I actually don't think definition requires evidence, even if I did not specify that in my initial response. You need evidence to support your definition but that need not be evidence of existence, only some foundation for why you are defining that thing that way. You can define hypothetical concepts, including God, it's just that such definitions are necessarily subjective and my definition could be different from yours and be just as valid.
You argue imagination’s importance proves a god’s relevance, but that’s still circular, You're still stuck there you haven't moved out of it. Imagination’s role in meaning or progress doesn’t prove a god exists outside it. Half the world believing in a god shows imagination’s power, not a god’s reality. Science and creativity may have roots in belief, but that’s historical, not evidence of a god’s existence. Without proof, defining a god as real is as baseless as my five-headed deity. Imagination’s value isn’t the issue; claiming a god is real without evidence is. Prove a god exists beyond your mind with verifiable facts, not the fruits of belief. You can’t, your god stays in your imagination, that is the only place it exists in.
Your point about the disputed nature of "existence" doesn’t change the core issue. Claiming God is real requires evidence before meaningful discussion. Quibbling over terms like "being" or "reality" is exactly the kind of vague, speculative debate that’s pointless without proof. If God exists only in philosophical wordplay or imagination, it’s as un-grounded as a five-headed deity. That’s the only place it exists in. Prove me wrong with verifiable evidence, not semantic detours. Please?
Pantheism calling the universe "god" or "holy mystery" doesn’t exempt it from needing evidence if you claim it’s real, redefining a god as the cosmos just renames what’s already observable without proving a divine nature. Saying definitions only need a "foundation" but not evidence of existence allows any subjective idea, like a five-headed God, with a hundred eyes to be valid, which is pointless for discussing reality, don't you think? Without proof, a god remains in your imagination, it can reside nowhere else that’s the only place it exists. please don't post theological sidesteps or subjective wordplay. Post up actual prove. Go to Godchecker.com - Your Guide To The Gods Go to any countries god/gods and look up the definition. Do they fit yours. No! there are a myriad of definitions, for a god. Hence why a god needs to be proven to exist, to have any worth whatsoever.
I have no interest in proving you wrong. Whether a God undefined can exist given an undefined set of criteria for existence to determine whether existence of a God is possible, is unanswerable.
Really Bette you're cherry-picking “divine nature” to dodge my point. I said pantheism’s redefinition of the universe as “god” lacks evidence of anything beyond the observable cosmos, no extra “criterion” added. My stance stays clear: defining a god as real needs proof of existence first. Godchecker.com shows countless god definitions, none matching yours, proving they’re subjective without evidence. A five-headed, hundred-eyed god is as valid as your “holy mystery” without proof. That’s why a god must be proven to exist to have any worth, otherwise, it’s just imagination. You've disappointed me, I thought better of you than that Bette.
Which make said god/gods subject only to the imagination, not reality. Therefore my stance is valid for expecting a more engaged response if you wish to claim a god is real. If you don't want to. Then fair enough.
My apologies if I have or appeared to be unkind. I'm only making the point that for a definition to be considered real the subject of that definition must be real.
Again I have to apologize if this comes over as rude. However. Dictionary definitions don't prove reality, they document concepts, including fictional ones. Dictionaries define unicorns, dragons, and Zeus too. A definition being 'important to people' or 'cultural' doesn't make it real without evidence. I'm not attacking anyone's right to believe - I'm simply stating that claiming God is real requires proof, not just cultural significance or dictionary entries. Without evidence, it remains imagination, regardless of how respectfully it's defined or how many people find it meaningful. Your shift to cultural sensitivity and human rights is another deflection from my core point about evidence being necessary for claims of reality. Lets not fall out of this lets just simple beg to differ. I won't reply to anything more on this subject if it going to cause upset. You believe what you wish and disregard me.Merriam Webster:
Definition of GOD
the supreme or ultimate reality: such as; the being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped (as in Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and Hinduism) as creator and ruler of the universe… See the full definitionwww.merriam-webster.com
They define what supposedly doesn’t exist. It’s not how I necessary define God but just pointing out - to your point about defining things that are real - that people have indeed really defined it in dictionaries, respectfully. It’s important to people. It doesn’t say: “some nonsense that lives in your imagination”
It’s also cultural. If you go around saying that belief in God is nonsense you’re just being divisive and it won’t accomplish anything.Better to find common ground with the beliefs/ theology that’s most compatible with your humanism, don’t you think - to connect with rather than alienate people? Because the people who hold beliefs in God that you think are imaginary are just as human as you are and your arguments aren’t likely to sway them. And holding religious beliefs is a universal human right. Human rights reflect an inclusive humanism.
At the core of it, there is no evidence that a Pavlos Maros claim to reality is necessarily existent.
This is actually technically correct for those of us who only know him on the Internet. As the old saw goes, "On the Internet, no one knows you're a dog." Pavlos could be a construct by someone quite remarkably different, a fictitious character, basically.