It seems a bit redundant. If it's "a conscious being AKA Jesus", then wouldn't it be simpler to just say "Jesus"?

So here's where we are:

EricH - Please please give me a definition of the word "God"
3017amen - God is that which designed a conscious being known as Jesus.

EricH - What does the word "that" refer to in this sentence?

A conscious being; Jesus. — 3017amen

I'm not sure what you mean by "A conscious being; Jesus." Could this be re-phrased as "A conscious being, AKA Jesus."?

A Small Secular Prayer

I hope & pray that everyone involved in this discussion engages in productive and fulfilling activities in the real world. I hope and pray that you do not obsess about these conversations. I hope there is some joy and happiness in your lives. Have a good weekend. Tell your loved ones that you love them.

See you Monday?

Amen

Here's an abbreviated summary of the conversation:

EricH - What do you mean by the word "God"?
3017amen - A God who designed consciousness.

EricH - You're telling me something God supposedly did. That is not a definition
3017amen - God is that which designed a conscious being known as Jesus.

EricH - What do you mean by the word that - who or what does "that" refer to?
3017amen - It's referring to a specific thing previously mentioned, known, or understood. Typically, 'that' is a pronoun used to identify a specific person or thing observed by the observer/speaker.

EricH - You have not yet mentioned - in any of your attempts at definitions - who or what this specific person or thing is.

The ball is still in your court. You have not yet provided any coherent definition of the words "God", "exists", or what the phrase "God exists" means.

[

It's referring to a specific thing previously mentioned, known, or understood. Typically, 'that' is a pronoun used to identify a specific person or thing observed by the observer/speaker. — 3017amen

You have not yet mentioned - in any of your attempts at definitions - who or what this specific person or thing is.

If the specific thing is God, then your "definition" is circular

One of the great things about this forum is that there are a lot of pretty articulate & intelligent people here. I've gotten a lot of good feedback - even from people who I completely disagree with. If I get a response that is completely at odds with what I thought I was saying, then perhaps I have not expressed myself clearly and there's a better way.

Of course there will be many situations where the differences are so great that there is no communication possible - in which case I gently bow out.

Anyway, with that in mind? I think we're sort of saying the same thing in different words. So please take what I'm going to say not a criticism of your views but rather as suggestions on how you can better express what I think you're trying to say. Of course I could be totally off base here, but even then we will have learned something.

I'm saying reason has not been proven qualified for that job. — Hippyhead

I am not qualified to be a plumber, although I would likely be a decent plumber if I had training. Reason is a tool. So I would phrase this something like "Reason is an inadequate tool for this job".

We look at holy books and see their qualifications for the largest subjects has not been proven. And so we withhold belief in that authority until such proof is provided. — Hippyhead

There's a similar problem here with these formulations. Books are not qualified to do anything. One way of phrasing this might be "There is no reason to accept any holy book as being authoritative on these largest subjects. They all disagree with one another so at best only one is correct, and there is no way that you can use reason to tell which - if any - of these books is accurate"

We look at human reason and see it's qualifications for the largest subjects has not been proven. And so we withhold belief in that authority until such proof is provided. — Hippyhead

Likewise.

BTW - if you think there's a better way for me to express my thoughts I accept all constructive criticism. :smile:

you could always stop believing without proof that human reason is qualified to generate meaningful statements on subjects the scale of gods — Hippyhead

I'm having a bit of difficulty parsing this. While I would phrase it differently, I would basically agree with the statement that human reason is NOT qualified to generate meaningful statements on subjects the scale of gods. Is this what you're saying?

God is that which designed a conscious being known as Jesus. — 3017amen

Again, still not a definition. What does the word "that" mean?

Not too shabby. I liked the way you responded to Frank's asking you to define "definition" and "coherent". Much better than anything I would have come up with.

Does that metaphor speak to it? — 3017amen

You're onto something here. The sentence "God is consciousness" is not a definition - it is a poetic metaphor.

I like to think that I appreciate a good poem at least as much as the average person you'd meet on the street. One of my favorite metaphors is that old cliche I was taught in junior school -

"The moon was a ghostly galleon tossed upon cloudy seas"

Oooooh. It's a classic line that conjures up all sorts of visual images. Alfred Noyes must have patted himself on the back when he came up with that one. But of course we all know that the moon is not really a ghostly galleon - it's a huge hunk of rock orbiting around the earth.

Now I'm not questioning your faith. I have good friends and relatives who are deeply religious and I can see how it helps them cope with life's difficulties and gives structure and meaning to their lives.

But there is no logic to a belief in god(s) - faith is totally irrational.

Any efforts to give a reasonably coherent explanation of the phrase "God exists" are doomed to failure.

God is consciousness. — 3017amen

What is consciousness?

We seem to be in agreement on certain things.

1) Do you think you have an answer to the God question?
2) Do you think the God debate will ever deliver an answer?
3) If you answered no to both of these questions, are you still interested? — Hippyhead

I believe we both answer no to these questions.

But you seem fixated on on this space thing. Not sure how to help you here. Space is part of the universe - it is part of nature.

The way theists use the word, there is some aspect of God that is outside of nature. After all God created the natural world - so God could not have been a part of the natural world until it was created. God must have some supernatural (outside of nature) feature - otherwise God is just a natural phenomena that is hypothetically subject to scientific analysis.

Both agnostics & atheists appear to use some variation of this definition.

A God who designed consciousness. — 3017amen

You're telling me something God supposedly did. That is not a definition.

If the concept was incoherent, why would it matter if Jesus existed? I don't get it ?? — 3017amen

The fact that Jesus as a person may have existed is irrelevant. Billions of people have existed throughout history.

Jesus was known to be part God. — 3017amen

And right here is the sticking point. What do you mean by the word "God"?

If I were to say to you "Jesus was know to be part poiuyt" you would be justified in asking me for a definition of "poiuyt".

But you said the ignosticist considers God-talk incoherent, now you're suggesting it is not. So that's the first contradiction. — 3017amen

No contradiction. It is up to you to make it coherent.

For one, and to keep it simple, in Christianity, Jesus existed. And so I will be happy to argue that Jesus existed if you like. — 3017amen

Your moving the goalposts. You gotta stick with God.

The topic of this thread is "What are your positions on the arguments for God?" You seem to be arguing that God exists - thus it is up to you to provide an explanation that makes some sense. What do you mean by "exists"?

Agnosticism= I don't know if God exists or doesn't exist.
Ignosticism= I don't know if God exists or doesn't exist. — 3017amen

You have correctly identified the agnostic position, but an ignostic would never say this.

Ignosticism takes the position that the sentence "God exists" is incoherent. It would be like saying "Granwtyrt grimoooqts".

If I were to say to you "I don't know if Granwtyrt grimoooqts or doesn't grimoooqts" you would be perfectly justified in asking me WTF I'm talking about.

It would be up to me to provide you with reasonably clear definitions/usages of "Granwtyrt" and "grimoooqts" - AND - I'd also have to explain what it means for "Granwtyrt" & "grimoooqts" to appear in the same sentence.

:clap: :ok:
I will gladly pass the ignostic baton over to you in this discussion. :grin:

I am not playing any games. I have been trying to understand your positions, to attempt to put them in my own words, and to explain where our differences lie.

It is obvious that I have failed spectacularly in that attempt. I apologize if I have given offense - none was ever intended.

As example, I assume you have no preferred answer to the question, does ARGDb8 have DTEDSB? — Hippyhead

Your assumption is incorrect. "does ARGDb8 have DTEDSB?" is not a question - it is a meaningless jumble of undefined words.

I am trying to respond to your questions as truthfully & accurately as possible within the limits of my capabilities - and it will help me to understand the context of your questions.

My guess is that you are Christian and believe in the Bible, but I want to make sure. If you are an atheist/agnostic I would respond very differently.

Space is not empty.

Here was your #1 definition of the word "god" from several days ago. I have highlighted the important passage:

What do I mean when I use the word “god” in questions like “Do you think it more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one?”

I mean an entity of agency…something that existed BEFORE this thing we humans call the universe came into being…and which caused or helped to cause it to “come into being.”

I am NOT talking about anything “supernatural.” Anything that exists…is, by definition, a part of existence. If ghosts or spirit beings exist, but we humans cannot sense them in any way…they are part of what exists and are a part of nature. — Frank Apisa

And here is your latest definition.

Supernatural is normally defined as "(of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature." — Frank Apisa

Can you at least acknowledge the possibility that we humans, the dominant species on this nondescript rock circling this nondescript sun in this nondescript galaxy...

...MAY NOT KNOIW EVERYTHING THERE IS TO KNOW ABOUT REALITY? — Frank Apisa

Sigh. I have answered that question multiple times in the affirmative. I'll repeat myself yet again. You have explicitly rejected the notion of the supernatural. When you use the word "god(s)" you are referring to some natural phenomena which - as you put it -

humans, the dominant species on this nondescript rock circling this nondescript sun in this nondescript galaxy...
...may not be able to perceive or sense in any way? — Frank Apisa

That's fine. Given your definition, I'm agreeing with you. We're ants - and we must be humble and acknowledge and respect our limitations.

Our only real sticking point is your use of the word "god(s)" to describe a natural phenomena, since to the rest of humanity, the definition of the word "god(s)" includes some supernatural component.

Now if you could get any significant percentage of the world's population to switch over to your definition? I will tip my metaphorical hat to you - AND - I will switch to your definition. But until that time I will continue to use the word "god(s)" as the rest of humanity does.

Before I respond I need to understand. Are you a religious person and are these your religious beliefs?

I'm willing to be corrected here, but my understanding of his posts was that he had concluded that a particular answer to the question has no value. — Hippyhead

That is pretty much the opposite of my position. Obviously I have not communicated. It is the sentence/question itself that is incoherent.

I'll elaborate - maybe this will help - or maybe it will muddy the waters further :smile:

In the English language - and I assume all languages - it is possible to construct sentences that are grammatically correct but have no meaning.

"Quadruplicity drinks procrastination." "Colorless green ideas sleep furiously."

We all recognize that under the standard definitions of the words these are nonsense sentences - they do not express a coherent thought.

The question then arises - can we assign a truth value to such sentences? I'm a plain language person and am not as articulate or knowledgeable about these things as many folks on this forum - but to my limited knowledge there are two schools of thought on this question.

One school of thought basically says - and using a Star Trek reference - "Dammit, Jim! Quadruplicity does not drink procrastination!" :smile: I.e., all nonsense sentences are false.

The other school of thought says you cannot assign a truth value to incoherent sentences.

I'm with that second school - and - to my way of thinking, any sentence in the form "God(s) [do not] exists" is incoherent.

- - - - - - - - -
Before proceeding further I want to make my definitions/usages of words clear.
Exists
When I use the word "exists" I mean physical existence. As someone who tries to follow the discussions on this forum, I am aware that this definition potentially opens up a philosophical can of worms and is subject to endless debate. But as a plain language person I am using the phrase "physical existence" in the same way that the average person on the street would use it. The universe as we know it is composed of atoms, sub-atomic particles that join together to form stars, planets, tables, cats on mats, people, etc
Truth
When I use the word truth I am using it in the same sense as in a court of law. When you swear to "tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth" you are saying that the words that will come out of your mouth will form sentences that will describe events in the physical world - or at least as accurately as you are capable of.
- - - - - - - - - - -

With those definitions in mind - when I use the word "God" - I am referring to a fictional character (or characters) that appear in various works of mythology. Most typically I am referring to the fictional character that appears in the Old & New Testaments.

So the sentence "God exists" is equivalent to the sentence"Harry Potter exists". Both are characters in works of fiction - and these characters have supernatural powers. God just happens to be a lot more powerful than Harry Potter.

So is the sentence "Harry Potter exists" coherent? Can we assign a truth value value to this sentence? I say no. The question is a nonsense sentence.

The facts are that the Bible says its god exists in the universe physically. — Frank Apisa

Sorry Frank - you've got this wrong.

The God of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam resides in a spiritual realm. He can intervene in the physical world. After all, it's his creation - he can do any damn thing he pleases with it. But he existed (whatever that means) in his spiritual realm before he created the physical world - and our eternal souls go to this spiritual realm after we die. And after the final judgement the physical world will cease to exist (at least according to many interpretations).

The "existence" of a non-physical world/realm is the key distinguishing factor that makes a belief system a religion. I'm not talking about your interpretation of the word "god" here - I'm taking about what the billions of religious people believe.

Again - don't take my word for it - check with a religious person - or go to any of the religious web sites. They will confirm this.

Anyway - we've looped around this point enough. Last word is yours if you want it.

Nor to Christians or Jews, for instance. You do not wrestle with "a hypothetical entity...that (has) no material existence." Genesis 32: 24-29

Jesus is considered GOD by many Christians. He was not "a hypothetical entity...that (has) no material existence." — Frank Apisa

Red herring here. While the character God in the Bible may sometimes manifest itself in the physical world - it's essence is non material. God "existed" before there was a material world. When you die, you soul goes to heaven (non physical realm) or hell (again non-physical).

You don't have to take my word for it. Ask any religious Jew, Christian, or Muslim.

And you have explicitly rejected this notion.

Very jaded view there — Frank Apisa

Jaded? Not in the slightest. Try humble.

Words have meaning & usages.

You - Frank Apisa - have your own unique definition/usage of the word "god(s)". Under your definition, "god(s)" refers a hypothetical entity or entities that is/are part of the material universe. However - much as an ant has no conception of what is happening when you step on it's nest - we human beings cannot perceive them. However, given that your "god(s)" are part of the material universe, then at least potentially they can be investigated, measured, etc.

Under this definition, your little "guessing" formula works, and I have the same opinion you have - no reason to guess one way or the other.

But to pretty much every other person on this little planet of ours, the word "god(s)" refers to a hypothetical entity or entities that have no material existence.

It certainly is a question that has occupied the minds of most of the most intelligent people who have ever lived on planet Earth. — Frank Apisa

Yes - and a lot of time & energy wasted - and countless millions of lives destroyed. If the most intelligent people who have ever lived cannot agree on even the most rudimentary issues, then it's time to move on - we do not have the language tools nor the mental capacity to even know if we are asking the right question(s).

We are the ants. Our job is to keep our little anthill clean & well maintained.

Or put differently, A man's got to know his limitations :smile:

As example, one key assumption is that a god either exists or not, one or the other. When we examine most of reality, space, we see it does not comply with such a simplistic paradigm. — Hippyhead

The paradigm does not fail due to any aspect/property of the physical universe. To religious people, the word "god" refers to something that does not physically exist. "God" "exists" outside of the universe (I put the words in quotes to emphasize that the notion makes on sense).

Once you are "outside" the physical universe, you are also outside reason & logic. All religious conversation is a form of poetry. Poetry can be beautiful, it can influence people to do great and/or terrible things, but poetic language is useless for logical analysis.

I have no beef against religious people per se. I have good friends and relatives who are deeply religious - and I can see that it provides them with a great source of comfort and helps them structure their lives. And if all religious people choose to let others live their own lives, I would not have a problem with it.

But around the world there are countless millions of people who are convinced that the rest of the world must follow their religion - if necessary by force. I am very fortunate that I live in a time & place where these forces seem to be on the wane - but I cannot let my guard down. And - as you have correctly pointed out, atheism is not a sufficient defense. Ignosticism

- - - - - - - - - -

BTW - your analogy of Columbus giving up does not work - because Columbus was convinced that he HAD reached the Far East.

You haven't succeeded in that project, though — Hippyhead

Aside from simply asserting it, you have given no explanation for for the lack of success.

Perhaps I have not explained myself well.

When the topic of religious persecution comes up and non-believers (such as myself) point out that no one has ever been killed in the name of atheism or agnosticism, religious folks will try to counter and say "Oh yeah? What about Stalin & Mao?"

I simply wanted to nip that line of "reasoning" in the bud. The depredations of Stalin & Mao had nothing to do with religion.

Getting back to religious persecution, of course things are much more complex than that. No one is ever murdered merely in the name of religion. Religious persecution is always tied in with politics, prejudice, and the desire to rule over and manipulate people. You might even want to make the claim that religion has merely provided a convenient fig leaf to conceal other motives. I won't argue that - but merely point out that it is a very powerful fig leaf capable of motivating entire nations to go to war and commit mass murder.

1) If one is a believer, and then realizes one has no basis upon which to believe, and....

2) If one is a disbeliever, and then realizes one has no basis upon which to disbelieve, and...

3) One sees and faces one's incurable ignorance on subjects of such enormous scale, and...

4) Still is interested in god topics... — Hippyhead

I'm not following the logic here. If you accept 1 thru 3 - and have thus accepted the fact that the sentence "God Exists" has no coherent meaning - then why are you still interested in "god topics'?

If you acknowledge that you are incurably ignorant about a topic, then move on and find some new interests.

Yes. And so what is the rational response to this place of ignorance (on questions of such enormous scale as gods) that we find ourselves in? — Hippyhead

I wish I had an answer to this question. And it's not merely religion. How do you talk to people who believe in these bizarre conspiracy theories, or deny global warming, etc, etc? It's very discouraging.

Can you cite any cases where non-believers have murdered millions of people simply because they (the murdered people) did not share the non-believer's particular brand of non-belief?

And please don't bother mentioning situations where the murdering was done communists / socialists / fascists - these are all belief systems. E.g., Stalin did not murder millions in the name of atheism - he murdered them because he was a psychopathic killer.

What I'm looking for are situations where a group of atheists / agnostics / ignostics murdered large numbers of religious people in the name of atheism / agnosticism / ignosticism.

Indeed. I have tried to make basically the same point on more than one occasion.

Humankind has existed in it's present form for, say, roughly 40K years. It's only in the last 400 years that we have started to understand how the universe/existence "works (I put works in quotes - I'm sure there's a better way of phrasing this.)

We discover the Big Bang less than 100 years ago. Likely we understand this stuff as much as an ant crossing a football field understands a false start (that's American football). To assume we are capable of any intelligent/discussion is at best futile.

What's worse is that throughout history wars have been fought to decide the outcomes of these discussions.

@Frank Apisa@tim wood

Here's a little song you guys can sing along with. Sing it to the tune of "Let's Call the Whole Thing Off"

Tim says ‘A reason’
And Frank says ‘Not a reason’
Frank says ‘It’s logic”
And Tim says ‘No logic’
A reason!
A raison!
Horizon!
No reason!
LET”S CALL THE WHOLE THING OFF!!

When talking to Frank - keep in mind that he appears to have a completely different definition of the word "god" than pretty much every other person on the planet (and likely most folks on this forum) - in particular his "god(s)" is not supernatural.

Frank Apisa Definition(s) of the word "God"

I would prefer that everyone just eliminate the use of descriptors in this area...and merely present his/her position without reference to theist, atheist, agnostic, ignostic, or the like. — Frank Apisa

Like you said - it ain't gonna happen. But regardless - sometimes the specific reference is useful. E.g., you might want to say something like:

"I consider myself to be a [whatever]. For more information [some philosopher] expresses things quite well: <some URL>"

Also - it takes up space & time to repeat yourself. I personally find it much simpler to say I'm an ignostic (possibly with a link to wikipedia) - then to have to spout out a paragraph or two every time it comes up in conversation. If a persons ask what that means then you can explain.

Probably ain't gonna happen. — Frank Apisa

No probability here. It ain't.

(It would not make sense for a person to call him/herself an "atheist" but still think it is more probably that there is a GOD than that there are none.. — Frank Apisa

We're sort of in the same ballpark definition wise.

That said, this "either/or" aspect of your definition may need some adjustments. Suppose someone thinks it 49% probable that there is a God and 51% otherwise. By your definition this person is not an atheist, yes/no? If this person IS an atheist, then what is the percentage separating atheist & non-atheist?

Just my 2 cents. You could revise your definition so that if a person thinks there is a non zero probability of Gods, then that person is not an atheist.

BTW - I hope you see that this is partly tongue in cheek. . .