Definition of 'God'--A Contradiction

[MalReynolds]

[sarcasm]No. It wasn't sarcasm.[/sarcasm]

And Laharl, come on, come up with a point to end this arguement about being opinionated. I mean, Jesus-Christ-Bananas, you haven't even addressed the main point of this thread but ONCE and all you're doing is telling other guy he's opinionated. AND HE TELLS YOU THE SAME THING! WHAT?! MADNESS! WHY!?

Mal

[JesusWaffle]

Sarcasm aside, Mal has a point.

[jazzmosis]

Re: Definition of 'God'--A Contradiction

And Jazzmosis--I understand that 'God' is something most of humanity clings to because they need stability or meaning, but that is another topic of discussion. I am only arguing the existense of such a being, not whether it is better for humans to be governed by religions or not.

But what you don't understand here is that it's that people want God to exist - to them, having the sense of stability and control in their life is what makes God exist to them. Since there is no physical description of god, one could find him in any way, shape, or form that they want. God is a concept, and what he offers can be very enticing to some, while to others it is a setback.

What I'm saying is that god or no god, it is the churches that are corrupt. You don't need to go to a church once a week to be an honest person or to be closer to god.. You can theoretically be close to god in any way that you want, since he/she is a concept rather than a proven existence.

[Nonexistent_One]

Ok, I understand that, Thank you for pointing that out. Let me clear up, though, that not all people want 'God' to exist. Sorry if you didn't mean it that way, but I try to reduce generalizations, because often times they are unfair to some. I agree that the churches are corrupt--whether they realize it or not. Religions do not corrupt/brainwash people on purpose, it's just something that happens when the only thing you are exposed to as a child is a specific religion (or religion in general). I personally feel that, before becoming exposed to logical thinking and philosophy through the internet, I was brainwashed. I had nothing to compare my belifs to, and I didn't understand all sides and positions. A belief unquestioned is not worth keeping, to alter a historical quote from Socrates.

~NEO

[jazzmosis]

I never said "all people". I said "that people". So I never generalized. I've always tried to be as specific as I can when debating.

I think that for most children our age, (born in the 1980's) we were brought up with religion in our life, telling us what is right and wrong in ways that our parents could not. Although I completely disagree with church now and since I gave up on religion years ago, it does set a good standard of moulding a child into a good person. Of course, the church's main goal is to mould them into a person that supports and recruits others to their church, but I won't deny the benifets of church as a young child.

Although from what I remember, some things were pretty brainwashing attempts.

[Nonexistent_One]

It does do an O.K. job at instilling morals at a young age, but some kids still don't accept it because it's not "cool" or the accepted way to act in the "cool" groups. I can call to mind many kids at my former gradeschool, at least half of my class, that supposedly believed in God, but I presume that their faith was not strong enough to lead them to good morality as well. People like that make my eyes twitch. They say they have faith in something, but then they act as if they don't. You either believe in something or you don't, there can't be an in-between. I think being in-between, according to the Church, would garuntee you a nice warm seat in Hell. If they belive that, then why aren't they afraid of this happening? It baffles me how incompetent some people are...

Someday, I will figure it out... or at least attempt.

~NEO

[pixabee]

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/3680/merechri.htm

i know some of you might be interested in reading that book i mentioned (mere christianity)
but it's about 175 pages and some may not have time to get through it but i found a webpage
that sort of sumarizes it, but in a very general way-seriously this book is amazing and i'd
recommend it to anyone

[Nonexistent_One]

pixabee, just to let you know, I found the book and have it within my posession. I've read only the first chapter, and some things are still a bit shady, but I have more to read. I am also reading a book about Sigmund Freud simultaneously, so I've got some fun-filled nights ahead of me.

~NEO

[pixabee]

any further in that book?

[Kilgamayan]

I'm aware this thread just got a decent-sized bump.

That aside, let me try to explain where I think Laharl was going. And watch me do it without going into "omg no logic 4 u" mode, which I've noticed aggravates you a lot. In fact, I'll be taking a logistical standpoint.

You provided a definition of "God", and then went on to show how such a defenition was not possible given several contradictions, and that therefore there was no God. If the definition you provide is, in fact, the correct definition of God, then you are correct, he does not exist. The definition you provided is what you believe is correct, no? Therefore you do not believe it is possible for God to exist.

None of that should come as a surprise to anyone. It all makes sense.

However. What if your definition is flawed somehow? What if you have created extra requirements for God that are not necessary? What if, without all the extra requirements, none of the notes contradictions still exist? Or what if the list of requirements is completely different from what you provided?

Now, if you would, humor me for a moment and read the following while assuming God exists. It's a simple hypothetical situation for you.

Only God knows for sure what the exact requirements for being God are, because he's God. Humans can speculate, and who knows, one of them might guess right. But none of them will ever know for sure.

Think of it another way. I'll borrow Scott Adams for a moment. In the Dilbert world, one of the characters is a garbageman. He is also the smartest man in the world. Adams once said that many people have asked him "If this man is the smartest man in the world, why is he a garbageman?" Adams' response was something along the lines of "Since he's the smartest man in the world, he's smarter than all of us by defention. How, then, can we question his career choice? He obviously knows something we don't."

The two concepts are similar. In God's case, people can conclude things like "In order for good to exist, evil must exist. If God is all-good, how could he have created evil?" But he's God and we're not, so who are we to question why he does something? He obviously knows things we don't.

[AniamL]

I've never heard of someone putting the "omnibenevolent" qualifier on God. I've heard God must be omnipresent, omniscient, and omnipotent, and omnivorous (okay I made that one up), but never omnibenevolent. (Just something I noticed.) But who says that we can't have free will because God knows what we're going to do? I think that's just one of those things that the human brain cannot interpret or understand. I don't think you can just say "if we have a choice then God cannot know the outcome of our choice, Q.E.D." It's kind of like this: "If God's omnipotent, there's one thing he cannot do, and that is becoming more powerful!" That also seems like a contradiction in itself, but I think it's just something the human mind cannot understand.

By the way, I've always liked The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy's quote:


"I REFUSE TO PROVE THAT I EXIST", says God, "FOR PROOF DENIES FAITH, AND WITHOUT FAITH I AM NOTHING. "
"But," says Man, "the Babel fish is a dead giveaway isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't, QED."

"OH DEAR", says God, "I HADN'T THOUGHT OF THAT", and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.

"Oh, that was easy!", says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black equals white and gets killed on the next Zebra crossing.

[Nonexistent_One]

Thank you, Kilgamayan and AniamL. Your arguments are exactly the responses that I created this topic for. As I clearly stated in my opening post, I wanted to know if my definition was correct/uncorrect, and why. That was all I was looking for. I understand your posts, and thank you for taking the time to present a good argument. The only problem I have is that so many more questions pop up inside my head, but I guess I'll leave that to another post. I don't think we can get any farther in this, because logic and faith just always seem to negate each other.

Such a confusing universe...

~NEO

[AniamL]

Glad to be of service. That made my day for sure.