Can a God be Defined ...

[Luce NDs]

Or the meaning of such an ideal be unravelled because they are too powerful for the good of the entire thing ... that gods do believe to be collective madness that restrains their wishes?

Could this outline some chaos in the world out side the humble god?

What a racket eh! The implications are something else ...

 

[Luce NDs]

How can one be overly comfortable with a god that declares we should clear the way for emperors? Then later declares we need covenants that the emperor can eliminate ... thus despair for the opposing cluster!

Albeit it does keep things moving in the dead zone ... as goans ... travelling Anis? A Nin ...

 

[Pavlos Maros]

No, a thing would have to exist to have definition. Defining something claimed to be real requires proof of its existence first. This is a solid stance, but it sparks questions. We often define things without proven existence, like fictional characters, hypothetical's, or unproven scientific concepts. But god is claimed as real and doesn't come under that banner does it. It is pointless discussing concepts before existence is confirmed.

How would you navigate that problem?

 

[Mendalla]

It is going to depend on the person, I think. For me, "God" is a hypothetical that I tend to explore philosophically. I find it quite intellectually stimulating to explore different understandings and definitions of the idea. What God could look like is more interesting than God's existence or non-existence. And if I happen to find a definition of God that coheres with my understanding of reality, so be it. I guess I'll be a theist at that point. But right now I'm an agnostic without a strong belief either way so exploring God and the definitions thereof as an idea works for me.

For someone who is claiming God is real, I guess it would have to be based on study of their scripture and other sources claiming to have knowledge of that God. Others can speak to that better than I can right now. But if you look at it from the high level, you won't get a single definition given the number of possible understanding of those sources. That brings us back to the agnostic concept that "God" and other metaphysical ideas are subjective and can't be proven rationally or empirically. Given that, there is no absolute, objective "definition" and from an objective point of view, you're back to God being a hypothetical whose definition can be discussed and speculated about without there being a "true" definition at the end.

Of course, then you are also back to endless arguments about whose subjective reality is the best when what is really needed is discussion about different views of God and what each can mean to us if we follow it; basically an attempt to seriously understand what others believe rather than just proclaiming your view and pronouncing others false.

 

[BetteTheRed]

How you define god may predict whether "existence" is a necessary condition to definition.

If you have a pantheist or panentheist, the definition of god is simply a variation on "The Totality of the Universes and Everything", ergo, existence is moot, unless you argue that TTOTUAE does not exist, thus denying your own existence, which gets silly.`

 

[Mendalla]

the definition of god is simply a variation on "The Totality of the Universes and Everything", ergo, existence is moot, unless you argue that TTOTUAE does not exist, thus denying your own existence, which gets silly.`

That fits for pantheism. There's still the question, though, of what it means to say that "God is existence and existence is God". Is the universe personal in some way or just a personification of the forces of nature. So existence may no longer be a question, but definition still is.

Panentheism predicates a transcendent deity who includes our reality rather than reality and God being equivalent so whether God exists becomes a question again, as well as defining how that transcendent element interacts with the universe. As discussed in my last post, I prefer to skip the existence question and explore what that understanding of God can look like and mean.

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

Would existence exist if we weren’t here to define it with our consciousness? And what is consciousness, really?

I don’t know but I think God needs to be living and conscious because our living energy and consciousness came from somewhere - it hasn’t all been figured out without a doubt yet - and as far as I know we’re the only living beings on earth who are capable of things like believing in and attempting to define God. There must be a reason for that - it wouldn’t be logical or scientific for there not to be any reason for that.

 

[Pavlos Maros]

Would existence exist if we weren’t here to define it with our consciousness? And what is consciousness, really?

I don’t know but I think God needs to be living and conscious because our living energy and consciousness came from somewhere - it hasn’t all been figured out without a doubt yet - and as far as I know we’re the only living beings on earth who are capable of things like believing in and attempting to define God. There must be a reason for that - it wouldn’t be logical or scientific for there not to be any reason for that.

You're using circular reasoning. You're saying that just because we can imagine God, that must mean there's a divine purpose, but that only makes sense if you’ve already decided God is real, without any proof.
If you're going to say something exists, like a conscious God, you need evidence first. Our ability to think deeply or wonder about big questions could come from purely natural things.
So unless there’s solid proof, using your reasoning isn’t logical or scientific, it’s just guesswork.

 

[BetteTheRed]

So existence may no longer be a question, but definition still is.

Agreed. It was Pavlos who posited that existence was necessary for definition.

 

[WhyCzar]

Can a God be Defined ...​

Every attempt to define a God collapses.

Not because people do it badly, but because it is impossible in principle.

a God resists definition because definition would limit a God.

a God, by most accounts, is supposed to be something that transcends all known categories.

Some people say a God is “being itself,” but being is something that applies to things in existence.

The moment you try to define a God in a way that makes sense, you lose what makes a god a God.

a God is uniquely resistant to definition, making it an idea unlike any other.

It allows the idea to persist without ever needing to be reconciled with the world.

It allows traditions to endure, even as attempting definitions shift to accommodate new knowledge.

It allows individuals to hold onto a belief that is deeply personal and entirely abstract.

Something that can be invoked in any context yet remains just beyond the reach of examination.

The vagueness of a God is a feature, not a flaw?

 

[Pavlos Maros]

Agreed. It was Pavlos who posited that existence was necessary for definition.

And it still is. Existence is necessary to define something claimed as real. Unless you're treating god as a fictional character, hypothetical scenario, or unproven concept, you need evidence first to make a meaningful definition. But if you are happy without proof of existence then any definition can be made. it could be defined with five heads and a hundred eyes, its were vagueness become foolish.

 

[Luce NDs]

No, a thing would have to exist to have definition. Defining something claimed to be real requires proof of its existence first. This is a solid stance, but it sparks questions. We often define things without proven existence, like fictional characters, hypothetical's, or unproven scientific concepts. But god is claimed as real and doesn't come under that banner does it. It is pointless discussing concepts before existence is confirmed.

How would you navigate that problem?

This is difficult for the conflicted that say it is real but abstract ... thus part of schizoid activity as we drift in and out of the absurd psyche (real folk do not hang onto there own mind very well and will sell out to the stupidest ideals)! Holes develop in thinking space so that many eliminate or avoid the nonsense!

Thus it remains beyond us and we generally wouldn't go that far as to get the feeling: "have we been here before?"

Like the denarii ... the thing has at least two side --- Jesus, on light from the darker side! Spark leers ... some say sparkles ...

 

[Luce NDs]

You're using circular reasoning. You're saying that just because we can imagine God, that must mean there's a divine purpose, but that only makes sense if you’ve already decided God is real, without any proof.
If you're going to say something exists, like a conscious God, you need evidence first. Our ability to think deeply or wonder about big questions could come from purely natural things.
So unless there’s solid proof, using your reasoning isn’t logical or scientific, it’s just guesswork.

This stuff is always going around in the fringe of the imaginary point ... which forms force lines that keep the medium captive in the middle disturbing both side ... in in-ies and the out-eas ... thus the dippers as illustrated be Big Bear which is naked as Ur ... up there to the north as load 've stone ... lodestone to some hyperbole ...

Do you sometimes feel you have a captive mind watching the irrational stuff that goes on down here?

 

[Luce NDs]

Can a God be Defined ...​

Every attempt to define a God collapses.

Not because people do it badly, but because it is impossible in principle.

a God resists definition because definition would limit a God.

a God, by most accounts, is supposed to be something that transcends all known categories.

Some people say a God is “being itself,” but being is something that applies to things in existence.

The moment you try to define a God in a way that makes sense, you lose what makes a god a God.

a God is uniquely resistant to definition, making it an idea unlike any other.

It allows the idea to persist without ever needing to be reconciled with the world.

It allows traditions to endure, even as attempting definitions shift to accommodate new knowledge.

It allows individuals to hold onto a belief that is deeply personal and entirely abstract.

Something that can be invoked in any context yet remains just beyond the reach of examination.

The vagueness of a God is a feature, not a flaw?

Thus the great unknown resides in a state of sacred poetry ... once known as one of the Muses ... Clio!

It is curios and the powers do not want ordinary people to look into it for sake of the paranoia over the consequences ... there would be no end to the humor ... this outlines the undefined nature of tyrants and authority in a dimension that cannot even understand itself!

It just will not look and see ... blind faith? Then the great transcendence ... and we skip over to the immortal state ... ruagh crossings ...

Abstract ... imagine all that we don't know because it is hard to grasp ... especially for those that claim to know God ... everything no matter what the state: solid, liquid, gassy or all aflame with emotions and not a clue otherwise ... too alternate? Excessive!

That should cover it ...

 

[Luce NDs]

Can erraticism evolve as irrational perspective in a stormy night when it all was initiated --- some beagle!

The Eire in perception as a gas ...

 

[Luce NDs]

When adequately stirred do things as a point come up or go down in a roundabout determination?

The Bishop of Myra addressed this naked deficiency! Thus the birth of Philip-o ... as Pythias ...

That's another myth ... about big lipases ... further word?

 

[Pavlos Maros]

Here is the true definition of God. God is a writhing vortex of temporal sludge, knotting paradoxes from shattered timelines. It flickers in a 29-dimensional haze, its form a tangle of disjointed, boneless limbs dripping lava-like spit that reeks of scorched licorice. Communicating via ultraviolet static bursts smelling of burnt grapefruit, it throws umbrella tips into dimensions as glowing scepters. Its role is to maintain universal absurdity, ensuring coffee spills on white shirts, offering only ash-laced riddles and warped cassette screeches. Prove me wrong?

 

[Mendalla]

Here is the true definition of God. God is a writhing vortex of temporal sludge, knotting paradoxes from shattered timelines. It flickers in a 29-dimensional haze, its form a tangle of disjointed, boneless limbs dripping lava-like spit that reeks of scorched licorice. Communicating via ultraviolet static bursts smelling of burnt grapefruit, it throws umbrella tips into dimensions as glowing scepters. Its role is to maintain universal absurdity, ensuring coffee spills on white shirts, offering only ash-laced riddles and warped cassette screeches. Prove me wrong?

Sounds like H. P. Lovecraft meets The Office (UK version) to be honest. Which Charles Stross has already done.

But I certainly can't prove you wrong.

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

You're using circular reasoning. You're saying that just because we can imagine God, that must mean there's a divine purpose, but that only makes sense if you’ve already decided God is real, without any proof.
If you're going to say something exists, like a conscious God, you need evidence first. Our ability to think deeply or wonder about big questions could come from purely natural things.
So unless there’s solid proof, using your reasoning isn’t logical or scientific, it’s just guesswork.

Our ability to reason and think comes from some elemental aspect of the universe. It would have to, right? Or else we’d all just be rocks, or plants at best - or water - because even other animals are conscious. It exists, but how, why, where does it come from originally? We can’t write it off because without it we wouldn’t be able to write it off. That’s the starting point of my argument - consciousness must be an essential element in the source of the building blocks that we call existence (and we can only think about it because we exist - there’s definitely no proof that someone who’s never existed has thought about anything) but science hasn’t found it. It focuses on the mechanics but not the essence. Maybe it was always meant to be a circular argument that science can’t touch. It can teach us a lot, but maybe it’s just not a compatible tool or system for knowing everything. I think, given how small we are in the big picture, we’d be foolish to think so.

I’ve found it! God is a circle. Lol

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

Or a circle with a twist in the middle. Existence is a bit warped at times.