The Million Dollar Question

[Neo-Scholastic]

You asked what "a God" was not "the true God." The biblical answer is that God is Love.

[Lemonvariable72]

You asked what "a God" was not "the true God." The biblical answer is that God is Love.

So love commands me to stone gay people? Dude your fucked up.

[MJ the Skeptical]

God is Love.

God is love...
Oh wait, shit, wrong adjective.

Also, If God is love, did I make god last night with my girlfriend?

[Heliocentrism]

God is the antigram of dog without meaning
God is the one syllable word before someone says "damn it"
God is believed to be the origin of everything (in other words we haven't a clue as to the nature of existence).

[Whateverist]

You asked what "a God" was not "the true God." The biblical answer is that God is Love.

So long as you're defining gods as completely relative to each individual with no independent existence apart from the subjective states of that individual we may just agree.

When you say "the true God" you appear to be speaking of what one ought to love most .. namely love itself? Put this way, God does appear to be contingent upon the subjective states of individuals. So I assume you would agree that God did not literally create the universe for us to dwell in.

Indeed the situation is exactly the opposite. God is an itinerant psychological state who exists only in he who invites him in. God has no place to offer now or later in heaven. Heaven would also be a psychological state rather than an actual place, seemingly eternal from the perspective of he who has invited God in. But actually as fleeting as every other psychological state.

[LostLocke]

You asked what "a God" was not "the true God." The biblical answer is that God is Love.

I have a relative I love.
Therefore I am God?

[Statler Waldorf]

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?

No, according to the dictionary which is where we get our definitions of terms from. Creating the Universe goes with being a supreme being, any being that did not create the Universe would itself be a contingent being and would by definition not be supreme and therefore not be a god.

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.

Squares and integers are abstract mathematical concepts and are not tangible at all.

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

Well allow me to push this point then. You claim to be an atheist; so this means you do not believe in the existence of anything at all right? Since you are asserting that a god could be defined as anything, by believing in the non-existence of all gods you’d have to therefore claim to not believe anything exists. The Earth, the Sun, you, me, dogs, cats, atoms, energy, the Universe, mosquitos, trees, and so on; you believe that none of it exists because any of it could fit the definition of a god correct?

Then I ask, what is supreme being.

You do not know what the word “supreme” and “being” mean or what?

So love commands me to stone gay people? Dude your fucked up.

Where does the Bible command you to stone someone for being gay?

God is Love.

God is love...

Why would God not have the right to destroy what he has created? You skipped a few steps there.

So long as you're defining gods as completely relative to each individual with no independent existence apart from the subjective states of that individual we may just agree.

When you say "the true God" you appear to be speaking of what one ought to love most .. namely love itself? Put this way, God does appear to be contingent upon the subjective states of individuals. So I assume you would agree that God did not literally create the universe for us to dwell in.

Indeed the situation is exactly the opposite. God is an itinerant psychological state who exists only in he who invites him in. God has no place to offer now or later in heaven. Heaven would also be a psychological state rather than an actual place, seemingly eternal from the perspective of he who has invited God in. But actually as fleeting as every other psychological state.

I always find it so interesting that secularists will accept nearly anything as long as it’s not the Biblical God. That just strengthens my belief that it is indeed the Biblical God who exists.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

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?

No, according to the dictionary which is where we get our definitions of terms from. Creating the Universe goes with being a supreme being, any being that did not create the Universe would itself be a contingent being and would by definition not be supreme and therefore not be a god.

Creating the universe seems like a small and pitiful thing compared to a being that can supposedly do anything/everything.

What about people who define god as simply an element, such as rainfall, or sunlight.

Why is your definition more worthy than theirs? I've seen nothing to sway me that you're right and they're wrong. Indeed, I've even seen rain, and felt the warmth of the sun in my skin.

Tangible.

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.

Squares and integers are abstract mathematical concepts and are not tangible at all.

Much more tangible than a personal definition of a god. I can work with the philosophical concept and results of an integer.

I have no concept or understanding of what a god is. Never have, and it's likely to stay that way.

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

Well allow me to push this point then. You claim to be an atheist; so this means you do not believe in the existence of anything at all right? Since you are asserting that a god could be defined as anything, by believing in the non-existence of all gods you’d have to therefore claim to not believe anything exists. The Earth, the Sun, you, me, dogs, cats, atoms, energy, the Universe, mosquitos, trees, and so on; you believe that none of it exists because any of it could fit the definition of a god correct?

No.

I'm not saying a god can't be defined as anything. Quite the opposite. I'm saying a god can, and indeed is described as everything. It depends entirely on the believer.

There is no such thing as a universally defined god.

And you're also wrong. I believe that lots of things exist as an atheist. I've just never been convinced that a 'god' (whatever that is) is one of those things.

Atheism = lack of belief in a deity. I've been an atheist since the second I was born. I don't believe in the non-existance of all gods. That doesn't make any sense. I don't even know what 'all gods' there are.

[Statler Waldorf]

Creating the universe seems like a small and pitiful thing compared to a being that can supposedly do anything/everything.

I find it rather impressive myself.

What about people who define god as simply an element, such as rainfall, or sunlight.

If we considered that to be a legitimate definition for a god then you’d not be an atheist since you believe in the existence of both. I can claim that my dog is a cat but it does not make it so.

Why is your definition more worthy than theirs? I've seen nothing to sway me that you're right and they're wrong. Indeed, I've even seen rain, and felt the warmth of the sun in my skin.

It’s not my definition. It’s the dictionary’s, and that’s the entire point. It’s logically fallacious for a person to redefine terms in a self-serving manner.

Tangible.

Intangible things still have proper definitions.

Much more tangible than a personal definition of a god. I can work with the philosophical concept and results of an integer.

There’s such a thing as theology.

I have no concept or understanding of what a god is. Never have, and it's likely to stay that way.

I do not completely understand what an imaginary number is, but that does not mean it does not have a proper definition or that each person is allowed to subjectively create their own definition for it. 1 is not an imaginary number, the square root of -1 is. Anyone who says the opposite is simply wrong.

No.

I'm not saying a god can't be defined as anything. Quite the opposite. I'm saying a god can, and indeed is described as everything. It depends entirely on the believer.

That’s my point; so as an atheist you do not believe that anything actually exists? Since everything can be defined as a god and you do not believe in the existence of any gods you therefore do not believe that any one thing exists right?

P. Gods do not exist
P2. Everything is a god
C. Therefore, everything does not exist.

There is no such thing as a universally defined god.

Sure there is, I already gave you the definition for the term.

And you're also wrong. I believe that lots of things exist as an atheist. I've just never been convinced that a 'god' (whatever that is) is one of those things.

You said that the definition of the term “god” is determined by those who believe in it, so if you believe cats exist and as long as one person believes cats are gods according to your reasoning you would now be a theist and not an atheist.

Atheism = lack of belief in a deity. I've been an atheist since the second I was born. I don't believe in the non-existance of all gods. That doesn't make any sense. I don't even know what 'all gods' there are.

Well that’s not the actual definition of the term atheism, but I will play along.

How do you know you lack a belief in a deity if you do not know what a deity is? Perhaps it’s a cat? You believe in cats don’t you? You see my point?

[Lemonvariable72]

No I understand the dictionary terms supreme and being, but when someone asks what is a god, calling a supreme being is really a non answer because your not defining what it is. It is not like your calling god a toaster, which is something that is tangible and well defined. The reason I ask what is a god is because the term is so poorly defined that, and calling it a supreme being doesn't help