Half of the last thread was complaining about my shitty OP image, so let's try again. We clarify what we mean by "God" when we ask the casual question "Do you believe in God?" By the end, it should not be a meaningless question.
>List ALL attributes
>List all relevant faiths
>Clarify comprehensibility and whether it's able to be defined
Go.
>>503135
God is a teapot in orbit around the sun, somewhere between Mercury and Venus.
>attempting to clarify a transcendental concept.
>>503309
10 internets to you good sir!
There are as many gods as there are believers in god.
God is a superhuman being that is intelligent, has free will, is sentient, and is capable of things impossible for humans and able to manipulate or control elements of nature.
>>503135
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2BQSqHrU7ns
>>503355
In that case I definitely don't believe in God
>>503135
It's simple.
>God
>humans
>>503135
What a shitty image.
>>503356
Trying to watch this at the moment it is so excrutiating silly.
>>503135
God is a concept given to any given ideology when put into cosmologic terms, into it's maximum potential.
For example, you could say that science's God is Gaia, goddess of nature.
>>503485
>what is polytheism
Have you even studied any ancient religions, or do you just know about modern Abrahamic religion and post-Christian pagan bullshit?
>>503512
Polytheism makes a God of branched ideologies that could be put into just one, but they didn't.
And just to clarify, the christian God (at least) is depicted as just one, BUT he can be percieved in infinite different ways still being him.
So I'd say that calling christianity a monotheistic religion is 99% true. Take it with a grain of salt.
>>503135
God is an all-knowing, all-powerful entity whose wisdom and abilities are beyond any earthly comprehension. He silently observes the known universe and his creations there within.
>>503560
Wow, forget the rest of the thread, this guy has the fucking answers.
Dear lord, did you read the entire fucking bible to come up with that?
>>503560
>all-powerful
Can he take a poo so big even he can't clean up the mess?
>>503566
Well what's your answer to OP's question?
>>503135
GOD IS THE BIGGEST POSSIBLE GESTALT CONTAINING ALL SMALLER GESTALT, YET [HE] IS NOT THE SUM OF [HIS] PARTS BUT IS ALSO DEFINED THROUGH THE RELATIONS OF THE PARTS WITH ONE ANOTHER
God is the Alexandroff compactification of the Universe
>>503642
An entity that is beyond human comprehension in terms of power and knowledge and intelligence that created the Universe and can also consciously thinks and also, maybe exists outside of space and time.
I'm an atheist and that is how I think of as the concept of god.
God is all that is and I am a part of it, acting out in relation to the other parts of God's all-encompassing body.
>>503740
You can just call it the universe, senpai
>>503774
Are non-material entites like thoughts and imaginations part of the universe? I'd rather say that God is all that is to avoid confusion.
>>503784
>Are non-material entites like thoughts and imaginations part of the universe?
Yes.
> I'd rather say that God is all that is to avoid confusion.
It just adds confusion, usless you are saying the Universe is a conscious, thinking being.
>>503801
I'd rather say that I can not comprehend the nature of the universe but I certainly view it in an organistic way, it is the largest possible organism. It being a conscious thinking being is tricky though as there is no other in relation to which it could comprehend itself as it is the only existing entitiy.
For every gradable quality, God is the entity that is as good as possible at all of them. God is as good as it is possible to be, and he knows everything it is possible to know, etc.
>>503821
So you are saying you have defined good as a measure that exists seperately from god?
>>503315
You just did you fucking idiot
>>503818
I find it fascinating for someone to define the Universe as an organism that has thoughts. This is very distinct from any form of Pantheism I have read about but fair play to you if that is what you believe.
>>503851
no, that definition doesn't imply that good is a measure separate from God
God is the seed and the ground which it is planted.
God is the ever watchful Eye.
The ever guiding voice.
The all knowing Teacher.
>>503821
good is subjective. someone's "good" can be another person's "terrible", so if your definition were true, God would be a walking contradiction
>>503953
Really? I suggest you read what you said....
>For every gradable quality, God is the entity that is as good as possible at all of them
That clearly indicates 'good' is a gradable quality separate from god and that god is defined by being at the top or completely beyond the scale of gradable good.
If on the other hand you are defining good as being something that 'comes from' or is defined by god and god as something that is the ultimate good then, you might notice, that your definition is entirely circular and is therefore not a definition with meaning at all.
>>504014
God is good regardless of your opinion
>>504065
Good is a human invented word in the human constructed English language for something that describes the human concepts of righteous or moral or ethical or virtuous.
What an alien intelligence thinks has nothing to do with it and we are free to label the alien being good or bad or whatever we choose as good or bad The very concepts of 'good' or 'bad' have EVERYTHING to do with human opinion, indeed, that is how they are defined and how they were created in the first place.
>>503135
a concept
>>504135
But what IS the concept?
>>503135
Lemmy
/thread
Keeper of the doors of Israel.
Say it three times and be killed by the power of the almighty!
>>504295
RIP in peace sweet prince.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1iwC2QljLn4
Wasn't here for the other thread, but I'll just post my opinion here. God is whatever a person does not fully understand and has no way of explaining. Ancient people ascribed the seasons, crops, and the origin of humans from gods, because they had no way to explain it. Now, we understand the most of the basic concepts of the universe, and so can make better explanations than just gods. However, we still don't understand things like what happens after a person dies, or why the universe is expanding faster when it should be slowing down. The latter example is commonly explained with dark energy, but it's a theory so full of holes that you may as well say "god does it" and you would be at about the same place.
God is the ability to think about God.
Greatest conceivable being
/thread
>define God
>>506263
this tbqh
Non-physical yet concious "entity" able to affect the physical universe on a macro scale.
>>506263
>concievable
>>503135
Heres a nice definition from lit back when it had religious discussion
>>506324
honestly this is pretty good, it implies non-existence by its weak case for existence but all and all its pretty good.
>>506342
God doesn't "exist", God is above existence, God is transcendent.
>>506349
If god doesn't exist then god is not real
>>504833
>God of gaps
Stop. That's baby tier philosophy. It a fallacy whether use for proof of God or disproof.
>>506354
No kidding. How could Got be real (encompassed by reality) when reality is a product of him?
>mfw Western theology
>>506372
If God has any measurable effect on anything, he exists. Changing the definition of words when talking about deities stopped being cute hundreds of years ago.
>>503135
No matter how you define God, you'll either not be able to prove he exist or he will lack sufficient divinity
>>506381
God is paradoxical and ineffable. Trying to see him in any other light is distorting the Truth, which is propagating lie, and is therefore Satanic.
>>506391
okay yeah cool
But seriously. If God can even have actual (rather than hypothetical or imagined) properties, if he "be"s, would exist. Thus doesn't stop being true just because it's a sin to say so.
>>506391
Was Aquinas, Scotus and scholasticism satanic?
>>503821
Go to bed Plato.
>>506391
>God is paradoxical and ineffable.
Go to bed Maimonides.
>>503355
Given the size of the universe, there may very well be sapient extraterrestrials that fit your description. But I don't think that's what your average pew-filler has in mind when talking about God.
>>506490
>hurr god isn't a turkey therefore he exists
Legit retarded
>>506496
What are you even talking about. The point is that the property "exists" cannot be truthfully applied to God, except in the most figurative sense, because existence is predicated upon God.
>>506501
>because existence is predicated upon God.
So God is literally making millions of people have anal sex right now?
>>506490
>In medieval disputes over the nature of God, many theologians and philosophers (such as Thomas Aquinas) held that when one says that "God is good", God's goodness is only analogous to human goodness. John Duns Scotus argued to the contrary that when one says that "God is good", the goodness in question is exactly the same sort of goodness that is meant when one says "Jane is good". That is, God only differs from us in degree, and properties such as goodness, power, reason, and so forth are "univocally" applied, regardless of whether one is talking about God, a man, or a flea.
>>506501
Unless Orthodox and atheist are synonyms, Orthodox believe God exists. There is no fun word game you can play to dance around this.
>>506526
He is sustaining every atom involved with his love, yes.
>>503355
So, particularly competent aliens, AIs, or advanced transhumans would fall under the umbrella of God?
>>506534
That would be like saying a well is water.
>>506538
No, it would be like saying God fails to exist, which is essentially an atheist stance.
>>506535
So you're a Calvinist?
>>506539
No, it would be like saying existence radiates from God, not the other way around.
>>506554
No,
see
>>>/lit/7534161
>>506590
>not only does God not exist, sin doesn't even exist
What else doesn't exist according to the Orthodox viewpoint?
>>506590
>No
You basically said you were though. If you think that every atom in the universe is constantly upheld by God, then it means god knows absolutely everything that happens at any point in space-time, and this essentially means that we don't have free will.
>>506597
>>506600
The whole of the material creation (the whole of the all other creation as well) is sustained by God, that doesn't mean God's agency alone directs it.
>>506610
Something being sustained by an intelligence implies direction.
Why don't we call God "it"?
>>506617
No, it does not.
>>506746
>Also, God is not an intelligence, except figuratively.
Why do you have these discussion with anons? The points you profess can only ever be accepted or justified as a point of dogma by a faithful Orthodox. There can never be any agreement unless one of them becomes orthodox or you leave it.
>>506746
>Because God represents himself as Father.
And yet he has no properties that we can conceive? Or he's only "figuratively" father? Why can't we just use as literal language as possible, then?
>>506852
If you're going to talk about God hypothetically, then you have to set certain conditions. If there are not conditions, well then we might as well just not even debate this at all, because atheists don't even affirm God to begin with. But if they hypothetically do, then we have the hypothetical conditions.
>>506920
Because God isn't an autistic analytic philosopher
>>506960
Yeah but the conditions are such that to accept or reject them is to accept or reject the entire ideology or religion.
>>506978
Well we're talking about *my* position, after all, isn't that correct? I was the one accused of Calvinism.
>>506960
Speaking literally is "autistic"?
>>506984
I was talking about it more in general when you get into these debates
>>506989
No, inability to comprehend the point of thinking of God in Fatherly terms is.
>>506998
But I can. But that's not what I was saying, was it?
>>507000
God is our Father in a very real sense. Figurative, but real. So "he" is more accurate than "it".
>>507001
How does he present as "Father"?
>>507001
Whoa, hey now, don't be assigning "real" properties to God when he transcends "realness" as the foundation if it.
>>507013
>Christ, being God, refers to him Our Father.
God is the Christian God?
>>507014
The property here is an icon.
>>>/lit/7534161
>>507015
Yes, of course. God as in Western thought today is a legacy of Christianity, not Greco-Roman or Germanic religion.
>>507024
God as in Western thought is defined by Plato, with Christianity being an extension of his thinking.
>>507030
>God as in Western thought is defined by Plato, with Christianity being an extension of his thinking.
Rubbish.
>>507034
That whole spiel about the Icon being beautiful only insofar as it conveys a higher truth, while being careful to not present itself as truth itself, is Neo-Platonist as fuck.
>>507041
No it isn't. It's derived from God creating man in his image in the OT.
>>507046
Not that Anon but even if you are correct here that post you made in /lit/ seemed extremely platonist.
>>507071
Thats literally semantics, how is the thinking you expressed in that lit post not platonist even if accidentally?
Modern Christianity is a mix between Sophist thought (Greco-Roman) and Jewish-Assyrian-Syrian-Armenian religious beliefes.
>>507077
Because we're not talking about classes of things. A family, for instance, is an icon of the Trinity, but there isn't some Trinity "class" of things that all partake Trinity.
If you are skyping with someone, and they kiss the screen (much how we kiss icons), it is not because the screen is the same class as you.
>>507094
I was refering to the iconography part. That whole part about measuring its value by how well it represents the -truth- and the great fear of mistaking representations for the truth, even to the point of avoiding 3D pictures is very in sync with the thoughts of Plato and the forms even if it does not use literally the same terms.
>>507103
There is a massive different between *representing* something (iconography) and *partaking* of something (forms). We are all icons of God at all times, for instance, but we don't partake of "Godness" except in Holy Communion.
>>507110
Arent icons only able to represent those thing by the extent they partake in them?
>>507117
No. Do you think an icon of the Virgin Mary is "partaking" of her? It's like your face on skype, or in a mirror. It's not "partaking" of you, it isn't communing with you, it is merely representing you.
>>507124
>Do you think an icon of the Virgin Mary is "partaking" of her? It's like your face on skype, or in a mirror. It's not "partaking" of you, it isn't communing with you, it is merely representing you.
Of course it is, if it was not partaking in it there would be no image at all or say that on an elephant.You cannot represent something without communing with it.
>>507082
>Armenian
wut
>>507129
Yeah, see, now *that* statement is Platonist. And while I respect Plato came close to the Truth in many cases, I am not a Platonist. To me, communing is to actually share a body. A reflection of you is not actually part of your body, and is therefore not partaking of it.
>>507137
On what basis do you rejcet Plato's thought there?
>>507139
I reject it from the Christian conception of kοινωνία, which is corporeal. To state otherwise is distorting the whole thing, it would be like calling abolition of copyright laws, communism.
>>507147
So you reject on the grounds of faith ?
>>507152
I reject on the grounds that someone taking a picture of your property is not the same as communal property.
>>507157
On what basis though? that answer is just a no without an explanation of why.
>>507160
Because the property itself is still exclusive and distinct from the picture.
>>507161
Were that the case pictures would appear to be wholly incomprehensible to us. Just because it is crude does not make it exclusive and distinct unless you are a materialist.
>>507164
As an Orthodox Christian, I am neither idealist nor materialist. The material is very real, and so is the spiritual. The material without the spiritual is carnal, but with the spiritual it is corporeal (sometimes the West does not make a distinction between the carnal and corporeal).
Just partaking of the Spirit is not enough for communion (or else panentheism would be the same as pantheism) anymore than just partaking of the carnal is.
>>507170
So to get back to the core of the issue you reject or cannot accept Plato due to your faith
>>507175
I cannot accept Plato because he hates life on some level, he sees the material as repulsive and something to be done away with. Even if I weren't a Christian, I'd reject that for the same reason Nietzsche does.
>>507181
So you do reject it based on your fatith but you would also do so even if you were not Orthodox because it offends your sense of decency and value?
>>507192
Yes, since it's based on no more than Platonic dogma. He doesn't make any argument for it, he just presents a revelation to a youth.
>>507196
>Platonic dogma.
>He doesn't make any argument for it, he just presents a revelation to a youth.
Yeah lets just pretend neoplatonists like Plotinus and the like never existed and wrote well reasoned justifications of it.
Still do you think its legitimate to use your personal sense of decency as the measure of all truth?
Anything other than the Judeo-Christian understanding in this context is either a) not God or b) a rationalisation used by closet atheists.
>>507208
I think they did, and I think it eventually developed into philosophical idealism, with Hegel was the ultimate culmination of it all.
>Still do you think its legitimate to use your personal sense of decency as the measure of all truth?
Well I'm Burkean in a way, and I think Hume proved that we all do anyway. But have you ever read Notes from Underground?
>>507220
Didnt have you pegged as a relativist.
>>507225
Existentialist.
But you completely misunderstand Hume if you think he's advocating relativism.
>>507231
Hume isnt you are skepticism goes against your dogmatism.
>>508871
Understanding that it's foolish to try to supplant all sentiment by reason, doesn't require one to take a position of skepticism (in Hume's case, it made him very suspicious of critiques of conservative tradition and morality based purely on reason). The only reason Hume's philosophy isn't fully compatible with Christianity is because he begs the question on miracles.
Let's not forget that thinker who most influenced Hume was Bishop George Berkeley.
>>508923
>The only reason Hume's philosophy isn't fully compatible with Christianity is because he begs the question on miracles.
Not really his theory on how beliefs are generated along with empiricism is pretty hostile to Christianity.
>>509047
No it isn't, because it would apply to his own belief in this regard
>>509345
>it isn't, because it would apply to his own belief in this regard
?
>>503135
observer that can be treated as a function independent of spacetime and who's interaction could be modeled as a function of spacetime.
TL;DR
Think gravity or universal force and add a similar but sentient concept
>>503135
Absolute.
>>511770
Meh, in modern times god doesn't even need to be sentient. Anything that cannot be explained by the laws of physics are seen as gods work. Unknown is the god, just like how it has always been.
In the end, it is nothing but circlejerk whose definition of god is less wrong.
