Defining God: Discussing the nature and attributes of God

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
You make it sound like things can only be comprehensively defined if you define them without relying on their attributes.

Originally posted by Mindship
Ah. Perhaps comprehensive was the wrong word. I did not mean a comprehensive list of attributes, but rather, being able to define 'God' as a Whole, eg, defining the Absolute. What emanates from our efforts are the attributes we use to generate useful metaphors.

Originally posted by King Kandy
But you can't define anything in terms of "absolute". Why is god special?

Originally posted by Mindship
Ah. Perhaps comprehensive was the wrong word. I did not mean a comprehensive list of attributes, but rather, being able to define 'God' as a Whole, eg, defining the Absolute. What emanates from our efforts are the attributes we use to generate useful metaphors.

But still, why would we want to do that? We don't do it for anything else. I don't seek to find a description that encompasses every cube in the world, I just pick the relevant attributes common to all cubes.

We should just look at the relevant attributes ascribed to God.

Originally posted by King Kandy
But you can't define anything in terms of "absolute". Why is god special?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
But still, why would we want to do that?

Originally posted by clickclick
Yup, Im definetly trying to lay "mind traps" 🙄 I was unaware that incredibly talented comedians visited this board.

Here is a thought, how about you point out my supposed hypocritical statements since you supposedly found incalculable amounts of them.

I dont read anti-athiesm books and your suggestion that what I have stated was invalid is incredibly weak, certainly at this point. Here is a suggestion, support what you say or stop wasting my time.

Now I read down further and see that you suggested I find them. You are indeed a troll and I will waste no further time on you.

Originally posted by The MISTER
I think you have made some very good points and I'd like to express that one of my problems with the human-made timeline of the past is an accurate description of a mosasaur ( The Bible called it leviathan) in the book of job. Is it realistic to presume that this detailed description of an ocean dinosaur is coincedental?

Lets actually look at what Job says about the leviathan:
it has teeth
it is covered in "shields" which we could take to mean scales
it fires blasts of light from its nose and pours smoke and fire from its mouth
it is muscular
it has especially jagged scales on the underside

Well we can eliminate teeth, scales and muscles are meaningful traits. Given that there were snakes and fish in the area people wouldn't need someone special to tell them about such things. So we're down to:
it has especially jagged scales on the underside
it fires blasts of light from its nose and pours smoke and fire from its mouth

Now lets look at traits of the mosasaur:
it has smooth scales on the underside
there is no evidence it breaths fire of snorts beams of light

So no, I wouldn't the similarities are coincidence. I'd say that the claim is a blatant lie.

Originally posted by Mindship
Defined in some way, yes.
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."

But you touched on a more important point: taoists say the Tao is undefinable because we define things by seeing what they are not - where they end and the rest of reality begins. Since the Tao encompasses everything, it cannot be contrasted with anything else and thus cannot be delimitated, individualized or defined. Depending on how you conceive God, the same may apply.

Originally posted by 753
My point was that some views of God present definitions of it that do not necessarily generate paradoxes.

But you touched on a more important point: taoists say the Tao is undefinable because we define things by seeing what they are not - where they end and the rest of reality begins. Since the Tao encompasses everything, it cannot be contrasted with anything else and thus cannot be delimitated, individualized or defined. Depending on how you conceive God, the same may apply.

'Tao' is nice because it doesn't have all the baggage the word 'God' does. There was a time I even used just an exclamation point ('!'😉 for written reference, but I lapsed in that because it's awkward in spoken discourse.

Originally posted by Mindship
[B]'God is the Creator of the Universe' seems to work for many people as they go about their regular, daily business.

Originally posted by 753
does that necessarily generate paradoxes?

Right, that was my point.

1. most people define god as a male tyrant in the sky who is incredibly selfish and prone to anger, whose tyrannical rule dictates a slavelike servitude which is the only way to escape his wrath or those of his creation. in other words, an object of fear and a figure whose gang one can join to pursue one's own sadomasochistic power fantasies.

2. people {less so than 1} who define god as salvation and hope owing the thevast misery that exists on the earth and their lives without justification. most of them howver also beleive in one way or another in 1.

3. the rather small minority of people who have more enlightened and humanistic views on the subject but are also a rarity.

4. hippies- god is whatever you feel like you need him to be.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Lets actually look at what Job says about the leviathan:
it has teeth
it is covered in "shields" which we could take to mean scales
it fires blasts of light from its nose and pours smoke and fire from its mouth
it is muscular
it has especially jagged scales on the underside

Well we can eliminate teeth, scales and muscles are meaningful traits. Given that there were snakes and fish in the area people wouldn't need someone special to tell them about such things. So we're down to:
it has especially jagged scales on the underside
it fires blasts of light from its nose and pours smoke and fire from its mouth

Now lets look at traits of the mosasaur:
it has smooth scales on the underside
there is no evidence it breaths fire of snorts beams of light

So no, I wouldn't the similarities are coincidence. I'd say that the claim is a blatant lie.

Originally posted by The MISTER
After looking at photos of mosasaur scales I have to wonder why you say that the scales are smooth. The photos that I saw displayed scales that did not appear smooth like a snakes scales are. As far as its ability to spew chemicals that ignite similar to a beetle that can do that.....Do we have enough intact remains of the creature to rule this possibility out? As amazing as it may seem for a creature to do this a cobra can spit chemicals. If however there is evidence that the creature could in no way do this, I would like to look at it. Animals have always surprised us with the things that they can do.

you are looking for things which are simply not there.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
you are looking for things which are simply not there.

Do you mean that I shouldn't look for evidence when it is not obvious?

Originally posted by The MISTER
Do you mean that I shouldn't look for evidence when it is not obvious?

no, i mean you shouldnt grasp at straws, looking for something you want, when it simply isnt there.

The alternatives are too few and too poor. I'd vote neither, but it doesn't have that either.

Defining God...hm.

Well, to me it seems that God was a creation out of the mind of man/men that lived a long time ago because they could not logically explain and understand what we know now about the universe due to the lack of gained knowledge overtime and the sophisticated technology we have now.

Had they've known what we know now there wouldn't be a God or the bible or the devil or heaven or a hell or an afterlife the world over today and alot of people that would've made a significant difference in the world would've been alive to follow though with maybe advancing civilization.

Imagine no religion or no human sacrifices to the gods or no ancient roman persecutions of scientists and non-believers or medival european heathen burnings or hitler or jihad or the crusades with the knights templar that invented the so called global illuminate/nwo or 9/11 no pope/rome catholic church/overseen child rape/a billion hypnotized people. No palestinian suicide bombers, chechen freedom fighters that'll saw open a crying child's throat on video for "god and country" no more saying no to cloning/stem cell research to save/extend lives. and more!

The world's good without god, goddamnit. Damn god, for he is a delusion.

Originally posted by The MISTER
After looking at photos of mosasaur scales I have to wonder why you say that the scales are smooth. The photos that I saw displayed scales that did not appear smooth like a snakes scales are. As far as its ability to spew chemicals that ignite similar to a beetle that can do that.....Do we have enough intact remains of the creature to rule this possibility out? As amazing as it may seem for a creature to do this a cobra can spit chemicals. If however there is evidence that the creature could in no way do this, I would like to look at it. Animals have always surprised us with the things that they can do.