|
Navigation
The Rational Response Squad is a group of atheist activists who impact society by changing the way we view god belief. This site is a haven for those who are pushing back against the norm, and a place for believers of gods to have their beliefs exposed as false should they want to try their hand at confronting us. Buy any item on AMAZON, and we'll use the small commission to help improve critical thinking. Buy a Laptop -- Apple
|
God definition
Posted on: September 17, 2007 - 4:47pm
   Offline
God definition
I posted this as part of a response in antohter thread. Bring out the cannons ...
God is a sentient entity of sufficient scope that it can exert its will upon us without our consent and against which we have no recourse.
I am not concerned with proof of existence only issues with the definition itself.
|
|
Copyright Rational Response Squad 2006-2024.
|
X is a god to Y if for any action i in X' there exists no action in Y' that can prevent i.
is mutually exclusive to
Let X and Y be sentient entities where interaction is possible.
As there exists no action Y' that has repercussions in X. To wit a result of action is a limiting of some future actions and thus no interaction between X and Y exists.
I often say that when you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot measure it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meagre and unsatisfactory kind.
Thank you.
I will have a response later. I'm at work and I can only do quick responses.
My Artwork
To clarify I will add
"Any action causes an equal and opposite reaction" - Newton's thrird law of motion.
Forces come in pairs.
I often say that when you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot measure it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meagre and unsatisfactory kind.
So you are now making it clear there is no sentient entity Y that is more power than entity X that action p from person X in regards to entity Y cannot affect any action Y'?
" Why does God always got such wacky shit to say? . . . When was the last time you heard somebody say 'look God told me to get a muffin and a cup tea and cool out man'?" - Dov Davidoff
I have actually already considered this possiblity and it raises a few issues. I will try to address one of them. If I am able to do that then I will move on to the other ones that I see.
I think the most important one is are there willful actions and non-willful actions? Or even a range of willfulness. I can willfully get up, walk across the room and tickle my son. But some actions, such as my heartbeat, are autonomous, even if an integral part of my being. I can willfully take my family to the ice cream shop but still leave the choice of which ice cream to each of them in turn. So for our theoretical entities X and Y, while X may be capable of enforcing its will, it is also capable of creating conditions where Y can affect the outcome. So I'm thinking the defintion needs to be refined to:
X is a god to Y if for any action i in X' there exists no action in Y' that can prevent the willfull execution of i.
My Artwork
I'm not quite sure what you are saying here. Are you suggesting that for two entities X and Y there is also some entity where the capability less than X but greater than Y?
My Artwork
Ok,
A sentient thing is a God to man if it can eventually achieve all its aims in spite of man.
I bet it couldnt beat me at tic-tac-toe though...probably cheat and think outside the grid
"I play the crucifix on the peak for 3 in a row. Psyche! "
Joking aside I think your definition is becoming plausible but close to how we use the word to describe something that dominates and humbles eg. a god of rock music.
I often say that when you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot measure it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meagre and unsatisfactory kind.
I am just pointing out that you still have to qualify "god"'s relation to other entities, if they are present, as well as these other entities relation to humanity. I know you are primarily concerned with"god" and humanity only but that does not mean my concern is irrelevant since your response to all of my concerns is "its possible but I thats not important to me."
" Why does God always got such wacky shit to say? . . . When was the last time you heard somebody say 'look God told me to get a muffin and a cup tea and cool out man'?" - Dov Davidoff
While it is important, it is not yet included in the definition. I have defined a binary relation and you are discussing a terniary relation. A complete defintion of a deity likely needs to address that, but it complicates the issue at hand. Basically, if I can't come up with something cogent for two entities, extending it to multiples is fruitless.
My Artwork
God of rock music? Alice Cooper? Abba?
I need to think this through some more. Invoking willfullness opens a Pandora's Box of philisophical questions. I think I need to determine more clearly what I mean by that.
My Artwork
So, let me get this striaght, you absolve the complications that result from your definition by ignoring them?
Then you should focus on "god"'s relation to only one human being. Not "god"s relation to all human beings since thats is extending the relation to over 6 billion entities. This also means that if none of the 6 billion entities can avert "god"'s will, that this "god" is pretty damn powerful. However, since you do not call "god" omnipotent or even the/a creater entity, you leave yourself open to other entities intefering with "god"'s will on the behalf of of a human being which allows for the means for a human being to avert "god"'s will.
" Why does God always got such wacky shit to say? . . . When was the last time you heard somebody say 'look God told me to get a muffin and a cup tea and cool out man'?" - Dov Davidoff
I'm not ignoring them. I'm just not tackling them yet. I'm removing complications deliberately on order to simplify things but at some point those complications must be added back
THat's not a bad idea. I might try that.
Again, you are inserting other entities into the discussion. You raise legitimate questions, and if I get that far I will have to address them. But I'm not there yet.
My Artwork
I think we are reaching a point where you have to address them. Personally, I think you have to adress them first unless you have some emperical evidence for this entity that can be studied. If you don't then its jsut a metaphysical discussion in which the foundations, such as if there are other other entities, must be set first.
Hope you don;t mind if I help you with this but here is what will probably happen. Lets suppose you figure out a way to make a clear explanation of te relaitonship between "god" and this other entity. YOu must either claim "and this the relationship he has with all humans" or you must systematicallly outline all the relationships a human being can have with "god".
Again, unless you have empircal evidence for this entity, you are skipping many steps. Why do you think Christians have an entire backstory to the creation of earth that the Bible makes no mention of?(the whole "god can love what doesn't exist" hypothesis)? becuase the Bible skipped that step and they are trying to backpedal to make up for it. Now they can make a similar response to yours which is "He did so there!" but, as you know, they are still avoiding key questions by doing so.
" Why does God always got such wacky shit to say? . . . When was the last time you heard somebody say 'look God told me to get a muffin and a cup tea and cool out man'?" - Dov Davidoff
The definition of God is like religion. As vast as the sea, and just as deep. However, most religions have a common definition of god; hes a He, hes super powerful, super smart, and created us.
I'm infallible. I don't know why you can't remember that.