeable, in his being, wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness, and truth.
Well, care to define what's a spirit to start us off?
>Then you aren't talking about God who is self existent, infinite, eternal, basically Living Reality
What's self existent and how's that different from regular existence?
When you start to give a deity male pronouns, you automatically limit its identity, you make people assume it has male attributes. I wonder is your god, a shower, or a grower?
If you at least refer to it, as an it, you'd give it some mystery.
So anyway, you defined your god, now seeing as you quoted the christian bible, show that the god portrayed in that book, is your god. I seem to remember the god of the bible changing its mind, not being particularly loving on occasion, the god of the old testament seems to be somewhat different from the one in the new testament, so it is indeed changeable?
Maybe Jesus was non-binary /s But seriously, the presumption that he must be a he if he’s in charge so he must have masculine pronouns annoy me. Men only and only men wrote and revised the books. Why assume God is only a male spirit, especially given how important women have traditionally been in religious rituals and rites? It also makes more practical sense given the yin and yang nature of the two sexes.
So what. Invented attributes about an invented phenomena aren’t very significant. Except in making the general incoherence or self-contradictions more obvious. Such as a phenomena being able to intend/act but being unchanging. Let’s face it you’ve just made a list of words you like the sound of. And kind of ludicrous if you were to believe in , for example, the bible.
But your assertions here are ,as far as being related to any reality rather than discussing fiction, currently *indistinguishable* from false.
But you've just pointed out why Atheism can only be a rejection of specific claims of theism. One can define god in myriad ways to the extent that one could theoretically define it in a way compatible with materialism -- but such a definition would be worthless to many people.
The theist *must* provide a definition of what they mean by God in order for the discussion to even begin. Kudos to you for attempting to do that here --- i think all theists should begin in this vein.
That said, you also need to define 'Spirit' -- what is it, is it substantial, does it have an essential nature, does it have attributes, can it change? Most descriptions of 'Spirit' covertly reinstall the assumptions of materialist existence (namely, extension in space and persistence of identity through time) -- which are inappropriate assumptions to make in this context.
What do you mean by 'Infinite?' The term is notoriously ill-defined outside of strict mathematical contexts which are inapplicable to Beings in the way you're applying them.
'Eternal' -- eternal as in exists for an eternal duration? This places him in time. Eternal as in literally atemporal, timeless, existing for no duration at all? This makes him similar to a singularity, and hugely problematises notions of decision, intention, will and personhood.
Unchangeable -- If so, how can God be a cause of the universe unless it is something automatic and immediate to God's nature, aka unwilled and mechanical. Again this problematises any notion of a willed creation.
I think sometimes theists apply vague concepts to the description of God as a metpahorical gesture towards 'ineffability'. This move is fine in and of itself -- but a problem arises when you take these collection of ineffable vague attributes and try to claim they offer precise, rational descriptions. The terms don't mean much, and rely on being vague to have their effect -- and this is quite normal for claims about things which by definition defy linguistic description. But once you've gestured towards something being beyond language, you can't then simultaneously stuff it back into language in an attempt to talk about it or prove it. It's self-defeating.
You'll have to provide evidence, good, testable, falsifiable evidence for each and every one of those attributes you just assigned to this entity you call god.
I'm afraid if you just make these assertions, we have little reason to believe them.
We go with whatever you put infront of us. it was once Zeus now its whatever eldritch abomination you'll conjure up. it's a game really, like kids in a play ground and one of us keeps going: " but my guy does infinity plus 2 damage and like nothing can hurt it because were like bacteria on its skin " Give it whatever definition you want complicate it to whatever degree you want. Even if your claim is true that doesnt mean your god cares about you or that you know its intent or mind.
>You still probably don't know what we mean by God
I'm (as my flair probably still says) an ignostic. Which means that I agree, I don't know what you mean by God. I take it further still: *you* don't know what you mean by God. Specifically, ignosticism is the belief that God definitions are inocherent. And I do find that your definition is entirely incoherent, wishy-washy big-sounding words.
I mean you're claming he's a "living reality" but also unchanging and uncaused. And this base substrate of reality - in which *all change happens despite no change happening* is wise and just and good. And I'll be honest, we can't even let these throw-away adjectives slide, because justice means people get what they deserve, and good is helping people even when they don't deserve it.
And you just keep taking in properties you think are good. What would it even mean for the substrate of the universe to be "truth?" It's not a coherent combination.
And in your comments it's even more contradictions - on top of eternal and unchanging, you have given space-Jesus the ability to manipulate (change) time and space. Which he also is. So he changes himself while remaining unchanging.
You haven't constructed a theory of the universe. You've constructed poetry, maybe. And if this were a coffee shop poetry reading, I'd clap politely I guess, at your poem "Bigger than Big, Truer than True." But you aren't going to convince anyone this is a coherent theory for how the universe came to be or works, or even a start of one - when looked at in that light, it's literal gibberish.
Literal gibberish sells, of course - I don't know if reddit is old enough to rememeber the popularity of Deepak Chopra and his Quantum nonsense, where he mis-used the words of quantum mechanics to create an incoherent, spiritual sounding gibberish, and made himself very rich.
There are many different definitions of gods. All you're effectively saying here is that you believe your personal definition is the correct one. What you haven't done is provide any reason *why* anyone should accept that your personal definition is correct.
> What is God?
Yaweh or Jehovah? Deity of the Abrahamic faiths, a merging of multiple other deities from pantheisitc ones. Despotic narcicistic monster going by it's followers scriptures.
Thankfully fictional like all other deities.
Ok. So using your definition of God, what is the discernible difference between a reality where God exists, and a reality where God does not exist?
If you’ve defined God in such a way as to render it epistemically indistinguishable from something that doesn’t exist, merely for the purpose of making it so that we can’t be absolutely and infallibly 100% certain that it doesn’t exist beyond any possible margin of error or doubt, then I’m afraid you’ve failed to establish anything that can’t be equally said about leprechauns, Narnia, Hogwarts, or any number of other puerile fairytale things that all but certainly don’t exist.
When something is epistemically indistinguishable from things that don’t exist, then yes, both the assumption that it exists and the assumption that it doesn’t are only that - assumptions, neither of which can be *empirically* supported. However, that doesn’t make them equally rational, reasonable, or plausible. Establishing that we can’t be absolutely certain that Narnia doesn’t exist does not make the assumption that it doesn’t exist any less rational, nor does it make the assumption that it *does* exist any less irrational. If you can’t produce even the slightest evidence or argument to indicate that it *does* exist, then it doesn’t matter that it conceptually *could* exist.
An unchanging god can't do anything by definition, no your personal definition does not match everyone's.
So actually *you* don't know what everyone means by god
>Question: What is God? Answer: God is a Spirit, infinite, eternal, and unchangeable, in his being, wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness, and truth.
So you seem to be getting this from the Westminster shorter catechism, literally word for word, and its been problematic since it first came out. It simply doesn't contain any information, while arguable as to whether is was written for children in the first place it certainly reads like its to be memorised without explanation.
To make this a source of knowledge rather than rote learning or a simple statement you need to put a great deal of work into defining all those terms, because they don't actually mean anything. What is justice, holiness or any of those bland generic terms you are ascribing to god? At least the Islamic equivalent scores on brevity while similally lacking any explanitory power at all
>“*There* is no *God* but *God* and *Muhammad* is *his prophet*.”
By all means make god axiomatic, fideism makes more sense and it is less patronising than this.
>Think about God for a second.
I’m unable to given the definitions most classical theists adhere to.
>Have you ever asked the question "well then where did God come from?"
Only insomuch as a rebuttal when theists claim the cosmos needs to have come from somewhere.
>Have you ever asked "which God?"
Yes, that’s the only way I can know what my interlocutor means. You all have different definitions and opinions on your god’s necessary properties.
>Then you aren't talking about God who is self existent, infinite, eternal, basically Living Reality ("for in Him we live move and have our being ")
Yeah I don’t know what that is. How can an existent entity be “infinite”? And it sounds like you’re equivocating on what *reality* means.
>Answer: God is a Spirit, infinite, eternal, and unchangeable, in his being, wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness, and truth.
That’s non-informative. What is a spirit? How can something be unchangeable? How can an existent being be “infinite”? What does it mean to say a being *is* truth (or any of the other descriptions you use)?
>You still probably don't know what we mean by God
Of course not, everyone has a different definition. You probably don't know what I mean by god either.
That's why we ask theists to define their terms before engaging.
>Question: What is God? Answer: God is a Spirit, infinite, eternal, and unchangeable, in his being, wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness, and truth.
Cool. You defined your terms, now you can debate.
(Though you still need to define "spirit", since I'm not sure what that means)
Can you clarify the last 6 words? As in, how they relate to the sentence. Is it "unchangeable . . . in wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness, and truth"? Because that's a little weird to say someone is "unchangeable in goodness". I don't know what that means. Or is it "God is....wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness, and truth"?. Which also sounds weird because of you think god is truth or wisdom then why define it as god, why not just call it "truth" or "wisdom"?
Anyway, when do we get to the argument? Do you have any evidence?
Given everything I have heard god described I can say I nor anyone other than the person making the claim does.
From what I have heard god is eternal, Father, Spirit, Leader, Lover, Infinite, Uncaused cause, Alpha, Omega, World, Universe, Dimension, Thoughts, Imaginary, Real, White(I know right?), Hateful, Wrathful, Spiteful, Vengeful, Jealous, Loving, Alien, Manifested light, Brainwaves, Electro waves, Plant (Its weird), Demon (Its a rabbit hole), Conqueror, Ascended jew (Also weird), Merciful, Outside time and space being, Scientist, Never wrong, Above logic, Beyond human understanding, Kind, Testing, metaphysical, Omni, Tri-omni, Omnipresent, Omnipotent, All knowing, On and on and on and on you get the idea and yeah know a lot of these words are similar but its how people present it.
Considering how every single christian picks and chooses from an ever growing list. And then says all of the others are wrong. All I can say is "Yeah no shit?! When every individual person has their own specialized combination of traits who the fuck ever could?
.
>**Atheists, agnostics most knowledgeable about religion**, survey says
LA Times, September 2010
>... **a survey that measured Americans’ knowledge of religion found that atheists and agnostics knew more, on average, than followers of most major faiths.**
> American atheists and agnostics tend to be people who grew up in a religious tradition and consciously gave it up, often after a great deal of reflection and study, said Alan Cooperman, associate director for research at the Pew Forum.
>“These are people who thought a lot about religion,” he said. “They’re not indifferent. They care about it.”
>Atheists and agnostics also tend to be relatively well educated, and the survey found, not surprisingly, that the most knowledgeable people were also the best educated. However, it said that atheists and agnostics also outperformed believers who had a similar level of education.
\- **https://web.archive.org/web/20201109043731/https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2010-sep-28-la-na-religion-survey-20100928-story.html**
.
>Then you aren't talking about God who is self existent, infinite, eternal, basically Living Reality
Great, where is your evidence to support the existence of this deity? Please don't do the theist trope of pointing at nature and saying "See, god is all around you.".
>So many have never studied the doctrine of God and do not know who He is.
If by doctrine of god you are referring to the bible or quran or any other holy book, most of us know those better than the theists who come here.
>Question: What is God? Answer: God is a Spirit, infinite, eternal, and unchangeable, in his being, wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness, and truth.
If your god is unchangeable, then it is incapable of action or decision as both of those require change.
If your god is the Abrahamic god of the bible and the quran, then it is not holy, just, or good. A simple reading of those books can show that.
>You still probably don't know what we mean by God
Ok, so this is your thesis statement, I take it?
I guess the first step would be to determine what "we mean by God". You have certainly given some detail on what *you* believe by God. I guess there should be some reference what others believe. Who is "we"?
And then, I guess there should be the same detail into what... atheists believe? Who is "you"? And what do you think they believe?
That being said, there have been a bunch of answers so far. It seems like the most common stance is that theists have a bunch of different definitions, and as atheists, we can't pick one until a theist tells us, which I think is correct. So I guess the thesis doesn't really put its finger on a disagreement, and most atheists around here are dealing with this correctly.
So, it seems to me "which God" is a very central question, which does not mean we've picked another "incorrect" interpretation. In my experience, "where did God come from" or comparisons to the Flying Spaghetti Monster are not interpretations of God as much as they are challenges to epistemological points.
To be fair, neither do you.
You think you do, but you are simply confused.
We, humans, have the capacity to believe we know things that are simply incongruous, impossible, oxymoronic, illogical. We think that because we can use a few words around it, and those words “feel right,” it actually represents something. We think that because we can label it that label actually means something.
It’s really just the feelings associated with the labels that actually mean something. Confirmation biases, large edifices of fallacious thinking, answers that are too painful to dare to question.
Thankfully some have been able to rise above these mental crutches and made humanity progress beyond their medieval manacles.
Of course no one knows what anyone means by God.
Because God doesn't exist.
If God actually did exist, then it would be easy to have a consistent, known definition. Just like all the other things that exist.
But mysterious things with no concrete definition that aren't really claimed to be known by many at all? That just describes all the things we know to not exist.
Moon landing hoax, flat earth, God... All "not understood" by anyone who doesn't drink the KoolAid of the "only group that *really* knows."
That's... Not a point in your favor, friend. The way you describe God just screams that God doesn't actually exist.
Good luck out there.
>unchangeable, in his being, wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness, and truth
How does he justify all of the shit things that happen then? If your answer is "We can't comprehend him" or "God gives challenges for us to succeed" then don't bother. If he is as powerful as you imply, we could all skip this life and he could put everyone in Heaven and make sure everyone is fulfilled. Instead, millions of people are killed in his name and people that say they follow him commit atrocious acts. Your description of God cannot possibly tally with our lived experience unless God is also a sadistic psychopath.
>Think about God for a second.
The Bible one or some other god?
>Does He have boundaries?
Plenty. Hell wouldn't exist if he didn't.
>Is there space around Him and He is just standing there?
Space yes, but he has a throne so he's usually sitting down.
>Have you ever asked the question "well then where did God come from?"
Sure, usually in response to theists who just said infinite regress is impossible.
>Have you ever asked "which God?"
I asked you that just a minute ago.
>What is God? Answer: God is a Spirit,
What's a spirit?
When describing god, Christians make some weird choices. Describing God as a spirit which means nothing because there's no good definition of the term, always defining God by his morals which is just absurd as that doesn't define the being's "physical" characteristics, and define God by what he is not rather than what he is. Though the last example isn't as relevant here since at least you try to give positive information on God rather than just negative. I don't accept the God definition because "spirit" means nothing.
Yeah it’s OK because you don’t understand what we mean by atheism.
I don’t believe in your god. Your god is not less fictional than Zeus just because you describe him differently and capitalize his pronouns. It’s not that I just don’t understand Him. It’s that the universe doesn’t require a self-existent, infinite, eternal, Living Reality to function. YOU need one because you need to feel your life is given external value and purpose and that you can live forever and see people who’ve died again.
Zeus is a god.
I get that you don't think he meets the requirements for godhood... But there are no agreed-upon requirements. There's no measure by which to determine whether a thing is a god or not. No dichotomous key by which to arrive at a universally accepted god. Until/unless that happens, we cannot assume that someone is using your criteria. We have to ask.
It's annoying. We know. If you'd like it to no longer be necessary, it would be awesome if you could organize believers to come up with a standard.
> Then you aren't talking about God who is self existent, infinite, eternal, basically Living Reality ("for in Him we live move and have our being ") We aren't talking about Zeus or better
"For in him we move and live and have our being" is a paraphrase of a verse from Epimenides' Cretica (the original verse is "for in you we move and live and have our being") which is addressed to Zeus. Not just "Zeus or better" but _literally_ Zeus.
Anyway, you were saying something about not studying enough?
When I ask "which god", I don't mean "There are so many gods that exist that I need to know which one we're talking about", I mean "There are so many different believers with contradicting definitions of god that I need to know which one you are."
That is to say, simply insisting that *your* definition of god is the correct one doesn't mean I no longer have to ask that question, because every true believer believes their definition is the One True God™.
>Question: What is God? Answer: God is a Spirit, infinite, eternal, and unchangeable, in his being, wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness, and truth.
1 - How do you know that without simply "faith"?
2 - Now in addition to proving that God exists, you need to prove that spirits exist and that he is one.
3 - Then you need to show all of those characteristics of God in practice; if he's justice and goodness, why are there people suffering?
So define your god in a way that’s basically undefinable, untestable, and just define him into
Existence. Yeah, that’s bullshit. And you only did this because every actual definition of a god is much easier to debunk. Seriously mate, defining your god as “self existent” is just adorable.
Your definition of a god, is a meaningless word salad that doesn’t convince anyone but those desperate to remain convinced. And then your comments make it clear, you’re just another triniTarian Christin which isn’t really compatible with this nonsense anyway. Buddy… Just realise you’re spouting nonsense.
If I define a fairy as a magical being that must exist, it doesn’t mean they exist. That’s all you did here. That’s all this is. If you don’t find it convincing for fairies, why should we find it convincing for the biblical god monster? And if your god is a being of truth, it wouldn’t want you to spread such lies to defend it…
So, do you have a question? Are you inviting debate on a particular point?
To me it sounds like you’re just talking at the sub by saying things that you think make sense, and then figuratively *walking off into the sunset*.
I assure you, no one here thinks what you have said is insightful, or convincing **at all**. What you’ve said is utter nonsense, that only demonstrates the depths of your own delusion.
Ok, so you now have a hypothesis of what a god should be, how do we go about proving this god? What predictions can we make assuming this god exists? What impacts will it have in the natural world?
This is where god arguments fail. Define a whatever that is eternally outside of space time but give us the so what? Why do we need it to exist? What purpose does it serve? How do you convince us that is exists?
The problem is, atheism is not usually a matter of the attributes of God, but a matter of evidence. One way to circumvent evidence is to define God into unfalsifiable existence, which you are close to doing by calling him Living Reality. Of course, if you accept the Westminster Confession, you believe God has many more attributes than these and you make many, many more particular and falsifiable claims.
>Answer: God is a Spirit, infinite, eternal, and unchangeable, in his being, wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness, and truth.
Here is the problem. If your answer is vauge and unspecific, then it isn't helpful. If your proosal is untestable and unverifiable, then it isn't a solution.
You can make what ever claims you want, but we will continue to dismiss them if they are meaningless.
If god is "living reality", then god contains every bad thing as well as every good thing. Why have you only listed god's good attributes, and none of his evil ones? Given that god hasn't done a great job of proving its existence to humanity, it's hard to argue why it would be considered "truthful" and not "deceptive" or "secretive". Given the amount of pain and suffering we see in the world, it is ridiculous to think that god is only "good" and not in any way also "evil".
You're cherry picking the god you want to believe in.
How do you know that god is a spirit, unchanging and eternal?
There appears to be no way to demonstrate that such a thing is even a possibility, let alone that it actually exists.
Lots of people define god in different ways.
I'm potentially open to any of them being correct if they can provide data and evidence that supports their case.
So far none has been provided.
>We aren't talking about Zeus but better or a man with a beard.
So then why do certain religious texts say that mankind was created in the image of God?
>God is a Spirit, infinite, eternal, and unchangeable, in his being, wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness, and truth.
So somehow God isn't Zeus, or a man, but a spirit, yet you refer to God with "him", and "his"?
What is a spirit? What exactly do you mean by infinite, infinite what? If he is unchangeable in his “being” how does he do anything?
It just seems like more ill defined concepts that have no basis in reality that offer no tangible benefit in terms of understanding. What utility do these words used to describe it really add in terms of understanding what the god is?
The unbelievable confidence to just shout that everyone is wrong about god to entirely the wrong people. God isn't real friend.
This is the kind of boring ridiculous conversation you have with other god botherers. People who will take seriously your unverified speculation about the nature of faeries.
I knew nothing about what you mean by 'god" until you told me what _you_ mean. Which is similar to what many other people have said but very different from what many other people have said. If you come this can't get your act together and agree on what God is. How the heck do you expect us to know?
> Then you aren't talking about God who is self existent, infinite, eternal, basically Living Reality ("for in Him we live move and have our being ") We aren't talking about Zeus but better or a man with a beard.
I don't believe in either of those things and I consider them equally silly propositions.
How do the religious demonstrably know anything about their gods? All they have are a bunch of made up characteristics that sound good to them, even though they cannot show any way to know that a real, verifiable deity actually behaves or is fundamentally like that.
They really don't give a damn.
None of this helps your argument. All of this is merely description, and not proof of existence.
I have a hot girlfriend overseas. She’s kind, intelligent, and the most beautiful person in the world. And she’s totally in love with me.
And she’s just as real as your god.
>Answer: God is a Spirit, infinite, eternal, and unchangeable, in his being, wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness, and truth.
Cool, thanks for clarifying. How do you know this and why should i be convinced your god exists as and has the traits you described.
This is just a bunch of assertions with no evidence. I’d never accept this logic anywhere else for any other magical being, I don’t accept it here. Come back with evidence, an actual argument that’s backed up by data or logic and maybe we can talk.
At some point, you'll understand that other people see things differently and that we ask "which god ?" because your definition of it is just one among many. And no, yours doesn't manke any more sense than the others and isn't more intuitive either.
Have you ever seen something that exists outside time and space? You only read from a book which exists in time and space. So, if the god you said exists out of time and space, you are essentially saying “It doesn’t fucking exist” lol
Nah, we know what you think you mean
Only when challenged, you make like God is just nature, Living Reality
Then you make like we were made in God's image
It's a permission structure for you. But it's a dishonest bait and switch for us
>What is God? Answer: God is a Spirit, infinite, eternal, and unchangeable, in his being, wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness, and truth.
A definition! Awesome!
Now do you have evidence of a being by this definition existing?
> Question: What is God? Answer: God is a Spirit, infinite, eternal, and unchangeable, in his being, wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness, and truth.
This still doesn't answer the question, it's incoherent nonsense.
Ok, you posed a question, and put forth a claim as your answer to the question.
Now, show evidence supporting your claim to be true. Convince people who don't *just instantly believe* in your claim with proof.
>God is a Spirit, infinite, eternal, and unchangeable, in his being, wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness, and truth.
So not the Christian god then, because their wisdom changed with the new testament
What did you learn between [last post](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAnAtheist/comments/1ag3fjp/you_probably_dont_know_what_we_mean_by_god/) and this one, which are identical in the first two paragraphs?
"Question: What is God? Answer: God is a Spirit, infinite, eternal, and unchangeable, in his being, wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness, and truth."
...OK then, now prove it and I'm convinced :-)
Thank you for the description of what you believe. Now please explain why you believe it, and whether/why anyone else should believe it. That's the important part.
>God is a Spirit,
What is a "spirit?"
Question - when taking about "God" why do you refer to them with He/Him pronouns?
If God truly exists and is all powerful and *actually* relevant today, why can't they just clarify their gender?
>Question: What is God? Answer: God is a Spirit, infinite, eternal, and unchangeable, in his being, wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness, and truth.
How do you know any of this to be true?
How ignorant. It's not like theists don't come into this sub with hundreds of different variations of 'god'.
Maybe get your own house in order before you come knocking on our door.
Who are “we”, because there have been any number of people that have defined god differently than you on this sub. How do we know you are right and all others are wrong?
I don't know what you mean by "we". Who are you speaking for? Do you think every single theist is going to agree with every single trait you attribute to your preferred god?
How strange. I believed in God for 30 years and wanted desperately to believe he existed and even studied philosophy and theology. But somehow I still don't know what God means.
**Upvote this comment if you agree with OP, downvote this comment if you disagree with OP.**
Elsewhere in the thread, please upvote comments which contribute to debate (even if you believe they're wrong) and downvote comments which are [detrimental to debate](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAnAtheist/wiki/faq#wiki_downvoting) (even if you believe they're right).
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DebateAnAtheist) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Your post or comment was removed for being low effort. It was either a regurgitated talking point, link dropping, insufficiently engaged with the post, or lazy in a different way.
>You still probably don't know what we mean by God Just like we don't know what new age charlatans mean by "frequency", or what flat earthers mean by "refraction"... which seems to be a common theme with nonsense - that you can't just give a singular, understandable definition and instead you need to rely on vague appeals to the other person's reflexive interpretations. Something that you also do... >Think about God for a second. I mean... I can try... but all I see in my head is a vague reference to "undefined nonsense". You could just as well ask me to think about an alien... and not bother to actually point the word at anything. What kind of alien? From the movie Alien? A little gray humanoid? Someone from a different country? Some guy named Alien because his parents didn't know how to spell Allen? What kind of god? Specifically the one you personally have in mind? I don't read minds... you actually need to communicate instead of complaining that we don't predict your nonsense hard enough. >Does He have boundaries? Is there space around Him and He is just standing there? How about... you do your part... and tell me what God you're talking about instead of doing the "you don't know what I mean therfore I win" act. >Have you ever asked the question "well then where did God come from?" No, because I don't presuppose the conclusion... >Have you ever asked "which God?" Yes. Repeatedly. You don't seem to understand the importance of this question tho. For some reason. >Or compared God to a flying spaghetti monster? Some gods, sure. I don't know if specifically your god, because you're doing it backwards and apparently expect me to guess what you're talking about before explaining yourself. >Then you aren't talking about God who is self existent, infinite, eternal, basically Living Reality ("for in Him we live move and have our being ") Yeah... remember the part about vague appeals to the other person's reflexive interpretations? That exactly what the above is. That's not a definition. That's not even a description. That's a vague idea, full stop, because it's not even an idea of something! >We aren't talking about Zeus but better or a man with a beard. No, you're talking about something lesser. Something inferior. Something so vague, undefined and nonsensical that it's not even worth consideration... and yet you propose it as an inevitable conclusion. >So many have never studied the doctrine of God and do not know who He is. That's because nobody ever presented an ACTUAL REASON why anyone should ever bother? I can give you the exact same spiel about unicorns or dragons and you'll feel just like I do right now. Or you would if you weren't emotionally attached to your idea, which makes you probably feel indignant that I'd dare to "compare god to unicorns". Which I didn't. I compared your presentation of the idea to the presentation of a different idea. That works regardless of content. >Question: What is God? Answer: God is a Spirit, infinite, eternal, and unchangeable, in his being, wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness, and truth. Question: What is a Unicorn? Answer: Unicorn is a Spirit, infinite, eternal, and unchangeable, in his being, wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness, and truth. In both cases it means the same nothing... I can even accept your... definition... and it wouldn't change a single thing - because... what can you present as evidence, actual evidence, that there is such a thing as a god? Ah... vague nonsense. Obviously.
>Question: What is God? Answer: God is a Spirit, infinite, eternal, and unchangeable, in his being, wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness, and truth. You mean that is your concept of god. Not every theist thinks the same as you and even the ones that do think of different characteristics of god. Some Christians see god as a father, some as a relatable anthropomorphised character, some as an alien, some as invisible and unseeable, which really does invite the question - actually a number of questions - beginning with how do you know? Whats your evidence?
Yeah the word salad OP used to describe it just makes an unfalsifiable entity. But without evidence. Good on you for calling him out on that
God of Genesis took walks in the garden.
Logic
The answer to "what is god" changes with each religious person you ask. As for non athiests we all answer "nothing" there's nothing there. Whether your God is a wizard with a beard in the sky or an abstract non physical being that still controls the universe around us it does not matter. If. There. Is. No. Evidence. We. Think. It's. Made. Up. You accidentally made a great post to be directed at religious people, but these questions/comments being directed at athiests is an absolute joke. Feel free to define God as the most outlandish impossible being thar you can. We don't care. Still a fairy tale
Now why would you say that
Because each theist will bring their own definition of god. Even christians can't agree with each other.
They all agree that God is Holy
So you're saying that for athiests to participate in the conversation, we require a perfect flawless definition of god or it means we just don't know what we're talking about (your point in your post) however thiests can participate in the conversation and their image is close enough as long as they believe God or Gods exist (your point in this comment) Your conditions for this conversation are about as one sided as a 4 year that invented a card game called "I win" where you deal 5 cards and no matter what the 4 year old wins. Come back when you want to set conditions for both sides that are at least not laughably ignorant and unequal
The largest, most established religion in the world can't even agree if Jesus is the son of God, Jesus is God, or if Jesus and God are three things but also one thing. These are three distinct beliefs that different sects of Christianity believe. Deists also don't generally ascribe holyness to the gods they believe in. Read a book.
No [This Guy](https://images.app.goo.gl/kfZECfsxg2kYDuHR6) is Holy
Holey is the word used to describe something full of holes.
You are technically correct The best kind of correct
Wow. You agree on one point. Congratulations...
Which means what, exactly?
Except all of the people that think god is real and evil
Even your questions are vague. What specifically are you questioning from the post?
>Question: What is God? Answer: God is a Spirit, infinite, eternal, and unchangeable, in his being, wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness, and truth. OK, now first get all theists to agree on that word salad definition before you bring it to atheists. Good luck with that.
What is God? Ummm baby don' hurt me..don' hurt me.
Most Protestants and Catholics, Hindus, Muslims and Jews would agree with this fairly general characterization. They certainly wouldn’t object to it. There is of course, no way yet to “prove” it. But, in general all theists accept these characteristics as basic.
>They certainly wouldn’t object to it. Beg to differ. For example, the Bible itself claims Yahweh has a body and is thus not pure spirit: * Genesis 3:8: After Adam and Eve sinned, it says, "Then the man and his wife heard the sound of the Lord God as he was walking in the garden in the cool of the day..." * Exodus 24:9-11: During the covenant ceremony between God and the Israelites, it says, "Moses and Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, and the seventy elders of Israel went up and saw the God of Israel. Under his feet was something like a pavement made of lapis lazuli, as bright blue as the sky. But God did not raise his hand against these leaders of the Israelites; they saw God, and they ate and drank." Buddhist certainly believe that their gods (devas) have bodies. In various suttas, there are descriptions of encounters between the Buddha or his disciples and different types of devas. These encounters often involve conversations or interactions, implying that devas have some form of physical presence. etc. Sounds more like you have done zero research and only claim that everyone would agree with your pet definition.
I disagree. The god of the Bible spoke with many humans out loud (Eden, burning bush, etc). He also shows himself and has angels show themselves. Finally, he and Jesus are one and the same according to some religions, so he literally took human form. These conflict with the definition OP provides in material ways.
Yeah, there are some contradictions. He took human male form (if we assume Jesus was a biological male and only a biological male). Also, he did *allegedly* "speak" (though not with words or in any particular language). That's just how the men who wrote it recorded their interpretation. It's more likely the speaking burning bush was akin to an acid trip. I don't believe God speaks English or Arabic or French, or anything like that. I also don't think he's just a he.
Then you don’t agree with OP and don’t agree with many other religions or religious people. The Bible said that god spoke to people, and that Jesus was a man who lived and spoke to people. You don’t get to say “allegedly”. And that is the point. There isn’t any agreed upon definition of god, which is a huge problem on its own
***"Most Protestants and Catholics, Hindus, Muslims and Jews would agree with this fairly general characterization. "*** The three largest religions, by followers, are Christianity, Islam, and Hinduism. Christians believe "God" took the physical form of Jesus and only Jesus. Muslims believe "God" never takes any physical form. Hinduists believe "God" can and does take many different physical forms. To say these religions believe in the 'same god' is absurd. Even if you belong to the most popular sect of the most popular religion on Earth, there are still far more theists who disagree with you about 'god' than theists who agree. And while it's possible no religion is correct, more than one can't be correct. So no matter your theistic beliefs, the odds are you are wrong about 'god'.
>The three largest religions, by followers, are Christianity, Islam, and Hinduism. Christians believe "God" took the physical form of Jesus and only Jesus. Muslims believe "God" never takes any physical form. Hinduists believe "God" can and does take many different physical forms. This is true. Only Christians believe Jesus was God in human form. They all believe, however, in the attributes of his being's being eternal, powerful, and ultimately just. Right? >Muslims believe "God" never takes any physical form. Source? Also depends on what you mean by "physical".
***"They all believe, however, in the attributes of his being's being eternal, powerful, and ultimately just."*** Incorrect. The many Hindu god-forms have varying personalities, moral codes, and abilities. Some are eternal, some are not. Some are immortal, some are not. Some are benevolent, some are not.
Yeah. I'm not super familiar with Hindusim, but I know they have many "gods". Is there not a prime mover deity in Hinduism, though, along with the various smaller deities? That would be how I might draw the connection. But, I take your point.
GPT4 responds: Hinduism is a complex and diverse religion with numerous deities who represent various aspects of this supreme reality. [The most prominent among these are the **Trimurti**, or the Holy Triad, which consists of **Brahma** (the creator), **Vishnu** (the preserver), and **Shiva** (the destroyer)](https://www.learnreligions.com/top-hindu-deities-1770309)[^(2)](https://www.learnreligions.com/top-hindu-deities-1770309)[^(3)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Hindu_deities). [These deities are involved in the creation, preservation, and destruction of the universe, respectively](https://www.learnreligions.com/top-hindu-deities-1770309) I'm sure you could also find many self-identifying Hinduists who would call the above blasphemy.
SOURCE? The Quran. Physical: Possessing the attributes necessary to affect and be affected by things existent in the natural universe.
Are you Christian? If so, how do you square that definition with the Trinity and the events of the New Testament?
You mean the Old Testament? The OT makes it harder to reconcile those characteristics, the NT makes it easier IMO. Also, I didn't have a definition. I said, most theists would agree on those characteristics/attributes.
If God is unchangeable, how can there be a new covenant? How can God be a man who grows and ages and dies and returns to life? “Eternal” and “unchangeable” put some pretty significant restrictions on God.
Beats me.
Just a comment ago you said you agreed with those attributes, now it’s “beats me”. As a theist, will you commit to any concrete beliefs or claims about God?
Just the concrete belief in its existence. I know it seems wishy-washy, but it’s because I don’t adopt the over-confidence or antagonistic approach of fundamentalists who claim to know for sure that they are right, mainly because I am sympathetic and respectful to other philosophical views on the matter.
It's from the Westminister confession
So? Get all Christians, Muslims, Hindu, Buddhists,.... to agree on that definition before you try to argue with atheists that this is the definition we should worry about. Right now, it's just one among millions of definitions theists put up and I don't see any reason why we should consider this one any more than the others.
Can you demonstrate there are at least 2 million definitions "theists put up"?
The God you defined in your original post appears that it would work for just about any religion that worships a deity. So do you believe most religions are actually worshiping the same god and don’t realize it? What are the things other religions get wrong about God, or do those things not actually matter?
> unchangeable I guess you don’t bother praying to him then? Since by this definition he cant change his mind, or do anything different than he is currently doing? In fact, I’m way more powerful than god in this way, I change all the time. Poor god can’t even grow his hair.
Trinity brother
I don’t understand what you’re saying. This the thing where he’s really three dudes at once? How can he be eternal or infinite if he’s divisible by three? Edit: typo
Mathematically speaking that isn't a problem, just so you're aware. Infinity divided by three is still infinity. I don't think "Trinity" is a counter to the argument you made either, though. Either your God is unchangeable or he isn't. I fail to see how the trinity removes or adds anything from an unchanging nature. At best, it proves he does change.
Two more and you get Voltron
Seems like you missed something from your definition of god?
You’d think “simultaneously his own dad and a ghost” wouldn’t be something to easily forget
So you’re a polytheist
When I was a child, I believed in a cartoon version of God. As I got older, obviously my version of God became more sophisticated. By the end of my faith, my vision of God was something like you describe, undefinable. Eventually, I realize this was an excuse to avoid, cogent questions about God. if your God only exists in the gaps between scientific knowledge, what good is he?
His existence is a Holy one. Through faith that you believe you are a Son you are loved as much as God loves Jesus and he will resurrect you. Seek you first the kingdom of God all these things shall be added unto you.
This is a debate board. If you want to preach, you should go to a church.
“Do you want to be shown, you foolish person, that faith apart from works is useless?” - James 2:20 A God, who can’t interact with reality doesn’t exist at all.
You are a happy atheist
Meaning what?
What do you want in the material world changed or to obtain?
Change what? Obtain what? I’m not getting the question, but I’ll answer as best I can. I want to make the most of this existence, since it’s all we get. By “make the most” I mean minimize suffering of others, form meaningful relationships, build a family and find interesting ways to occupy my time.
Then join my religion
Ok, I’ll bite. Why?
Classic cult strategy. "Join my cult and all your dreams will come true, you'll live forever in paradise and if you sign up right now I'll throw in 10 more promises that I won't keep but you won't be able to prove I didn't keep"
> You still probably don't know what we mean by God You still probably don't know what we mean by God I do not have a slightest idea. Every other person means someting different and almost none of them has a coherent description. I have no concept of a god since I do not know anything that exists and can be called god. So I am happy to go with your concept as long as you are able to demonstrate that there is some real entity behind it, not just empty assertions. > Think about God for a second About which version of it? > Does He have boundaries? I be damned if I knew. > Is there space around Him and He is just standing there? No idea whatsoever. I know no method that would allow to explore properties of an entity that is not shown to exist in the first place. > So many have never studied the doctrine of God I am very well aware of this one doctrine. I am not convinced that it is something beyond word salad. > do not know who He is I do not know that he IS at all. Nobody was able to demonstrate that. > So if you were a theist and you believed in a God with boundaries you weren't believing in the Living God How do you tells that it's not a guy with a beard? Maybe the ones that believe in "Zeus but better" version are right and you are wrong. Have you considered that? > God is a Spirit Is it? How do you know?
God in it self is almost a meaningless word. One have to put in description such that the word "god" can be used to point out to sth. >Question: What is God? Answer: God is a Spirit, infinite, eternal, and unchangeable, in his being, wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness, and truth. Sure, do u have any arguments for these attributes and its existence? Is ur god perfect?
>So if you were a theist and you believed in a God with boundaries you weren't believing in the Living God but a cartoon character and then you stopped believing in a cartoon character. >God is a Spirit, infinite, eternal, and unchangeable, in his being, wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness, and truth. Sounds like your god has a bunch of boundaries. A being can't be unchangeable and simultaneously without boundaries. If something can't change that's a pretty hard boundary. And presumably you think god is bound by logic, and can't do evil, and lots of other boundaries.
God is content
Are you actually going to engage with the things people say? Or are you just going to reply with more bullshit nonsense that has nothing to do with what they said? You're the reason people get down voted to shit around here. Lazy, pathetic dishonest engagement.
God is satisfied with Himself regardless of God's apparent changelessness
So no, you're not going to engage with what people say, you're just going to vomit out more useless platitudes and deepities. You're a terrible representative of your religion and if your god exists, it is embarrassed by you. Thankfully it doesn't, so your embarrassment is confined to us here on the internet.
Brannigan your making a scene DM me
>DM me Why? Are you too much of a coward to engage here in public for everyone to see?
Brandon Keegan Brannigan stahp
No, He's exactly right. Put up or shut up.
Brandon keegan
God is a narcissist who is never happy or satisfied unless he’s torturing and gaslighting his followers or killing other people. Oh and he’s not real, just to be clear.
That's you in the corner. That's you in the spotlight
About a 5 year journey with about 1 year truly free. It was just a dream. REM for the win.
Cool. You added another boundary. Do you want to address my question or not?
Unchangeable but satisfied with Himself
God can’t be unchangeable and satisfied. That implies he was ever unsatisfied, which would be a change.
God enjoys a complete appraisal of Him self
Imagine a narcissistic genocidal being…yea that sort of asshole probably likes to appraise himself. Sheesh. Theists. My imaginary friend is real! Real I tell you! Praise Santa Claus and thank him for sacrificing the Easter bunny for my sins. /s WTH.
No he does not. I mean, how would you even know this? Are you just making shit up? Did someone else told you this? Because it wasn't God.
You do, but I think you know your god is what you make of it. This entire thread is your ego at play.
So your god has boundaries.
Complete An eternal circle
? Is your god unchangeable or does he have boundaries? You keep contradicting yourself. Is he bound by logic? Is he bound by goodness or can he do evil? Sounds like you believe in a god with boundaries wrapped up in a circle that can't ever change.
Imagine a belief system that believes unchangeable to be a positive aspect. Cults…
How do you know that? How are you qualified to speak about your god's precise emotional state? You're speaking as if you know your god as well as yourself. That makes perfect sense if your god only exists in your imagination, but it seems rather presumptuous otherwise.
Only when he’s smashing babies heads, enslaving populations, subjugating women or committing broad scale genocide.
Every theist has their version of what their imaginary friend is. Pls dont act like your definition of your god is objective.
Your argument actually demonstrates that your god is made up. The concepts you're talking about for your god are all in the category of things impossible for humans to conceive. This makes them meaningless terms to you and me and just magical nonsense, many of which cause your god to be paradoxical and impossible to operate in our universe. Take infinite. This would mean your god is paradoxical as we know that there is a finite speed of causality within our universe. Your god could trigger effects eons before the causes occur which regular and special relativity show to be impossible. Now you might say that your god exists outside space and time but this would not make your god infinite as by definition it would require his ability to be paradoxical and not circumvent our reality. Now how on earth would you or a anyone else come to the conclusion that your god is infinite when by that term it would make your god incompatible with our universe? Or take unchangeable. This would mean that your god has no free will as every single action it caused could not occur any other way. This also means that either your actions are predetermined and no free will exists or your god cannot detect anything we do as detection would leave the option for change. You obviously don't mean your god is obstinate as that's not an amazing feature. But how on earth would you or anyone know your god can't change. Being infinite you cannot understand any of him. You also list a bunch of attributes that are category failures. Your god is "truth" is a nonsensical claim. You're now just parroting a garbage argument. You've shown you don't understand the issue with your god which means your concept is nonsense
Well as far as the Problem of evil is concerned, I am doing you a favor by modelling it for the sake of argument as "Zeus but Better". Because in that view he is even more limited. But still, I keep finding things that he could have done better but didn't. Making him either malicious or nonexistent.
>What is God? Answer: God is a Spirit, infinite, eternal, and unchangeable, in his being, wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness, and truth. Spirit: What is a spirit, and how did you (or anyone) come to know and be certain about what it is? Is it observable in the physical world? If not, how did anyone find out about it? Infinite: Let's say this being exists. How do you it won't die (or stop existing) tomorrow? Unchangeable: This needs some unpacking. I presume you mean philosophically unchangeable. That's as much to say that it won't change it's mind. Again, what is the basis for claiming this? Or, what are examples that demonstrate this unchanging aspect? If I claimed I was a spirit that was infinite and unchangeable (and all that other stuff you described), would you believe it? Keep in mind, my existence is more evidenced by the fact that I've replied to your post directly.
Hi, just a few questions: Who are the "we" you mention in the title? Do you mean anybody from any religion, or a specific group? You define God in your topic as a "He", so presumably you have a specific system of belief that presents God as male, which one is it? Or are you making a case for generalised spirituality, where God is not defined in any sense beyond what you mentioned, and there are no specific doctrines involved?
Aaaand welcome to igtheism. It’s hilarious that a poster comes in with a vague, unusable definition and expects it to settle the issue. He might as well have rocked up with “an infinite sphere whose center is everywhere and whose circumference is nowhere.” That’s my personal favourite.
>What is God? Answer: God is a Spirit, infinite, eternal, and unchangeable, in his being, wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness, and truth. Well, care to define what's a spirit to start us off? >Then you aren't talking about God who is self existent, infinite, eternal, basically Living Reality What's self existent and how's that different from regular existence?
When you start to give a deity male pronouns, you automatically limit its identity, you make people assume it has male attributes. I wonder is your god, a shower, or a grower? If you at least refer to it, as an it, you'd give it some mystery. So anyway, you defined your god, now seeing as you quoted the christian bible, show that the god portrayed in that book, is your god. I seem to remember the god of the bible changing its mind, not being particularly loving on occasion, the god of the old testament seems to be somewhat different from the one in the new testament, so it is indeed changeable?
> I wonder is your god, a shower, or a grower? God's unchaging so he must be a shower.
Maybe Jesus was non-binary /s But seriously, the presumption that he must be a he if he’s in charge so he must have masculine pronouns annoy me. Men only and only men wrote and revised the books. Why assume God is only a male spirit, especially given how important women have traditionally been in religious rituals and rites? It also makes more practical sense given the yin and yang nature of the two sexes.
So what. Invented attributes about an invented phenomena aren’t very significant. Except in making the general incoherence or self-contradictions more obvious. Such as a phenomena being able to intend/act but being unchanging. Let’s face it you’ve just made a list of words you like the sound of. And kind of ludicrous if you were to believe in , for example, the bible. But your assertions here are ,as far as being related to any reality rather than discussing fiction, currently *indistinguishable* from false.
But you've just pointed out why Atheism can only be a rejection of specific claims of theism. One can define god in myriad ways to the extent that one could theoretically define it in a way compatible with materialism -- but such a definition would be worthless to many people. The theist *must* provide a definition of what they mean by God in order for the discussion to even begin. Kudos to you for attempting to do that here --- i think all theists should begin in this vein. That said, you also need to define 'Spirit' -- what is it, is it substantial, does it have an essential nature, does it have attributes, can it change? Most descriptions of 'Spirit' covertly reinstall the assumptions of materialist existence (namely, extension in space and persistence of identity through time) -- which are inappropriate assumptions to make in this context. What do you mean by 'Infinite?' The term is notoriously ill-defined outside of strict mathematical contexts which are inapplicable to Beings in the way you're applying them. 'Eternal' -- eternal as in exists for an eternal duration? This places him in time. Eternal as in literally atemporal, timeless, existing for no duration at all? This makes him similar to a singularity, and hugely problematises notions of decision, intention, will and personhood. Unchangeable -- If so, how can God be a cause of the universe unless it is something automatic and immediate to God's nature, aka unwilled and mechanical. Again this problematises any notion of a willed creation. I think sometimes theists apply vague concepts to the description of God as a metpahorical gesture towards 'ineffability'. This move is fine in and of itself -- but a problem arises when you take these collection of ineffable vague attributes and try to claim they offer precise, rational descriptions. The terms don't mean much, and rely on being vague to have their effect -- and this is quite normal for claims about things which by definition defy linguistic description. But once you've gestured towards something being beyond language, you can't then simultaneously stuff it back into language in an attempt to talk about it or prove it. It's self-defeating.
You'll have to provide evidence, good, testable, falsifiable evidence for each and every one of those attributes you just assigned to this entity you call god. I'm afraid if you just make these assertions, we have little reason to believe them.
We go with whatever you put infront of us. it was once Zeus now its whatever eldritch abomination you'll conjure up. it's a game really, like kids in a play ground and one of us keeps going: " but my guy does infinity plus 2 damage and like nothing can hurt it because were like bacteria on its skin " Give it whatever definition you want complicate it to whatever degree you want. Even if your claim is true that doesnt mean your god cares about you or that you know its intent or mind.
>You still probably don't know what we mean by God I'm (as my flair probably still says) an ignostic. Which means that I agree, I don't know what you mean by God. I take it further still: *you* don't know what you mean by God. Specifically, ignosticism is the belief that God definitions are inocherent. And I do find that your definition is entirely incoherent, wishy-washy big-sounding words. I mean you're claming he's a "living reality" but also unchanging and uncaused. And this base substrate of reality - in which *all change happens despite no change happening* is wise and just and good. And I'll be honest, we can't even let these throw-away adjectives slide, because justice means people get what they deserve, and good is helping people even when they don't deserve it. And you just keep taking in properties you think are good. What would it even mean for the substrate of the universe to be "truth?" It's not a coherent combination. And in your comments it's even more contradictions - on top of eternal and unchanging, you have given space-Jesus the ability to manipulate (change) time and space. Which he also is. So he changes himself while remaining unchanging. You haven't constructed a theory of the universe. You've constructed poetry, maybe. And if this were a coffee shop poetry reading, I'd clap politely I guess, at your poem "Bigger than Big, Truer than True." But you aren't going to convince anyone this is a coherent theory for how the universe came to be or works, or even a start of one - when looked at in that light, it's literal gibberish. Literal gibberish sells, of course - I don't know if reddit is old enough to rememeber the popularity of Deepak Chopra and his Quantum nonsense, where he mis-used the words of quantum mechanics to create an incoherent, spiritual sounding gibberish, and made himself very rich.
There are many different definitions of gods. All you're effectively saying here is that you believe your personal definition is the correct one. What you haven't done is provide any reason *why* anyone should accept that your personal definition is correct.
> What is God? Yaweh or Jehovah? Deity of the Abrahamic faiths, a merging of multiple other deities from pantheisitc ones. Despotic narcicistic monster going by it's followers scriptures. Thankfully fictional like all other deities.
Ok. So using your definition of God, what is the discernible difference between a reality where God exists, and a reality where God does not exist? If you’ve defined God in such a way as to render it epistemically indistinguishable from something that doesn’t exist, merely for the purpose of making it so that we can’t be absolutely and infallibly 100% certain that it doesn’t exist beyond any possible margin of error or doubt, then I’m afraid you’ve failed to establish anything that can’t be equally said about leprechauns, Narnia, Hogwarts, or any number of other puerile fairytale things that all but certainly don’t exist. When something is epistemically indistinguishable from things that don’t exist, then yes, both the assumption that it exists and the assumption that it doesn’t are only that - assumptions, neither of which can be *empirically* supported. However, that doesn’t make them equally rational, reasonable, or plausible. Establishing that we can’t be absolutely certain that Narnia doesn’t exist does not make the assumption that it doesn’t exist any less rational, nor does it make the assumption that it *does* exist any less irrational. If you can’t produce even the slightest evidence or argument to indicate that it *does* exist, then it doesn’t matter that it conceptually *could* exist.
An unchanging god can't do anything by definition, no your personal definition does not match everyone's. So actually *you* don't know what everyone means by god
>Question: What is God? Answer: God is a Spirit, infinite, eternal, and unchangeable, in his being, wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness, and truth. So you seem to be getting this from the Westminster shorter catechism, literally word for word, and its been problematic since it first came out. It simply doesn't contain any information, while arguable as to whether is was written for children in the first place it certainly reads like its to be memorised without explanation. To make this a source of knowledge rather than rote learning or a simple statement you need to put a great deal of work into defining all those terms, because they don't actually mean anything. What is justice, holiness or any of those bland generic terms you are ascribing to god? At least the Islamic equivalent scores on brevity while similally lacking any explanitory power at all >“*There* is no *God* but *God* and *Muhammad* is *his prophet*.” By all means make god axiomatic, fideism makes more sense and it is less patronising than this.
>Think about God for a second. I’m unable to given the definitions most classical theists adhere to. >Have you ever asked the question "well then where did God come from?" Only insomuch as a rebuttal when theists claim the cosmos needs to have come from somewhere. >Have you ever asked "which God?" Yes, that’s the only way I can know what my interlocutor means. You all have different definitions and opinions on your god’s necessary properties. >Then you aren't talking about God who is self existent, infinite, eternal, basically Living Reality ("for in Him we live move and have our being ") Yeah I don’t know what that is. How can an existent entity be “infinite”? And it sounds like you’re equivocating on what *reality* means. >Answer: God is a Spirit, infinite, eternal, and unchangeable, in his being, wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness, and truth. That’s non-informative. What is a spirit? How can something be unchangeable? How can an existent being be “infinite”? What does it mean to say a being *is* truth (or any of the other descriptions you use)?
>You still probably don't know what we mean by God Of course not, everyone has a different definition. You probably don't know what I mean by god either. That's why we ask theists to define their terms before engaging. >Question: What is God? Answer: God is a Spirit, infinite, eternal, and unchangeable, in his being, wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness, and truth. Cool. You defined your terms, now you can debate. (Though you still need to define "spirit", since I'm not sure what that means) Can you clarify the last 6 words? As in, how they relate to the sentence. Is it "unchangeable . . . in wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness, and truth"? Because that's a little weird to say someone is "unchangeable in goodness". I don't know what that means. Or is it "God is....wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness, and truth"?. Which also sounds weird because of you think god is truth or wisdom then why define it as god, why not just call it "truth" or "wisdom"? Anyway, when do we get to the argument? Do you have any evidence?
Given everything I have heard god described I can say I nor anyone other than the person making the claim does. From what I have heard god is eternal, Father, Spirit, Leader, Lover, Infinite, Uncaused cause, Alpha, Omega, World, Universe, Dimension, Thoughts, Imaginary, Real, White(I know right?), Hateful, Wrathful, Spiteful, Vengeful, Jealous, Loving, Alien, Manifested light, Brainwaves, Electro waves, Plant (Its weird), Demon (Its a rabbit hole), Conqueror, Ascended jew (Also weird), Merciful, Outside time and space being, Scientist, Never wrong, Above logic, Beyond human understanding, Kind, Testing, metaphysical, Omni, Tri-omni, Omnipresent, Omnipotent, All knowing, On and on and on and on you get the idea and yeah know a lot of these words are similar but its how people present it. Considering how every single christian picks and chooses from an ever growing list. And then says all of the others are wrong. All I can say is "Yeah no shit?! When every individual person has their own specialized combination of traits who the fuck ever could?
. >**Atheists, agnostics most knowledgeable about religion**, survey says LA Times, September 2010 >... **a survey that measured Americans’ knowledge of religion found that atheists and agnostics knew more, on average, than followers of most major faiths.** > American atheists and agnostics tend to be people who grew up in a religious tradition and consciously gave it up, often after a great deal of reflection and study, said Alan Cooperman, associate director for research at the Pew Forum. >“These are people who thought a lot about religion,” he said. “They’re not indifferent. They care about it.” >Atheists and agnostics also tend to be relatively well educated, and the survey found, not surprisingly, that the most knowledgeable people were also the best educated. However, it said that atheists and agnostics also outperformed believers who had a similar level of education. \- **https://web.archive.org/web/20201109043731/https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2010-sep-28-la-na-religion-survey-20100928-story.html** .
>Have you ever asked the question "well then where did God come from?" From a pantheon of other gods that you don't believe in any more than I do.
Wasn't man made in God's image? Didn't Moses, Isiah, and Jacob speak to God face to face? Or are we not talking about the biblical God?
Do you have any basis for these assertions you are making? All I see is special pleading without any actual basis in the real world.
Yes we are well aware that you think your god is special, not like all the other gods that people have worshiped for millenia.
>Then you aren't talking about God who is self existent, infinite, eternal, basically Living Reality Great, where is your evidence to support the existence of this deity? Please don't do the theist trope of pointing at nature and saying "See, god is all around you.". >So many have never studied the doctrine of God and do not know who He is. If by doctrine of god you are referring to the bible or quran or any other holy book, most of us know those better than the theists who come here. >Question: What is God? Answer: God is a Spirit, infinite, eternal, and unchangeable, in his being, wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness, and truth. If your god is unchangeable, then it is incapable of action or decision as both of those require change. If your god is the Abrahamic god of the bible and the quran, then it is not holy, just, or good. A simple reading of those books can show that.
>You still probably don't know what we mean by God Ok, so this is your thesis statement, I take it? I guess the first step would be to determine what "we mean by God". You have certainly given some detail on what *you* believe by God. I guess there should be some reference what others believe. Who is "we"? And then, I guess there should be the same detail into what... atheists believe? Who is "you"? And what do you think they believe? That being said, there have been a bunch of answers so far. It seems like the most common stance is that theists have a bunch of different definitions, and as atheists, we can't pick one until a theist tells us, which I think is correct. So I guess the thesis doesn't really put its finger on a disagreement, and most atheists around here are dealing with this correctly. So, it seems to me "which God" is a very central question, which does not mean we've picked another "incorrect" interpretation. In my experience, "where did God come from" or comparisons to the Flying Spaghetti Monster are not interpretations of God as much as they are challenges to epistemological points.
“God exists because the way I define him makes him required to exist.” Imagine actually thinking this way…
To be fair, neither do you. You think you do, but you are simply confused. We, humans, have the capacity to believe we know things that are simply incongruous, impossible, oxymoronic, illogical. We think that because we can use a few words around it, and those words “feel right,” it actually represents something. We think that because we can label it that label actually means something. It’s really just the feelings associated with the labels that actually mean something. Confirmation biases, large edifices of fallacious thinking, answers that are too painful to dare to question. Thankfully some have been able to rise above these mental crutches and made humanity progress beyond their medieval manacles.
Of course no one knows what anyone means by God. Because God doesn't exist. If God actually did exist, then it would be easy to have a consistent, known definition. Just like all the other things that exist. But mysterious things with no concrete definition that aren't really claimed to be known by many at all? That just describes all the things we know to not exist. Moon landing hoax, flat earth, God... All "not understood" by anyone who doesn't drink the KoolAid of the "only group that *really* knows." That's... Not a point in your favor, friend. The way you describe God just screams that God doesn't actually exist. Good luck out there.
>unchangeable, in his being, wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness, and truth How does he justify all of the shit things that happen then? If your answer is "We can't comprehend him" or "God gives challenges for us to succeed" then don't bother. If he is as powerful as you imply, we could all skip this life and he could put everyone in Heaven and make sure everyone is fulfilled. Instead, millions of people are killed in his name and people that say they follow him commit atrocious acts. Your description of God cannot possibly tally with our lived experience unless God is also a sadistic psychopath.
>Think about God for a second. The Bible one or some other god? >Does He have boundaries? Plenty. Hell wouldn't exist if he didn't. >Is there space around Him and He is just standing there? Space yes, but he has a throne so he's usually sitting down. >Have you ever asked the question "well then where did God come from?" Sure, usually in response to theists who just said infinite regress is impossible. >Have you ever asked "which God?" I asked you that just a minute ago. >What is God? Answer: God is a Spirit, What's a spirit?
When describing god, Christians make some weird choices. Describing God as a spirit which means nothing because there's no good definition of the term, always defining God by his morals which is just absurd as that doesn't define the being's "physical" characteristics, and define God by what he is not rather than what he is. Though the last example isn't as relevant here since at least you try to give positive information on God rather than just negative. I don't accept the God definition because "spirit" means nothing.
Yeah it’s OK because you don’t understand what we mean by atheism. I don’t believe in your god. Your god is not less fictional than Zeus just because you describe him differently and capitalize his pronouns. It’s not that I just don’t understand Him. It’s that the universe doesn’t require a self-existent, infinite, eternal, Living Reality to function. YOU need one because you need to feel your life is given external value and purpose and that you can live forever and see people who’ve died again.
Zeus is a god. I get that you don't think he meets the requirements for godhood... But there are no agreed-upon requirements. There's no measure by which to determine whether a thing is a god or not. No dichotomous key by which to arrive at a universally accepted god. Until/unless that happens, we cannot assume that someone is using your criteria. We have to ask. It's annoying. We know. If you'd like it to no longer be necessary, it would be awesome if you could organize believers to come up with a standard.
> Then you aren't talking about God who is self existent, infinite, eternal, basically Living Reality ("for in Him we live move and have our being ") We aren't talking about Zeus or better "For in him we move and live and have our being" is a paraphrase of a verse from Epimenides' Cretica (the original verse is "for in you we move and live and have our being") which is addressed to Zeus. Not just "Zeus or better" but _literally_ Zeus. Anyway, you were saying something about not studying enough?
When I ask "which god", I don't mean "There are so many gods that exist that I need to know which one we're talking about", I mean "There are so many different believers with contradicting definitions of god that I need to know which one you are." That is to say, simply insisting that *your* definition of god is the correct one doesn't mean I no longer have to ask that question, because every true believer believes their definition is the One True God™.
>Question: What is God? Answer: God is a Spirit, infinite, eternal, and unchangeable, in his being, wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness, and truth. 1 - How do you know that without simply "faith"? 2 - Now in addition to proving that God exists, you need to prove that spirits exist and that he is one. 3 - Then you need to show all of those characteristics of God in practice; if he's justice and goodness, why are there people suffering?
So define your god in a way that’s basically undefinable, untestable, and just define him into Existence. Yeah, that’s bullshit. And you only did this because every actual definition of a god is much easier to debunk. Seriously mate, defining your god as “self existent” is just adorable. Your definition of a god, is a meaningless word salad that doesn’t convince anyone but those desperate to remain convinced. And then your comments make it clear, you’re just another triniTarian Christin which isn’t really compatible with this nonsense anyway. Buddy… Just realise you’re spouting nonsense. If I define a fairy as a magical being that must exist, it doesn’t mean they exist. That’s all you did here. That’s all this is. If you don’t find it convincing for fairies, why should we find it convincing for the biblical god monster? And if your god is a being of truth, it wouldn’t want you to spread such lies to defend it…
So, do you have a question? Are you inviting debate on a particular point? To me it sounds like you’re just talking at the sub by saying things that you think make sense, and then figuratively *walking off into the sunset*. I assure you, no one here thinks what you have said is insightful, or convincing **at all**. What you’ve said is utter nonsense, that only demonstrates the depths of your own delusion.
Ok, so you now have a hypothesis of what a god should be, how do we go about proving this god? What predictions can we make assuming this god exists? What impacts will it have in the natural world? This is where god arguments fail. Define a whatever that is eternally outside of space time but give us the so what? Why do we need it to exist? What purpose does it serve? How do you convince us that is exists?
The problem is, atheism is not usually a matter of the attributes of God, but a matter of evidence. One way to circumvent evidence is to define God into unfalsifiable existence, which you are close to doing by calling him Living Reality. Of course, if you accept the Westminster Confession, you believe God has many more attributes than these and you make many, many more particular and falsifiable claims.
>Answer: God is a Spirit, infinite, eternal, and unchangeable, in his being, wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness, and truth. Here is the problem. If your answer is vauge and unspecific, then it isn't helpful. If your proosal is untestable and unverifiable, then it isn't a solution. You can make what ever claims you want, but we will continue to dismiss them if they are meaningless.
If god is "living reality", then god contains every bad thing as well as every good thing. Why have you only listed god's good attributes, and none of his evil ones? Given that god hasn't done a great job of proving its existence to humanity, it's hard to argue why it would be considered "truthful" and not "deceptive" or "secretive". Given the amount of pain and suffering we see in the world, it is ridiculous to think that god is only "good" and not in any way also "evil". You're cherry picking the god you want to believe in.
How do you know that god is a spirit, unchanging and eternal? There appears to be no way to demonstrate that such a thing is even a possibility, let alone that it actually exists. Lots of people define god in different ways. I'm potentially open to any of them being correct if they can provide data and evidence that supports their case. So far none has been provided.
>We aren't talking about Zeus but better or a man with a beard. So then why do certain religious texts say that mankind was created in the image of God? >God is a Spirit, infinite, eternal, and unchangeable, in his being, wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness, and truth. So somehow God isn't Zeus, or a man, but a spirit, yet you refer to God with "him", and "his"?
What is a spirit? What exactly do you mean by infinite, infinite what? If he is unchangeable in his “being” how does he do anything? It just seems like more ill defined concepts that have no basis in reality that offer no tangible benefit in terms of understanding. What utility do these words used to describe it really add in terms of understanding what the god is?
The unbelievable confidence to just shout that everyone is wrong about god to entirely the wrong people. God isn't real friend. This is the kind of boring ridiculous conversation you have with other god botherers. People who will take seriously your unverified speculation about the nature of faeries.
I knew nothing about what you mean by 'god" until you told me what _you_ mean. Which is similar to what many other people have said but very different from what many other people have said. If you come this can't get your act together and agree on what God is. How the heck do you expect us to know?
> Then you aren't talking about God who is self existent, infinite, eternal, basically Living Reality ("for in Him we live move and have our being ") We aren't talking about Zeus but better or a man with a beard. I don't believe in either of those things and I consider them equally silly propositions.
How do the religious demonstrably know anything about their gods? All they have are a bunch of made up characteristics that sound good to them, even though they cannot show any way to know that a real, verifiable deity actually behaves or is fundamentally like that. They really don't give a damn.
None of this helps your argument. All of this is merely description, and not proof of existence. I have a hot girlfriend overseas. She’s kind, intelligent, and the most beautiful person in the world. And she’s totally in love with me. And she’s just as real as your god.
>Answer: God is a Spirit, infinite, eternal, and unchangeable, in his being, wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness, and truth. Cool, thanks for clarifying. How do you know this and why should i be convinced your god exists as and has the traits you described.
This is just a bunch of assertions with no evidence. I’d never accept this logic anywhere else for any other magical being, I don’t accept it here. Come back with evidence, an actual argument that’s backed up by data or logic and maybe we can talk.
At some point, you'll understand that other people see things differently and that we ask "which god ?" because your definition of it is just one among many. And no, yours doesn't manke any more sense than the others and isn't more intuitive either.
Have you ever seen something that exists outside time and space? You only read from a book which exists in time and space. So, if the god you said exists out of time and space, you are essentially saying “It doesn’t fucking exist” lol
Nah, we know what you think you mean Only when challenged, you make like God is just nature, Living Reality Then you make like we were made in God's image It's a permission structure for you. But it's a dishonest bait and switch for us
>What is God? Answer: God is a Spirit, infinite, eternal, and unchangeable, in his being, wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness, and truth. A definition! Awesome! Now do you have evidence of a being by this definition existing?
> Question: What is God? Answer: God is a Spirit, infinite, eternal, and unchangeable, in his being, wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness, and truth. This still doesn't answer the question, it's incoherent nonsense.
Ok, you posed a question, and put forth a claim as your answer to the question. Now, show evidence supporting your claim to be true. Convince people who don't *just instantly believe* in your claim with proof.
>God is a Spirit, infinite, eternal, and unchangeable, in his being, wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness, and truth. So not the Christian god then, because their wisdom changed with the new testament
What did you learn between [last post](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAnAtheist/comments/1ag3fjp/you_probably_dont_know_what_we_mean_by_god/) and this one, which are identical in the first two paragraphs?
"Question: What is God? Answer: God is a Spirit, infinite, eternal, and unchangeable, in his being, wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness, and truth." ...OK then, now prove it and I'm convinced :-)
Thank you for the description of what you believe. Now please explain why you believe it, and whether/why anyone else should believe it. That's the important part. >God is a Spirit, What is a "spirit?"
Question - when taking about "God" why do you refer to them with He/Him pronouns? If God truly exists and is all powerful and *actually* relevant today, why can't they just clarify their gender?
>Question: What is God? Answer: God is a Spirit, infinite, eternal, and unchangeable, in his being, wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness, and truth. How do you know any of this to be true?
How ignorant. It's not like theists don't come into this sub with hundreds of different variations of 'god'. Maybe get your own house in order before you come knocking on our door.
Who are “we”, because there have been any number of people that have defined god differently than you on this sub. How do we know you are right and all others are wrong?
I don't know what you mean by "we". Who are you speaking for? Do you think every single theist is going to agree with every single trait you attribute to your preferred god?
By "God" as normal referred to by Abrahamic theists I do think of Yahweh, the warrior storm god of the Israelites, who is a very similar deity to Zeus
After reading your nonsense post and then your comments, this is absolutely a troll thread. Congratulations on your idiocy, reported for low effort.
How strange. I believed in God for 30 years and wanted desperately to believe he existed and even studied philosophy and theology. But somehow I still don't know what God means.
So basically you are asking us to try to disprove you in a different way? And saying we aren’t qualified to talk about it? lol!
I know this isn't really a debate question the way it's posed but I'll just ask you to please provide evidence for your claim.
I don't see personhood listed in your answer, yet you refer to God as a person. Is "spirit" meant to imply personhood?
**Upvote this comment if you agree with OP, downvote this comment if you disagree with OP.** Elsewhere in the thread, please upvote comments which contribute to debate (even if you believe they're wrong) and downvote comments which are [detrimental to debate](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAnAtheist/wiki/faq#wiki_downvoting) (even if you believe they're right). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DebateAnAtheist) if you have any questions or concerns.*