The Million Dollar Question

[Fidel_Castronaut]

Nope.

I made no value judgement as the truth claims of the god(s).

Fair enough.

Merely stated a fact that every believer believes in a different version of whatever god it is they worship.

You’ve polled every believer concerning their definition of god?

No, only the ones that have told me their god is real and I should worship them/him/her/it etc.

It's easily testable. Like you said, ask anyone what their god 'is' and you'll get a different reply for every person you ask.

I do not believe that is the case at all; most Reformed Christians are going to define god exactly how the Westminster Confession of Faith does for example.

But like I said, faith is personal. You can share aspects of it, but many aspects can never be shared. Nobody knows the entirety of someone else's mind.

You could have the most consistent and comprehensive description of a god there is, including physical attributes (I don't know of this existing) but still people's beliefs regarding that god will differ. Every time, without fail. You even supported this in your initial response to me regarding children describing their father.

So when you ask if its relevant, I think it actually is the most truthful and accurate answer that can be given to the OP.

I am still not seeing the relevance. If I ask people to define a square for me, those who do not say it is a figure with four corners, right angles, and equal sides are just wrong. Their answer does not actually determine the definition. If someone tries to tell me that a god is defined as any person named Bill I am going to just come to the conclusion that they’re wrong.

I can't see how a square (with a very definite definition) is at all similar to a 'god' (whatever that is...which is the point). Besides, how do you know they're wrong in describing every Bill as a god? Maybe that's their definition or version of god? Maybe one of those Bill's is your god?

I go to you and ask if you're god is real, and you of course would answer yes. I go to any other person in time that has a different belief, be it major or minor, sect, or whatever, and ask them the same question, and I'll get the same response. As above, even in the same sect, the same family, the same household. Personal experiences differ, personal desires, wants, fears, hatreds. No two people are the same, so it stands to reason that their faith, however constructed, won't be the same either.

As to truth claims, well, I'll just say that tangible evidence is much better than no evidence at all.

What do you mean by tangible evidence?

Anything that is better than nothing at all?

[Statler Waldorf]

No, only the ones that have told me their god is real and I should worship them/him/her/it etc.

That seems to be a bit of a hasty generalization then.

But like I said, faith is personal. You can share aspects of it, but many aspects can never be shared. Nobody knows the entirety of someone else's mind.

Sure, but we’re simply talking about a definition here, and that can be shared.

You could have the most consistent and comprehensive description of a god there is, including physical attributes (I don't know of this existing) but still people's beliefs regarding that god will differ. Every time, without fail. You even supported this in your initial response to me regarding children describing their father.

I do not disagree with this I am merely trying to understand how it is relevant to the original question. If someone asks you, “What is an integer?” are you going to go on and on about how everyone is going to define an integer differently in their mind and no two mental conceptions are going to be completely identical or are you simply going to give them the actual definition?

I can't see how a square (with a very definite definition) is at all similar to a 'god' (whatever that is...which is the point). Besides, how do you know they're wrong in describing every Bill as a god? Maybe that's their definition or version of god? Maybe one of those Bill's is your god?

Definitions of terms matter; just as there is a correct definition for the term square so too is there a correct definition for a god. That same person could tell me that they are a married bachelor but I am not going to believe them because they are obviously messing one or both of the definitions for those terms up.

I go to you and ask if you're god is real, and you of course would answer yes. I go to any other person in time that has a different belief, be it major or minor, sect, or whatever, and ask them the same question, and I'll get the same response. As above, even in the same sect, the same family, the same household. Personal experiences differ, personal desires, wants, fears, hatreds. No two people are the same, so it stands to reason that their faith, however constructed, won't be the same either.

I still do not see how this is relevant to the original question.

Anything that is better than nothing at all?

Well like what?

[Fidel_Castronaut]

There is no singular definition of a 'god' though. That's the point. FWIW the OP only asked what a god 'is', of which a definition of attributes would only be part of it.

There is no singular definition because there is no singular belief. There are billions of believers who believe in an entirely different version of a god. They might belong to the same church, the same congregation. They might all have a picture given to them of a god, or given a definitive list of attributes. It doesn't matter, their beliefs surrounding that god will be different.

No definition can encompass that. Chad said 'object of devotion'. I'll go with that as it seems true.

Anyone can devote anything to anything. Anything in that instance can be a god.

You said "any supreme being that created the universe would fit the definition of being a god".

Why? According to who? You? What about people, theists, who disagree with you? Does creating a universe qualify you to be a god? Why? And how do you know?

You said too that there is a correct definition of a god. But I haven't seen one conducive to me reaching that conclusion. I don't think equating the definition of a square, or an integer, two very real and arguably tangible concepts, can be equated to that of a 'god', which I argue is the antithesis.

I still stick with my point; a god is whatever a believer wants it to be.

[lordofgemini]

" object of devotion "
+1

[Lemonvariable72]

There is no singular definition of a 'god' though. That's the point. FWIW the OP only asked what a god 'is', of which a definition of attributes would only be part of it.

There is no singular definition because there is no singular belief. There are billions of believers who believe in an entirely different version of a god. They might belong to the same church, the same congregation. They might all have a picture given to them of a god, or given a definitive list of attributes. It doesn't matter, their beliefs surrounding that god will be different.

No definition can encompass that. Chad said 'object of devotion'. I'll go with that as it seems true.

Anyone can devote anything to anything. Anything in that instance can be a god.

You said "any supreme being that created the universe would fit the definition of being a god".

Why? According to who? You? What about people, theists, who disagree with you? Does creating a universe qualify you to be a god? Why? And how do you know?

You said too that there is a correct definition of a god. But I haven't seen one conducive to me reaching that conclusion. I don't think equating the definition of a square, or an integer, two very real and arguably tangible concepts, can be equated to that of a 'god', which I argue is the antithesis.

I still stick with my point; a god is whatever a believer wants it to be.

Then I ask, what is supreme being.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

There is no singular definition of a 'god' though. That's the point. FWIW the OP only asked what a god 'is', of which a definition of attributes would only be part of it.

There is no singular definition because there is no singular belief. There are billions of believers who believe in an entirely different version of a god. They might belong to the same church, the same congregation. They might all have a picture given to them of a god, or given a definitive list of attributes. It doesn't matter, their beliefs surrounding that god will be different.

No definition can encompass that. Chad said 'object of devotion'. I'll go with that as it seems true.

Anyone can devote anything to anything. Anything in that instance can be a god.

You said "any supreme being that created the universe would fit the definition of being a god".

Why? According to who? You? What about people, theists, who disagree with you? Does creating a universe qualify you to be a god? Why? And how do you know?

You said too that there is a correct definition of a god. But I haven't seen one conducive to me reaching that conclusion. I don't think equating the definition of a square, or an integer, two very real and arguably tangible concepts, can be equated to that of a 'god', which I argue is the antithesis.

I still stick with my point; a god is whatever a believer wants it to be.

Then I ask, what is supreme being.

No idea.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

'What is a god?' is a tupp'ny ha'penny question.

The correct ANSWER is worth a million.

Boru

[Whateverist]

God: the object of a believer's devotion.

So you mean his wife? That's what all the god fuss is about?

And for the person who worships money above all else, money too is a god?

Aren't you smuggling in something undefined when you say a "believer"? If the answer is "a believer in god", the circle is complete and the definition put off forever.

[Neo-Scholastic]

God: the object of a believer's devotion.

So you mean his wife? That's what all the god fuss is about?

And for the person who worships money above all else, money too is a god?

Aren't you smuggling in something undefined when you say a "believer"? If the answer is "a believer in god", the circle is complete and the definition put off forever.

I didn't try to distinguish between possible true Gods or false gods (idols). Whatever a person loves above all else is his god.

[Lemonvariable72]

So you mean his wife? That's what all the god fuss is about?

And for the person who worships money above all else, money too is a god?

Aren't you smuggling in something undefined when you say a "believer"? If the answer is "a believer in god", the circle is complete and the definition put off forever.

I didn't try to distinguish between possible true Gods or false gods (idols). Whatever a person loves above all else is his god.

To be fair that is a cogent answer. However is that how other believers would also define it