I have read the Bible, but I need for you to supply me with a description of your mental concept for the row of alphabet letters "God". Surely atheists should have a clear concept and mental image of what they claim not to believe in, right? I have no idea or mental image of anything atheists claim not to believe in, that theists claim to believe in, or that agnostics claim not to know whether it exists or not.

which one?

g

@genessa Do you know of a god that any of them worship? I don't. Do you think there's more than one god tyhat they worship? I don't know of even one If you think you know more than one, then just pick one and describe it. Thank you.

@genessa Of course I know about the ancient Greek god Zeus. Of course "Zeus" is a meaningful word. I'm not disputing that at all. Unlike "God", "Yahweh" and "Allah", the word "Zeus" is very meaningful. The ancient Greeks drew pictures and made statues of Zeus. But surely you don't actually think Christians, Jews and Muslims believe in Zeus, do you? If you think you have a mental concept for "the infinite, invisible, omnipresent, incorporeal spirit that created everything that exists but itself", then please describe the mental image you claim to have, for I don't know how to have one.

@EdwinMcCravy oh, are you limiting this to the god of christians (who have pictures and statues a-plenty) and muslims (i am not that familiar with islam) and jews (who are forbidden to make images but i have given you a description already)? as for a mental image i personally have, i'm an atheist, so you're asking the wrong person. ask a believer what mental image s/he has.

g

Do you believe Christians, Jews and Muslims have any mental image for "God", "Yahweh" and "Allah"? If so, why don't you either (1) describe the mental image that think they have for "God", "Yahweh" or "Allah", or (2) admit that you have none and are just like me in that respect?

@EdwinMcCravy A lot of Christians I know picture "God" in the way he was depicted in Renaissance paintings. How Jews or Muslims picture their god I have no idea, as it never struck me as something worth asking about. I do not have a mental image of the Abrahamic god. In that respect I suppose I am like you. However, unlike you, I do not believe the words are meaningless.

@StevenWilbur You say a lot of Christians you know picture "God" in the way he was depicted in Renaissance paintings. All the Renaissance paintings I've seen are just drawings of a finite sized man. How could a finite sized human do anything called "create the universe"? Where would this finite sized man be located before it created heaven and earth? Remember the universe includes all the space as well as all the matter. Remember, the term "God" supposedly means "an infinite omnipresent spirit that created everything (or the creator of everything) but itself". That's what you would need to have a mental image of, not a finite sized painting of a human male.

You say "Of course the words God, Yahweh, Allah have meaning". I know you assert that. But I lack faith that it does. Why don't you describe whatever mental image you claim to have for the terms "God", "Yahweh" and "Allah" so I can have it too, OK?

@EdwinMcCravy I can see why people got on your case about this. You ask them to tell you what they think, and then tell them they are wrong. Gods don't exist, so giving an accurate description of them is sort of out of the question. What I was asserting is that the words have meaning, not that gods exist. For the time being I believe you do exist, but if I get one more snipey reply from you on this, you will no longer exist on my Agnostic account. If you really want people to be like you in some respect, try being the type of person they might want to be like.

@StevenWilbur You say "Gods don't exist". I agree fully. You apparently believe that Christians worship a god. I don't believe they do. I believe they say they do, they believe they do, and act just like they do. But I don't believe they worship any god because I don't have any mental concept of any god that they worship. Do you have any mental concept of any god that you think they worship? If you do, then please describe that god for me so I can have a mental concept of it too. Thanks in advance.

I like your answer. Unfortunately, the way we are going, if humankind is still extant 2,000 years from now, they will be lucky if they are living at the level they were 2,000 years ago.

@StevenWilbur
True!

Do you believe Christians, Jews and Muslims have any mental image for "God", "Yahweh" and "Allah"? If so, why don't you either (1) describe the mental image that think you have for "God", "Yahweh" or "Allah", or (2) admit that you have none and are just like me in that respect?

@EdwinMcCravy
I have no way of knowing what’s in other people’s minds, but it is likely to be similar to what was in my mind when I was a young believer. I was told we are made in God’s image, so I assumed he looks a lot like us.

Where did you get that? Surely you know that Christians don't say "God is reality, the universe, and nature". Everybody believes in reality, the universe, and nature. You say "call it whatever modern name you like - they called it "God". No they don't!! You know better. I would like to rid humanity of all belief on faith, and that includes the faith that "God" refers to something that DOES NOT exist, something that DOES exist, or something to withhold judgment on the existence of. To refute what I claim, simply describe your mental concept for what Christians are referring to by the term "God".

@EdwinMcCravy
To illustrate the point let's say a squirrel has gotten into the attic and is making noises. The human inhabitants are convinced there is a ghost in the house, and are terrified. No amount of talk about squirrels is going to convince them that the house isn't haunted, but the fact remains that what they are calling a ghost, and envisioning as a ghost, is actually a squirrel. It isn't nothing.

So you are correct of course when you say "Christians don't say "God is reality, the universe, and nature"." At least the majority of them don't (though some very influential, and well-informed ones have). They don't say that, but the squirrel in that attic is, in my opinion, the entirety of reality. Eighty percent of the human population is not orienting their lives toward something that doesn't exist; they are orienting themselves toward something that is meaningful to them which they don't understand well, but certainly does exert a real influence over their lives.

This concept is not original with me. The Stoics of ancient Greece talked about it. Various prominent Christians throughout history talked about it. Some Buddhists have said similar things. Modern philosophers have talked about it. It is evident in the attitudes of contemporary writers such as Karen Armstrong, Bart Ehrman, Joseph Campbell, Elaine Pagels, Chris Hedges, and Christian theologians as influential as Paul Tillich. Biologist, John Wathey, in his book, "The Illusion of God's Presence" explains in brilliant detail the evolutionary mechanisms that predispose humans to envisioning an anthropomorphic, all-knowing protector figure, which is what is probably dominating the imagery in the minds of believers, but that sub-conscious, or semi-conscious image is then reinforced by the combined influences of the natural world, and then manifested in the collective dreams, or mythologies of all peoples throughout human history, and in all locations that humans inhabit. It's not psychosis; it's normal human physiology and psychology.

It served our species well in the Pleistocene, but now that we are a global community, it is causing problems for us. That problem needs to be addressed by understanding its origins and reverse-engineering a well-tailored solution; not by snatching the world's security blanket from them and throwing the entire population into chaos. Religion may be a crutch, but crutch-kicking does not foster healing. Patience, learning, teaching, and relationship-building are the shortest and surest path to progress.

If "God", "Yahweh" or "Allah" makes sense to you, then why don't you describe the mental image that you think you, Christians, Jews and Muslims have for "God", "Yahweh" or "Allah"? Or if you've just realized that you don't really have any such mental image, then why not admit, as some have, that you really have none and are just like me in that respect?

@EdwinMcCravy I don't need to have an image of that which I don't believe in. I don't believe that a square circle exists precisely because I can form no image of it.

Verbal quibble? Indeed! Yes, if your lips are moving but you have no mental concept of anything you could be talking about, then you're only making sounds. That's what I accuse atheists of doing when they mouth the meaningless sound "I don't believe in God", what I accuse theists of doing when they mouth the meaningless sound "I believe in God" and what I accuse agnostics of doing when they mouth the meaningless sound "I don't know whether or not God exists. Yes, you might say I'm having a "verbal quibble" with people who think they're talking when they are only making sounds with their mouths.

Other than the fact that there is massive disagreement on what "God" means.

No I don't give up because you all have shown so clearly that you cannot describe anything that you can really believe that Christians, Jews and Muslims would label by the term "God", "Yahweh" or "Allah". Yet you fully believe that they can imagine something that they believe those terms refer to. It does indeed bother me that you think that you MUST believe on faith that "God", "Yahweh" and "Allah" are meaningful words. You MUST believe that I am wrong. You have a PSYCHOLOGICAL NEED to believe that theists have defined a deity which they believe in. You don't like me because I take away your nonexistent god. You have a NEED for them to have a god so you can disbelieve in it. I say you NEED to give up that NEED!

@EdwinMcCravy um, that's all in Your mind.....plus, who cares?

What ? Dragons aren't real ? Darn !

You know very well that Christians don't worship dragons, unicorns or wizards. So instead of talking about those very imaginable things, why don't you instead either (1) describe the mental image that think you have for "God", "Yahweh" or "Allah", or (2) admit that you have none and are just like me in that respect?

@EdwinMcCravy I'll refer to whatever I please and admit no such nonsense, thank you very much. The correlation is there plain as day for me to see, I cannot help that it is not for you. My overall point however, was that just because you cannot imagine a thing that you don't believe is real doesn't mean that others are unable to do so.

@Byrd You say you "admit NO such NONsense". See the double negative there -- NO and NON? So you're simply asserting (on faith?) that the terms "God", "Yahweh" and "Allah" are sensible, i.e., meaningful words. So why not describe the mental concept you claim to have for them? Either describe your mental concept for them, or else admit that you are just like me in that respect.

You say "they're "meaningful" words in that "God", "Yahweh" and "Allah" are just labels to communicate ideas that people are trying to get across." What ideas do you have mental images of that you think they're trying to get across? Or if you've just realized that you don't really have any such mental image for any ideas, then why not admit, as some have, that you really have none and are just like me in that respect?

@EdwinMcCravy The image of God is that of a "human-like" figure. It's an image based on what we have seen and know. That's all it can be being that we don't know what looks like something that we don't know and have never seen. So of course it will be familiar to us. It could be the same reason why aliens supposedly look the way they are described to look with the same amount of limbs as us with a sort of round head and two eyes etc. We base everything on what we have already seen and know which includes our own image. Haven't you seen the interpretation about what God COULD look like? The image of what people think "God" looks like is everywhere. Whether it's a valid interpretation is another issue, but it's there.....ad-nauseum. So yeah, nobody SHOULD have an idea of what "God's" image should look like. Like I have said before though, it's not falsifiable. If someone says they hear God or see God, how can you prove them wrong? I'm not saying they're right either.

@Piece2YourPuzzle You said "The image of God is that of a "human-like" figure". If you said that to a devout Christian, do you actually believe they'd say "Yes indeed, God is a human-like thing"? I don't believe they would at all. I believe they'd say something like "No, God is an invisible infinite incorporeal spirit that created everything except itself".

@EdwinMcCravy

@Piece2YourPuzzle I don't believe any Christians, Jews or Muslims would claim to worship that bearded man in the picture? Do you?

@EdwinMcCravy Their own versions, yes. I think they are very literal.

@Piece2YourPuzzle "Their own versions"??? Versions??? What "versions" do you claim to be talking about? Why do you believe there are anything to call "versions of God, Yahweh and Allah"? I don't believe there are anything to call that. Why do you believe there are?

@EdwinMcCravy I didn't say I believe anything about it. You might not believe it, but others might. That is meaningful to them. I am explaining that different groups might have different images of what they think a "God" is. Muslims might think "God" looks like they do whereas white Christians might think "God" has "white characteristics". Black people might think "God" resembles them more.

@Piece2YourPuzzle If you haven't been able to have any mental concept for "God", "Yahweh" or "Allah" by now then I think it takes a lot of faith for you to say "You might not believe it, but others might. That is, meaningful to them". Do you say that about "Fod"? How do you know somebody somewhere has a mental concept for "Fod"? lol.

@EdwinMcCravy See my response above.

@Piece2YourPuzzle I saw it, but I didn't see where you had describe even one mental concept for "God" that you believe Christians might have. Why don't you do that? Or if you can't, let's talk about why you can't.

@EdwinMcCravy Already did. Like I said, this is going nowhere. You've also ignored mental concepts of unicorns.

@Piece2YourPuzzle I would NEVER ignore my VERY VIVID mental concept of a unicorn. It's easy to describe: A unicorn is an animal that looks just like a horse except that it has a single sharp horn growing naturally out of its forehead. If Christians, Jews and Muslims said "God is a unicorn", then I would NEVER claim "God" is meaningless. But they don't. They say "God is the infinite, invisible, omnipresent, incorporeal spirit that created everything but himself." Now describe the mental concept you claim to have for a referent for that row of words. Thanks

@EdwinMcCravy Already did. It's not my problem that you don't accept it. Others have also stated it.

@Piece2YourPuzzle You have NOT, get it, NOT, even begun to describe any mental concept whatever for the terms "God", "Yahweh" and "Allah" that could possibly be acceptable to Christians, Jews or Muslims. My reasoning tells me that if you knew of any mental concept for them, you would have given it long ago. So what do you think I'm supposed to do, just ignore my reasoning powers like theists do and believe on faith that you know what you're talking about? Sorry, my brain won't allow me to do that. I think you know very well that you know of no mental concept for those terms but are too embarrassed to admit it.

@EdwinMcCravy Whatever you say.

You say "May the force be with me". What force? Gravity? How could a force like gravity be "with me"? May I not fall off a a cliff? lol. Do you claim to have any mental concept/imental image for anything you believe Christians mean by "God, the infinite omnipresent invisible spirit that created everything but itself?"

@EdwinMcCravy Nope none

@gigihein That's great! I just wanted to spread the news that Christians, Jews and Muslims DO NOT worship any god or deity at all, they just think they do and go through the motions as if they did. But, again, they DO NOT!! They CANNOT!! Why? because "designer and creator of the universe" is a meaningless row of words. Why is it a meaningless row of words? Because the words "designer" and "creator" can only be learned from cases of usage of them for designers and creators who are parts of the already existing universe. Also the things these designers and creators designed and created were also parts of the already existing universe. Thus "X designed and created Y" can only be learned as synonymous with "X is one part of the existing universe which designed and created another part of the existing universe known as Y". Therefore if it were true that "God designed and created the universe" were meaningful, it would be synonymous with "God is one part of the existing universe which designed and created another part of the existing universe known as the universe" which would also be meaningful. But that is surely meaningless!! Therefore, so is "God designed and created the universe". QED

You say "the existence or non existence of a God is irrelevant". What you don't realize is that is that it is meaningless to say "God exists", it's meaningless to say "God doesn't exist", and it's meaningless to say "God may or may not exist". The configuration of alphabet letters "God", "Yahweh", and "Allah" are meaningless, not words for for something that does not exist

>We don’t know much of anything except superficially

This brings us to how to prove meat loaf exists along with how do we know we exist?
Ultimately, we find the proof of our existence is "I think that I think, therefore I exist, I think."

Realize that language is a human invention so that one human can inform another human what he's thinking about. When you look at a word, don't ask "What does this word mean?" Instead ask "What did the early humans have in mind for this word to be used for?"

Instead of relying on myself about certainty or uncertainty in the world, why don't instead either (1) describe the mental image that think you have for "God", "Yahweh" or "Allah", or (2) admit that you have none and are just like me in that respect.

Instead of going into a discussion of words and language, why don't instead either (1) describe the mental image that think you have for "God", "Yahweh" or "Allah", or (2) admit that you have none and are just like me in that respect.

@EdwinMcCravy I think you completely missed the point of the comment.

Who cares? People who would like to rid humanity of all belief on faith, and that includes the faith that "God" refers to something that DOES NOT exist, something that DOES exist, or something to withhold judgment on the existence of. To refute me, simply describe your mental concept for the term "God".

@EdwinMcCravy i don't give a crap about gods or religions nor do I have any inkling to refute or even acknowledge your philisophical musings.

@Mofo1953 You say " i don't give a crap about gods..." What gods do you claim to have a mental concept of that you believe that Christians, Jews and Muslims worship that you don't give a crap about? If you have no such mental concept, then why not admit to yourself that you're just like me in that respect?

@EdwinMcCravy i don't because I don't give a crap about any gods or religions, knowing about them because I am a learned man and read a lot about everything there is to know that can be learned made me not give a crap about them, any of them, you choose, mithra, osiris, zeus, jupiter, odin, yehova, baal, isis, inti, allah, etc etc ad infinitum

But I want to know if you actually believe that Christians, Jews and Muslims have any mental image for "God", "Yahweh" and "Allah" If so, why don't you (1) describe the mental image that you think they have for "God", "Yahweh" or "Allah", or if you don't have one, then (2) admit that you have none and are just like me in that respect?

You said "...using the names they do for their deity...". Why do you believe that Christians, Jews and Muslims believe in a deity? Because they say they do? Of course they think they do, and say they do, but if they really do, don't you think you'd have been able to figure out what they meant by "God" by now so that you'd have a mental image of it?

Very well put but Evangelicals believe in a living god and they still have difference of opinion and interpretation.

@DenoPenno religion ,like Beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.

Yes will put indeed. But I also feel past that in the way, those who believe in a God or any gods model that character, in ways that is uncomfortable to me. To untruth for me!

I also claim to be an ignostic. You say "the word God, or any other word to describe a God [is] incomprehensible". What's the difference between "incomprehensible" and "meaningless"? Is there any difference? If so, what is that difference?

You say "incomprehensible", I say "meaningless". Do you think "incomprehensible" describes "God", "Yahweh" and "Allah" any better than "meaningless"? If so, why?

@EdwinMcCravy Actually, God describes incomprehensible because everything people don't understand they attribute to God. I like the quote from Neil Degrasse Tyson - "God is an ever receding pocket of scientific ignorance." Meaning that once you understand the truth about how it works it is no longer about God.

@CK-One What's the difference between saying 1. "everything people don't understand they attribute to God" -- and saying -- 2. "everything people don't understand they attribute to Jqpqrsztnqqwblq"? Isn't one just as meaningless as the other? If so why not admit it? Surely you wouldn't say the first one is meaningful but the second one is meaningless, would you?

@EdwinMcCravy To you it's supposedly meaningless, but maybe it's not as meaningless as you think because we are talking a lot about it. What others have a name and concept of, you seem to not have a name and concept of. Anything that is widely believed by billions of people is not meaningless. Even if it was just 1 person that believed it, it wouldn't be meaningless. Beliefs affect people in the "real world". The larger number of people with the same belief affects a larger number of people whether they believe the same or not. It obviously is also affecting you too. Attributing what people don't understand to a "God" is using a perceived meaning that fills a void that is not explainable to humans or our limited understanding of the issue. Could we know all eventually? Maybe. I don't think it's reasonable to have that expectation though. The concept of "God" is obviously meaningful to those people though. They have a perceived concept of "God", and not of "Jqpqrsztnqqwblq". If they chose to attach the name "Miglespat" to it then it would be that and not "God". It's just semantics. People could have assigned the name "apple" to describe what we call a "banana" and vice versa, and there would be no difference to society because the concept of those two things would still hold. Look at the different words different cultures use for the same items just in our own collective society. The Brits use the word "fag" and we use the word "cigarette". And yes, I know "God" isn't tangible like those things are, but neither is "love" or "worry" or "hatred", but we use those words anyway to convey a concept.

@Piece2YourPuzzle I agree fully that "Anything that is widely believed by billions of people is not meaningless.". Indeed theists DO believe that the terms "God", "Yahweh" and "Allah" are meaningful terms. You believe that they are too. However, believing that they are meaningful terms is NOT having a mental concept for them, nor showing that they really are meaningful terms For those terms to be meaningful requires that you have a mental concept for them. I don't know of any reason to believe that you have any mental concept for them. If you do, then why not describe your mental concept for them to shut me up? But if you don't, then admit it to yourself that you don't, and -- welcome to the club of theological noncognitivism (aka ignosticism and igtheism)!

@EdwinMcCravy So the only thing that would satisfy you is me agreeing with you. I don't. Plenty of people have a concept of God. Like I said, whether it's true or real or provable is another story. You don't seem to grasp that though. This conversation is going around in circles and no answer that doesn't agree with you will satisfy you. You keep saying people don't have a mental concept of God, but they clearly do. It's all over society, and you have seemed to just glance over it. People have a mental concept of a unicorn. So do you now accept that unicorns are real or at least that a person's mental concept of a unicorn is valid?

You speak of ""emotional meaning". You're falling for the logical error of equivocation. Don't do it! Emotional meaning is NOT meaning anymore than hot dogs are dogs.

@EdwinMcCravy Not talking about myself, but about theists. But, if you suggesting that theists equivocate, of course they do. If you are suggesting that emotion is not logical, of course it is not. But if you are also suggesting that people's emotions do not have any meaning for them, as illogical as they may be, then may I suggest that you do not understand much about human nature.

@Heraclitus We all know that theists are badly mistaken. Trouble is atheists and agnostics are badly mistaken too! Atheists and agnostics are badly mistaken about theists. They mistakenly believe that theists have defined the term "God" by saying the meaningless sentence "God is the thing that created everything besides God", but that purports to define the term "God" in terms of the term "God", which doesn't define anything at all. You can't define a term in terms of the term itself. So theists think they've defined something to worship when they haven't at all, but think they have. So they go through the motions as if they were worshiping something even though they have not defined anything to worship, but they think they have.. They have only fooled themselves, atheists and agnostics into thinking they worship something. But they don't fool theological noncognitivists. We're wise to theists' nonsensical language. You should be too. Remember there is a difference between "doesn't exist" and "makes no sense". Atheists have trouble distinguishing between them.

@EdwinMcCravy I have no trouble distinguishing between "doesn't exist" and "makes no sense" and the word "God" has no specific meaning to me.

@Heraclitus I'm not saying that theists equivocate, but that YOU do when you say "'God' has meaning because it has emotional meaning". That's like saying "I have a dog because I have a hot dog". Yes the word "emotion" is meaningful, it means that the heart races, the blood pressure rises, and a tight feeling comes in the chest, a feeling of awe and fear. However, Christians do not use "God" to mean that their heart races and a feeling of awe comes over them. What happens to them when they say or hear the sound "God" is NOT a meaning for the term "God". Realize that the term "God" (with a capital "G" ) is meaningless and not a word for something that does not exist.

@Heraclitus You say >> I have no trouble distinguishing between "doesn't exist" and "makes no sense" and the word "God" [capitalized] has no specific meaning to me.<< Do you think it has a NONSPECIFIC meaning? If so, what nonspecific meaning do you believe it has?

@EdwinMcCravy And I ask you what SPECIFIC meaning do you believe God has? There have been thousand of different definitions of god/God. There is no specific meaning to the word at all, just subjective individual definitions. Additionally, most are very vague definitions of a "being" with certain vague incomprehensible supernatural attributes.

@Heraclitus You say "There have been thousands of different definitions of "God", "Yahweh" and "Allah". [And please don't confuse the meaningful uncapitalized word "god" (which can stand for anything worshiped, even money) with the meaningless capitalized term "God".] OK, let's pick one of the "thousands" which you claim to have a mental concept of. Which one do you think, say, that Roman Catholics use that you have a mental concept of? AND -- please describe that mental concept to me so I can have it too. Thanks in advance.

@EdwinMcCravy First of all, by "god" I certainly don't mean something as trite as money. Polytheism generally refers to "gods" whereas monotheism refers to "God". But funny you should pick the Roman Catholic God. I was raised Roman Catholic, studied the concept of the Catholic Trinity extensively, and I still don't have a clear concept of it, and if I claimed I had, a Roman Catholic theologian would undoubtedly tell me that I was self-deceived because no mere mortal can clearly comprehend the Trinity. Perhaps the following Wikipedia (brief) definition of the Trinity, developed over the course of the past two thousand years and heavily stewed in ancient Greek philosophy, will give you an idea why:

The Christian doctrine of the Trinity (Latin: Trinitas, lit. 'triad', from Latin: trinus "threefold" )[1] holds that God is one God, but three coeternal consubstantial persons[2] or hypostases[3]—the Father, the Son (Jesus Christ), and the Holy Spirit—as "one God in three Divine Persons". The three Persons are distinct, yet are one "substance, essence or nature" (homoousion).[4] In this context, a "nature" is what one is, whereas a "person" is who one is.[5] Sometimes differing views are referred to as nontrinitarian. Trinitarianism contrasts with positions such as Binitarianism (one deity in two persons, or two deities) and Monarchianism (no plurality of persons within God), of which Modalistic Monarchianism (one deity revealed in three modes) and Unitarianism (one deity in one person) are subsets.
Homoousion (/ˌhɒmoʊˈuːsiən/; Greek: ὁμοούσιον, romanized: homooúsion, lit. 'same in being, same in essence', from ὁμός, homós, "same" and οὐσία, ousía, "being" or "essence" )[1][2] is a Christian theological term, most notably used in the Nicene Creed for describing Jesus (God the Son) as "same in being" or "same in essence" with God the Father (ὁμοούσιον τῷ Πατρί). The same term was later also applied to the Holy Spirit in order to designate him as being "same in essence" with the Father and the Son. Those notions became cornerstones of theology in Nicene Christianity, and also represent one of the most important theological concepts within the Trinitarian doctrinal understanding of God.[3]
Hypostasis ( Greek: ὑπόστασις ) is the underlying state or underlying substance and is the fundamental reality that supports all else. In Neoplatonism the hypostasis of the soul, the intellect (nous) and "the one" was addressed by Plotinus. In Christian theology, a hypostasis is one of the three hypostases (Father, Son, Holy Spirit) of the Trinity.[1]
While the developed doctrine of the Trinity is not explicit in the books that constitute the New Testament, the New Testament possesses a "triadic" understanding of God[6] and contains a number of Trinitarian formulas.[7] The doctrine of the Trinity was first formulated among the early Christians and fathers of the Church as early Christians attempted to understand the relationship between Jesus and God in their scriptural documents and prior traditions.[8]

Now if you can get a clear concept of God from that, I congratulate you!

@Heraclitus I notice that you didn't put quotation marks around "God". There is a big difference between saying this:

1. a concept of God,

and saying

2. a concept of a referent for the term (row of three alphabet letters) "God".

Please be aware of the difference. For clarification, take this analogy. My name is "Edwin". However I am not the row of five alphabet letters "E","d","w","i","n". That's what my name is. See what a huge difference quotation marks around a term make? When you leave off the quotation marks from around "God", then you're begging the question that "God" is a meaningful term. I am Edwin, not "Edwin". I don't say:

1. God is meaningless

for that itself is meaningless. I say instead.

2. "God" is meaningless.

The sentence 2 is NOT meaningless. Get it?

@EdwinMcCravy Not sure that I do really get it, though I think I get the gist of it.
First of all, I have often referred to "God" and when I have, I have not been referring to the simple addition of the three letters "G" and "O" and "D" though I have been referring to a concept(s) of God.
Now, if you mean that I did not use quotes around the word God when I said, "concept of God", of course I didn't because that would mean a concept of the concept of God would would be a redundancy. As for your second sentence being meaningless, that has been my point from the very beginning, so I am not really sure I get your point unless you are simply agreeing with me.

@Heraclitus You say that when you type or speak "God", that you are referring to "concept(s) of God". Then why the hell haven't you described even ONE thing that you label "a concept of God"? Do you expect me just to throw away my brain like a Christian and believe on pure blind faith that you know of anything you could be talking about by the label "concept(s) of God"?

@EdwinMcCravy I already have, of course, rather extensively in the RC Doctrine of the Trinity described earlier. Why do you ask questions and then not bother to read the answers unless you are simply arguing for argument's sake? (Now, that would constitute "throwing your brain away." ) I might also note that I have asked you for your specific definition for the meaning of God. To use your own words, why the hell haven't you described that? Further proof that you are not serious about this, are simply arguing for argument's sake, and have no real point to make.

@Heraclitus You say " I already have, of course, rather extensively [DESCRIBED a "God" in the RC Doctrine of the Trinity] described earlier". Maybe you think you have, but I think you haven't. I read that long spiel involving "essence", "person", and that meaningless word "divine". I know what a person is.
It's a human. But they aren't talking about any human!! You said "I still don't have a clear concept of it", but you didn't even give an UNclear concept of it! I cannot believe you have even the slightest fraction of any mental concept at all. What they do is write enough words following grammar rules that trick people into believing that their gobbledygook is meaningful. They even fool atheists and agnostics with it. The only people whom they can't fool are us theological noncognitivists (aka ignostics and igtheists)

@EdwinMcCravy First of all, a person is not necessarily a human. That is just one definition of a person. Per Merrian Webster dictionary a person can be:

: one of the three modes of being in the Trinitarian Godhead as understood by Christians

Secondly, I have no clear idea what you mean by something being not unclear because something that is not unclear is clear by definition. You are starting to speak gibberish yourself.

Thirdly, you once again have failed to provide a specific meaning of God. I suspect because you can't.

Finallly, I completely agree and assert again that such a definition of God that I discussed (and which you asked for) is nonsensical and completely fails to provide a clear concept of God to believe in. But, that is not my problem because I don't believe in it. Do you always argue with people who agree with you?!? Once again this proves you are simply a contrarian who argues solely for argument's sake even with people who agree with you.