Defining God: Discussing the nature and attributes of God

Started by King Kandy10 pages
King Kandy Senior Member

Re: Defining God: Discussing the nature and attributes of God

Originally posted by Mindship
God by nature is undefinable. Only attributes are discussed.

But, right there you already have used a definition. Your definition of God is that he has to be undefinable. Sorry, that doesn't work.

Shakyamunison Nam Myoho Renge Kyo

Re: Re: Defining God: Discussing the nature and attributes of God

Originally posted by King Kandy
But, right there you already have used a definition. Your definition of God is that he has to be undefinable. Sorry, that doesn't work.

How does that not work? Something that is undefinable by definition is undefinable is just semantics bracking down, not the meaning that is being expressed.

753 Senior Member

Re: Defining God: Discussing the nature and attributes of God

Originally posted by Mindship
God by nature is undefinable. Only attributes are discussed.
well, there are reasonably well defined concepts that are called god

Shakyamunison Nam Myoho Renge Kyo

Sorry

edit

King Kandy Senior Member

Re: Re: Re: Defining God: Discussing the nature and attributes of God

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
How does that not work? Something that is undefinable by definition is undefinable is just semantics bracking down, not the meaning that is being expressed.

He says that God is, by nature, undefinable.

The problem here is that you would have had to have defined what God's nature is in order to make such a statement.

753 Senior Member

you'd just be listing one atribute though. Not really a definition.

King Kandy Senior Member

I don't see what possible value saying it is undefinable has then. Its impossible to list every single attribute of anything in this world; I don't see why God gets special status.

ADarksideJedi Jackie Malfoy

A physical Being

Mindship Snap out of it.

Originally posted by King Kandy
But, right there you already have used a definition. Your definition of God is that he has to be undefinable. Sorry, that doesn't work.
You are correct, sir. Any 'definition' (even mine) ultimately falls short (though mostly, in this instance, I was just playing with the words of the thread title).

Originally posted by 753
well, there are reasonably well defined concepts that are called god
Indeed. We are not short on effort.

Originally posted by King Kandy
I don't see what possible value saying it is undefinable has then. Its impossible to list every single attribute of anything in this world; I don't see why God gets special status.
Because trying to comprehensively define God generates paradoxes. 'God' is beyond language and logic, not merely exhaustive of them (as if trying to list every attribute). This is one of the reasons the 'reality of God' is rejected. In the context of language and logic, 'He' doesn't make sense (eg, omnipotence paradox).

Symmetric Chaos Fractal King
Originally posted by Mindship
God by nature is undefinable. Only attributes are discussed.

I disagree. While "gods" in the generic sense are undefinable (the Greek, Hindu and Christian concepts are all obviously very different but referred to with the same word), "god" in the specific is always defined in some way.

More than than that, a nonexhaustive listing of attributes would constitute a definition anyway. If it didn't then everything would be undefinable.

Mindship Snap out of it.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I disagree. While "gods" in the generic sense are undefinable (the Greek, Hindu and Christian concepts are all obviously very different but referred to with the same word), "god" in the specific is always defined in some way.
Defined in some way, yes.
Originally posted by 753
...there are reasonably well defined concepts that are called god

But a comprehensive definition is not possible. I can list all the attributes of a cube (for simplicity's sake), and ultimately arrive at a coherent overall picture. Theoretically, I could do the same for, say, the Earth. But try it with 'God', and the paradox generator kicks in.

Essentially, it is impossible to define 'God' comprehensively because there is no place outside of 'God' where we can take up a stance to describe 'Him'. A definition (in the comprehensive sense) implies a comparison or relationship to something else. But if 'God' is all that is, what do we relate it to, what 'higher context'? The best we can do is relate it to lower-level phenomena (eg, God is the Creator of the Universe), wherein we focus on specific attributes, ie, we define God "in some way."

Symmetric Chaos Fractal King
Originally posted by Mindship
Defined in some way, yes.

Huh? God cannot be both undefinable and have definitions available. That's not a paradox you can handwave with "well he's god" it happens at the human level.

Mindship Snap out of it.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Huh? God cannot be both undefinable and have definitions available. That's not a paradox you can handwave with "well he's god" it happens at the human level.
"Defined in some way," I interpret as meaning a focus on attributes.

Symmetric Chaos Fractal King
Originally posted by Mindship
"Defined in some way," I interpret as meaning a focus on attributes.

Okay, give me a definition of something with out using any of its attributes.

Mindship Snap out of it.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Okay, give me a definition of something with out using any of its attributes.
I don't understand the relevance of this request. I never said we can define something w/o using attributes. Indeed, I've been saying attributes of God are the only things we have.

Symmetric Chaos Fractal King
Originally posted by Mindship
I don't understand the relevance of this request. I never said we can define something w/o using attributes. Indeed, I've been saying attributes of God are the only things we have.

Thus we have a definition. Thus god is not undefinable.

Mindship Snap out of it.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Thus we have a definition.
...limited to attributes. A comprehensive definition is not possible for reasons already stated.

Symmetric Chaos Fractal King
Originally posted by Mindship
...limited to attributes. A comprehensive definition is not possible for reasons already stated.

Then nothing can be comprehensively defined and it's a useless phrase.

Mindship Snap out of it.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Then nothing can be comprehensively defined.
Please explain this.

Symmetric Chaos Fractal King
Originally posted by Mindship
Please explain this.

Definitions are lists of attributes (for nouns at least but god/gods is a noun so that shouldn't matter).
You make it sound like things can only be comprehensively defined if you define them without relying on their attributes. Thus either a comprehensive definition is either not a definition or it's a form of definition that can never be used because it's logically impossible.

That's why I asked you to give me a definition of something without using its attributes before. Try to define the word "cube" without describing a cube.