You say ""God" means whatever you want it to mean". Do you actually thin that Christians say "God" means whatever you want it to mean? Or is that just something YOU say?

@EdwinMcCravy I don't think Christians say that out loud. It just looks to me as if that is the practice.

Several Christians I have talked to described "god" in very different ways. What he is, what he wants, whether he really is a he... etc.
In my experience with religious folks, "god" has no fixed meaning.

Really, who in this world has the authority to decide your version of "god" is false? Interpretation is how we have ended up with so many denominations.

Most people claim that the meaning is the use or the usage rule. Do you believe their usage for "God", "Yahweh", AND "Allah" is to refer to something? If so, please describe the "something" it is used to refer to -- not just tell what it does or did.

@EdwinMcCravy The point is that you have to ask them that, since the point of the usage rule is that every user has a different usage, and that therefore every believer has a different god.
In the post with genessa below, you state that you know exactly what a unicorn is when someone uses the word, actually no you don't. When someone uses the word unicorn the picture that you will have in your mind will be quite different from the one they have in theirs, and the one in mine. As will the picture of a thing which really does exist, such as elephant. That is the nature of all words not just god, that they are only vague and the details are different with usage.

And the whole point of god is that it is perhaps impossible to define, even more than most words, ( except perhaps that other joke word "spiritual" ). Since that enables the believer to evade all need to prove the existence of god by simply redefining it when challeged, and to attract the widest support, (holy books are usually valued exactly because they are vague and can mean anything,) if you fail to see that then you fall into their trap. Atheism is perhaps more the opposition to poor definition than anything else.

@Fernapple You say "And the whole point of god is that it is perhaps impossible to define". First of all it's not the very meaningFUL word "god", but the meaningLESS word "God", as written by theists that we are discussing here. So I assume you mean "And the whole point of 'God' is that it is perhaps impossible to define. The confusion between the meaningful word "god" and the meaningless word "God" is why I have always been sticking in "Yahweh" and "Allah", because there is no confusion between "Yahweh" and "yahweh", or "Allah" and "allah".

@Fernapple Can you describe any mental concept that you believe just might be a mental image that theists believe the terms "God", "Yahweh" and "Allah" stand for? If you can't then let's talk about why you can't. OK?

@EdwinMcCravy I can't for the very simple reason that theists do not intend that anyone can. It is the oldest way to sell a con-trick in the book. Never say or make plain what you intend or mean, let the victim work at it and come to their own wrong conclusions, they will then be all the more convinced because they think that they have worked it out for themselves, and if critisism or doubts are offered by anyone, then the conman can simply step back and say. "That is not what I meant." That idea applies whatever name you give to god, and is the whole point of how a good con works.

If I wish to be specific then I often choose words such as 'god of the bible' though even that could mean a lot of different things, since it is almost certainly a different god in each book of the bible. But more often I choose an even more vague word such as supernatural, since if you want to combat vague then you must be plain that it is the vague you mean.

There is no such thing as a unicorn either, but if somebody tells me they believe in unicorns I know exactly what they believe in. But if they tell me "I believe in God" or "I believe in Shekinah" or "I believe in Allah", they may as well say "I believe in Knqjropcinu" or "I believe in Zxcvbnm, or not even say anything at all. I claim that Christians, Jews and Muslims do not believe in a god at all, for they haven't defined one to believe in, but falsely believe they have defined one anyway, and falsely believe they are worshiping one. They go through the motions and feel the same emotions as if they were worshiping one, and think they are. But they're not. They're only fooling themselves..

@EdwinMcCravy so your problem is you've seen a picture of a unicorn but you don't understand the word "shekinah." so look it up. just because YOU don't know the definition don't assume there IS no definition. your claim is ridiculous.

g

@genessa I've looked "God" up. I found this row of words written by some lexicographer, probably a theist::

1. (in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.

Now, how can I go from that row of words to get a mental concept for "God"?

@EdwinMcCravy so who says you have to? anyway, religious groups don't actually use dictionaries to define their gods. i answered your question and suddenly you're asking me about dictionaries. i have not written any dictionaries. you asked for a description, not a definition.

g

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.

@EdwinMcCravy some people believe in zeus. he is a bearded fellow who lives on top of a mountain and occasionally comes down to where humans live, disguises himself as something or other, and rapes innocent women, who then bear him demigods. his major characteristic, which he shares with all gods, is being totally fictional. do i know him personally? no, since he's fictional. have you really never heard of him? he was quite popular a couple millennia ago.

g

@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

Why do I post the same thing? I do that in hopes or jarring the brains of some people on here to either (1) describe the mental image they think they have for "God", "Yahweh" or "Allah", or (2) admit that they have none and are just like me in that respect. That's why.

@EdwinMcCravy I think you WILL find that the vast majority of people on this site and associated groups do NOT need their brains ' jarred' simply because we use them far more frequently and continuously that certain others, who shall remain unnamed, could ever hope to do, that, Sir, is the Prime reason why we are Atheists in the first place, i.e. because we have learned to THINK, to read and digest such things as the bible, etc, then to dissect it down to its minutest pieces, weigh up its Pros and Cons then decide for ourselves rather than blindly following along with the 'flock' to await being shorn ( fleeced) by some coercive 'shepherd.'

@Triphid You say you use "God", "Yahweh" and "Allah" frequently and continuously? Then why didn't you describe what you use them frequently and continuously for? Personally, I think you're just like me in that you have no mental concept of anything that "God", "Yahweh" or "Allah" could stand for. I think you don't really use them frequently and continuously for anything at all. You might utter them or write them, but you don't have any mental concept of anything "God", "Yahweh" or "Allah" could stand for. If you did, you'd be able to describe it to me.

@EdwinMcCravy Sir, I REFER only to the Imaginary, Invisible Deity/Deities when commenting about the utter ridiculous nature, etc, of religions as do most Atheists here and elsewhere in the world.
Such 'Supreme' Entities DO NOT exist anywhere EXCEPT in the minds and imaginings of those who, imho, are incapable of grasping/ surviving in Reality without some form of Crutch, i.e. Religious Belief.
Now, PLEASE, do yourself and everyone else a HUGE favour and stop beating this dead horse.

@Mb_Man Can you DESCRIBE your mental image for the terms "God", "Yahweh" and "Allah"? If you can, then please do so. But if you can't, then why not admit to yourself that you're just like me in that respect?

Since you believe (on faith?) that "God", "Yahweh" or "Allah". have meaning, why don't you describe the mental image of the meaning that you think they 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?

Your words "I just don't think any human being AT THIS STAGE IN OUR EVOLUTION has any idea what that ("God" ) might mean". My question to you is: Why do you think "God" might mean anything at all?

@EdwinMcCravy I'm saying MAYBE we'll have a better idea of the nature of things later.
As for now, we all have mental images of what those words MEAN. It's a faulty, bogus meaning, but it's there. Lots of atheists like to laugh at images pink polka-dotted dragons, but your mind instantly conjures up an image of it, even though it doesn't exist. But that image has no MEANING. A word like 'Yahweh' though, does have a meaning attached. It's a false meaning, but it's there, and I think it should be acknowledged. It's a curse created by our upbringing, education, conditioning, training, whatever you want to call it. It has to be faced and resisted every day.

@EdwinMcCravy Because I'm agnostic. You're atheist. I said "might," not "does." It might mean something, it might not, in my view. You, on the other hand, are SURE it means nothing. To each his own.

@Storm1752 You say "As for now, we all have mental images of what those words MEAN. You say "It's a faulty, bogus meaning, but it's there." What faulty bogus mental images are you claiming to have of what Christians, Jews and Muslims mean by "God", "Yahweh" and "Allah"? I claim that if you REALLY had any mental images image of what Christians, Jews and Muslims meant by those terms, you would have described that mental image to prove that you do. But since you didn't describe anything they could mean by them, I must call your bluff.

@EdwinMcCravy Huh? YOU don't have mental images? Well, "Yahweh" is that Old Testament god with the long gray-white beard, right? And the flowing white robe?
We all know what "Jesus" looks like: white guy with long brown hair, short beard, dreamy eyes...
"Allah's" a little trickier: I see some big, burly dude with black hair and beard, like your typical terrorist, maybe.

@Storm1752 Do you believe that Christians, Jews and Muslims worship something with a long gray-white beard and the flowing white robe? I don't believe you believe that. I also don't believe you believe that Muslims say that the term "Allah" refers to some big, burly dude with black hair and beard, like your typical terrorist. Since you really do not have any mental image of anything those theists could mean by "God", "Yahweh" or "Allah", then why not admit that you don't have any mental concept for those terms?

@EdwinMcCravy Because though they are ridiculous images that's what comes to mind. Never really thought much of what 'Allah' might "look like" but I always have had some vague idea Muslims imagine "Allah" looks like Muhammed, or at least THINK of Muhammed when they think of "Allah!" After all, some image has to come to mind.
I don't think if "god" DID exist "god" would look like ANYTHING.
I'll now have to go back and read the whole discussion to figure out what your point is. Mine is very simple: our education, upbringing, and conditioning and/or whatever else you want to call it remains with us even after we have consciously rejected the substance of what we were trained to believe. One of the things so useful about a site like this is the counter-programming it affords.

@EdwinMcCravy Btw, yes I DO believe Jews think of a guy with a beard and robe when they think of Yahweh. Christians think of all those portraits of "Christ." Muslims? Yeah, I think some image comes to mind. Ask THEM what or who it looks like! I guess Muhammed.

Yes, but this is the "Philosopher's God" and any religion goes considerably beyond any such simplified definition and they disagreed massively among themselves. Secondly, the Philosopher's God does not define what kind of a "being" this might be. An undefined "being" is not much of a definition. Thirdly, this is really just a list of supposed perfect attributes that has resulted in unending debates as to what these attributes really mean and how they can even exist logically in a single "being" without contradiction, such the "If God is good He is not God (omnipotent). If God is God (omnipotent) He is not good" argument., not to mention reconciling omniscience with free will.

Maybe you have blind faith in philosophers. If so please give it up. The logical positivists were wrong but only because they thought they could PROVE that "God" is a meaningless word with their flawed "verification principle". They were right that "God" is meaningless but wrong that they could PROVE it philosophically. The way you prove that nobody has any mental concept for "God" is to ask people to describe their mental concept for the term "God". You will notice that I've asked everybody on here to describe their mental concept for the term "God". But as you can see, nobody on here has even come close to describing any mental concept for the term "God". So there is no reason that I know of to believe that anybody has any mental concept for the term "God". For surely somebody on here could have come up with one, instead of failing to give one, but instead, criticizing me for asking people to give one.

@EdwinMcCravy The concept of God I have in mind when I claim to be agnostic is that of an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent being. This is what I said is the orthodox, theistic concept in the earlier post. I'm not sure why this doesn't satisfy you. I wonder if you are looking for a "mental image," like one can have a mental image of a square or a patch of blue. If so, please note that such images are not concepts: one can have concepts of squareness or blueness, but not images of these. Peace.

@Heraclitus I'm not sure of your point. Are you saying this definition is in not what the orthodox concept is, or that the orthodox concept is inadequate? Or both? (Or neither?)

@Wallace You said the "concept of God" you have in mind when you claim to be an agnostic is that of an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent being". That only tells what you say they do. Can you describe the being that can do them? Or can you only tell what "it" --(if you had any "it" to be talking about)-- can do or does? Realize that saying what something "can do" or what something "does" is not saying what something "is". Is the something finite in size? They wouldn't allow that. They'd say "God is infinite". What do you believe they believe "it" is made out of? Flesh and bones? I don't. I don't believe anything they OR YOU can imagine is anything they'd label "God". I think you're just like me in that you can't think of anything they'd call "God" either.

@Wallace I am saying both that the definition is inadequate and that I know of no religion that holds that “God is a being that is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent” and only that.

@Heraclitus I certainly agree that there is more to every theist’s concept of God than just these three characteristics, and surely if an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent being were to exist it would have (infinitely?) many more characteristics than these. What theists claim instead is that these are the definitive characteristics—i.e., that a being is God if and only if it possesses these, regardless of what its other characteristics are. Likewise, for example, a square could be defined as an equilateral rectangle. That is, being rectangular and having sides of equal length are the characteristics that make a plane figure a square because all squares and only squares have these. However, all squares have other properties, too, such as size, position, location, color, etc., but these are not definitive (because what these are vary from square to square), so they are not part of the concept defined. Hope this helps make sense of the orthodox theistic definition.

@EdwinMcCravy I can appreciate the distinction between what something IS and what it DOES although, I suppose you are aware, that many (for example, the Pragmatists) contend this is a false distinction. They would say, for example, that our concept of what force, energy, causality, etc., IS is exhausted in terms of our understanding of what these things DO and some would extend this to the concept of God. Also many (Hume, Kant, and others) contend no one has a concept at all of what anything really IS in itself. That is we have no concept of matter or mind or personhood and so on and on. But rather than pursue this distinction let me offer Freud’s suggestion as to the origin of the God-concept and see if you think it sheds any light on the subject. According to him, our concept of God is our concept of our father-image having all of its weaknesses imagined away. That is, one’s father is strong, but he is not strong enough to do some things; so when you imagine this weakness away—so that he can do anything—you get omnipotence. Also he is very knowledgeable, but he doesn’t know everything; so when you imagine all his ignorance away you get omniscience. And he is very good, but not morally perfect; so you get omnibenevolence when his moral imperfection is imagined away. What you have left is the concept of a Person who is omni-, omni, omni. (Of course, he would not be made of flesh and bones because these would be a limitation—a weakness.) Still there remains the question as to what the personhood (of the personal God) is, but presumably it is the same as the personhood of one’s father.
Sidenote: I think your challenge to the agnostic & atheist to advance a meaningful concept for “God” deserves to be taken very seriously. I’ve tried to state what satisfies my view of the matter but I understand that you may feel I have missed your point—and, of course, maybe I have. But anyway, kind regards.

Yes, I understand the orthodox theistic definition, as you call it. But, I am not just saying it is incomplete, I am also saying that it is logically inadequate as thousands of years of philosophical and theological debate about the nature of this God has proven.