• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Define God

MrWonka said:
What are the minimally required attributes that a thing must have in order to be considered a god?

I'm not taking about your god if you believe in one, I'm talking about the abstract concept of a god. What criteria must a thing meet before you would be willing to allow it to have the designation of a god.

My list:
1.) It must have an intelligence above and beyond what humans would be capable of attaining.
2.) It must have an abilities above and beyond what humans would be capable of attaining.
3.) It must have a stake in the day to day happenings of our universe.
4.) It must regularly influence our world, and it must do so based upon some moral code.
Click to expand...

It must be imagined. If it isnt imagined then it isnt a god it is something else.

For example: If I described a rock on the moon, and we went to the moon and found a identical rock as to what I described, it isnt actually what I described, it was a coincidence that a rock resembling my description (of a rock) just happened to be on the moon.

A rock can be described since we actually know that rocks exist and have seen them here (on Earth) and on the moon. Gods though are just something that humans have imagined. So by actual real world definition; gods are things that humans have imagined with various different attribute assigned to them.

In your list you for some reason have assigned your own attributes to gods. I can actually think of many imagined gods that would not meet your definition of a god. The first being a Deist god. And the god of the holy bible was not portrayed as more intelligent than humans. For being a omnipotent god it lacked basic knowledge of the universe and us humans that it supposedly created. And was a cruel ****ed character. It just isnt moral to kill inocent people because you denied them information that they needed to make a decision..
 
God: The Father, The Son (Jesus Christ) and The Holy Spirit.

You asked a concise question. I give you a concise answer.
 
SDET said:
God: The Father, The Son (Jesus Christ) and The Holy Spirit.

You asked a concise question. I give you a concise answer.
Click to expand...

Thats like being asked to define a mouse and your answered Mickey Mouse.
 
Last edited:
This isn't too hard to Google.

1. (in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.
synonyms: the Lord, the Almighty, the Creator, the Maker, the Godhead; More
Allah, Jehovah, Yahweh; (God) the Father, (God) the Son, the Holy Ghost/Spirit, the Holy Trinity;
the Great Spirit, Gitchi Manitou; humorous "the Man Upstairs"
"a gift from God"

2. (in certain other religions) a superhuman being or spirit worshiped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity.

If you meant what is God to me? He (the biblical version) is someone I find hard to follow or wrap my head around because I can't relate to Him. Much like mortal leaders, I can't really follow one I can't relate to.
As an agnostic, I'm not even sure the nature of deities or which religion's deities are the ones to follow but I do know that my prayers have bee answered on occasion.
 
FreedomFromAll said:
In your list you for some reason have assigned your own attributes to gods. I can actually think of many imagined gods that would not meet your definition of a god. The first being a Deist god. And the god of the holy bible was not portrayed as more intelligent than humans. For being a omnipotent god it lacked basic knowledge of the universe and us humans that it supposedly created. And was a cruel ****ed character. It just isnt moral to kill inocent people because you denied them information that they needed to make a decision..
Click to expand...

Having a moral code is different than having a moral code you agree with. The thinking behind the christian god is that his actions are morally justified, but his code of morals is some how beyond our understanding.

That may be ridiculous in and of itself, but that god would still qualify under my criteria.
 
Ntharotep said:
This isn't too hard to Google.

1. (in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.
synonyms: the Lord, the Almighty, the Creator, the Maker, the Godhead; More
Allah, Jehovah, Yahweh; (God) the Father, (God) the Son, the Holy Ghost/Spirit, the Holy Trinity;
the Great Spirit, Gitchi Manitou; humorous "the Man Upstairs"
"a gift from God"

2. (in certain other religions) a superhuman being or spirit worshiped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity.
Click to expand...
So do you think either of these two definitions would not be included in my criteria?


Ntharotep said:
As an agnostic, I'm not even sure the nature of deities or which religion's deities are the ones to follow but I do know that my prayers have bee answered on occasion.
Click to expand...

This is a contradiction. An agnostic does not know if god exists or not. You seem to be claiming that some type of god did answer your prayers even if you don't know which one. That would make you a theist, just not a religious one.
 
MrWonka said:
Having a moral code is different than having a moral code you agree with. The thinking behind the christian god is that his actions are morally justified, but his code of morals is some how beyond our understanding.

That may be ridiculous in and of itself, but that god would still qualify under my criteria.
Click to expand...

I see. But you assigned those attributes none the less. And you ignored the entire Deist god problem.
 
FreedomFromAll said:
I see. But you assigned those attributes none the less. And you ignored the entire Deist god problem.
Click to expand...

That's not a problem in terms of whether it qualifies by my definition. It's a problem for it's existence, but not whether it would qualify if it existed. If an intelligence was greater than what humans could attain then we would also be incapable of judging it's intelligence or moral code. That is a silly notion that makes the existence of such a god asinine, but it does not prevent it from being referred to as a god by the definition.
 
Grand Mal said:
God.
Okay, one by one...
1- Intelligence? As measured by ability to interact with the physical world? How can the word intelligence applynto a deity?
Click to expand...

Agreed. God is omniscient, not intelligent. Intelligence is a measure of how much you know and how well you learn, neither of which can apply to an all knowing being.

2- You mean like real magic, instead of that fake magic people do on stage?
Click to expand...

If God exists there is no magic in what God does. What God does is natural. There is nothing that God can do that we shouldn't be able to figure out how it was done, even if it is impossible for us to replicate it given our extreme limitations.

3- What kind of stake? A day-to-day management to ensure the success of the universe?
Click to expand...

I would define the "stake" as a love for the world and humanity.

4- This is the most ludicrous of the list. Regularity, first, and moral code second. Morality being a human construct, well, you know...
Click to expand...

It's not ridiculous. The existence of moral code is all the evidence you need that the universe has moral codes. All that MrWonka is saying here, as I read it, is that a God would have to be other than random in their exertion of power. I see this as a valid argument in the same way that the SETI program seeks to find ordered, non-random signal in a universe of random noise to determine the existence of intelligent life beyond Earth.
 
MrWonka said:
No, that's Agnostics problem. You want to argue for unknowable so you're afraid to set for the conditions that a god would need to meet before you would consider it one. That's not definition twisting it's just setting a definition. The more I argue with people on the internet the more clear it becomes that about 90% of arguments break down over equivocation. Arguing with Agnostics is like arguing over whether nice guys finish last. It's a pointless waste of time because every person you talk to has their own subjective definition of what it means to be "nice." What is and is not a god should not be a subjective term. People may worship different gods, but if we each met one we should both be able to agree whether it is or not.
Click to expand...



Feel free to explain why you think these requirements should not be considered requirements. To me they are. I'm open to the possibility that there are other criteria, or that some of mine could be loosened a bit.
Click to expand...



That is not an argument for them being wrong.
Click to expand...



What people in the past have used this word for is not really relevant in my book. I'm asking how you today with all your knowledge would define it.
Click to expand...

All of this..... is stemming from your personal definition of "gods". I am not going to swallow it whole, but I will move on as it doesn't really matter in the end, and we're at an impasse. Even using your definition, you fail to prove gods don't exist. A god, with the qualities you described, but who also wished to remain hidden from us, would be able to easily do so. Manipulating the electrical impulses in our brain, memory editing, knowledge of when it can act without risking discovery, all at its disposal. impossible to disprove.

Because as I have pointed out there are hypothetical beings of superior power that do exhibit most of the other qualities, but that would not be considered gods. This criteria seems to be the thing that separates those non-gods from generally considered gods. Can you name a hypothetical being which exhibits the other qualities, and not that quality which should be considered a god?
Click to expand...

I disagree but don't seem to have a convincing argument. Call it a matter of opinion. I'll grant the assumption. You still can't disprove the existence of god(s).
 
MrWonka said:
That's not a problem in terms of whether it qualifies by my definition. It's a problem for it's existence, but not whether it would qualify if it existed. If an intelligence was greater than what humans could attain then we would also be incapable of judging it's intelligence or moral code. That is a silly notion that makes the existence of such a god asinine, but it does not prevent it from being referred to as a god by the definition.
Click to expand...

. If there is a alien race that looks like smurfs; they are not actually smurfs. They are aliens that just happen to look like smurfs. A super being meeting your qualifications would just be a super being meeting your imagined qualifications.

I could make up all kinds of qualifications for gods, but I would just be making crap up. disqualifying any god that doesnt match your imagined qualifications is pretty much no different than all of those religions out there claiming the exact same logic as you.

Gods are defined by the believer in their gods. Other believers will disagree. And non-believers will go into the kitchen to get another beer. In other words the definition of gods is extremely subjective and its a fools errand to unify a definition for gods.
 
FreedomFromAll said:
. If there is a alien race that looks like smurfs; they are not actually smurfs. They are aliens that just happen to look like smurfs. A super being meeting your qualifications would just be a super being meeting your imagined qualifications.

I could make up all kinds of qualifications for gods, but I would just be making crap up. disqualifying any god that doesnt match your imagined qualifications is pretty much no different than all of those religions out there claiming the exact same logic as you.

Gods are defined by the believer in their gods. Other believers will disagree. And non-believers will go into the kitchen to get another beer. In other words the definition of gods is extremely subjective and its a fools errand to unify a definition for gods.
Click to expand...

if every other word out of those little blue buggers mouths contains smurf we are still calling them that OK?
 
FreedomFromAll said:
. If there is a alien race that looks like smurfs; they are not actually smurfs. They are aliens that just happen to look like smurfs. A super being meeting your qualifications would just be a super being meeting your imagined qualifications.

I could make up all kinds of qualifications for gods, but I would just be making crap up. disqualifying any god that doesnt match your imagined qualifications is pretty much no different than all of those religions out there claiming the exact same logic as you.

Gods are defined by the believer in their gods. Other believers will disagree. And non-believers will go into the kitchen to get another beer. In other words the definition of gods is extremely subjective and its a fools errand to unify a definition for gods.
Click to expand...

That isn't a logically sound argument. If the definition of God is a supreme being with total control over the known universe then you leave no room that there could be two.
 
blarg said:
if every other word out of those little blue buggers mouths contains smurf we are still calling them that OK?
Click to expand...

Let's just pray they aren't "snarf"...
 
MrWonka said:
What are the minimally required attributes that a thing must have in order to be considered a god?
Click to expand...

None. There are no gods.

The concept is a human-centric imagination, not a reality.

Ask if there were any gods for the billions of years before humans evolved... what where they doing ? shuffling their fingers until humans evolve?

The concept of god is a human-centric, ego gratification one... it is not real... no gods existed, exist or will exist in the future.
 
MrWonka said:
What are the minimally required attributes that a thing must have in order to be considered a god?
Click to expand...
If something comes along and is demonstrably all powerful and wants to be called, or even just considered G_d, I would recommend you do what ever it wants whether you believe it or not.

The point being is that "all powerful" is going to be the only defining thing that really matters.
 
Last edited:
If god existed he could define himself right here on DP without any help from me or anyone else.
 
MrWonka said:
What are the minimally required attributes that a thing must have in order to be considered a god?

I'm not taking about your god if you believe in one, I'm talking about the abstract concept of a god. What criteria must a thing meet before you would be willing to allow it to have the designation of a god.

My list:
1.) It must have an intelligence above and beyond what humans would be capable of attaining.
2.) It must have an abilities above and beyond what humans would be capable of attaining.
3.) It must have a stake in the day to day happenings of our universe.
4.) It must regularly influence our world, and it must do so based upon some moral code.
Click to expand...

It is humans that have intelligence. No other intelligence has been found anywhere. To me god is the laws of nature and physics, the lack of chaos. No intelligence or morality in any of that.
 
Y'all do know that this is an impossible question to answer by humans? Trying to understand God is like an ameba trying to understand the mind of Nikola Tesla times a googolplex.

Besides it's not important if humans understand God, but, only that humans know there is a God and He is.
 
a777pilot said:
Besides it's not important if humans understand God, but, only that humans know there is a God and He is.
Click to expand...

Well we don't know if there is a God. There hasn't been any evidence to support one's existence.
 
a777pilot said:
...and you are arrogant enough to take the risk. LOL!
Click to expand...

Not believing in God due to the lack of sufficient evidence is not 'arrogance'.

And BTW, you are also 'taking the risk' by not believing in the 100's of other Gods out there.
 
Last edited:
a777pilot said:
...and you are arrogant enough to take the risk. LOL!
Click to expand...
TheGoverness said:
How am I being "arrogant"?
Click to expand...

And yet you're arrogant enough to take the risk in going to all of the hells from the religions you don't believe in. Are you a muslim, a777pilot? If not, why would you want to take the risk? If you're wrong about Islam you'll burn in Islamic hell. Can YOU take that risk? Better believe everything just to be safe.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom