(May 6, 2014 at 1:36 pm)Lemonvariable72 Wrote: What is a God?

What is God is the $64,000 question.

The million dollar question is: Who made God?

Me of course! I'm God.

(May 11, 2014 at 5:29 pm)Confused Ape Wrote: It depends which religion you're talking about.

The Major Olympians

Quote:Zeus - King of the gods and ruler of Mount Olympus; god of the sky, and thunder

He was a supreme being in the sense that he was the chief god but there were other gods in the Major Olympian group - Poseidon, Apollo, Ares, Hephaestus, Hermes and Dionysus. The other deities in the group were goddesses. These weren't the only Greek deities either.

No the definition would still apply, each of those gods or goddesses were supreme in one attribute or domain.

(May 12, 2014 at 10:26 am)FifthElement Wrote: Observable Universe, and by that I mean MATTER in motion which we CAN observe indeed had a beginning, in terms of our own logic that is (where concept of time is fundamental, without it we would not be able to comprehend anything at all).

Steady State Theory defends notion that MATTER in the Universe is eternal.

If the Universe is absolutely everything that can possibly be, was and is, than great beyond which OUR (and all other possible ones) universe(s) arose from could very well be eternal and that in itself is a steady state, on a quantum level (eternal foam, lol) of course

Are you arguing for the Landscape now?

(May 12, 2014 at 1:38 pm)Lemonvariable72 Wrote: Thats a terrible comparison because the definition of a integer and a numeral are internal coherent and if ask anyone with any education on the subject. Now your definition is a supreme, and that falters unless you wonna say pagans never worshipped gods. You also may want to inform your fellow theists of this definition as they don't seem to understand.

How is the definition of an integer internally coherent? You’ll have to elaborate because to me it’s an abstract concept. I see no problem with the Dictionary’s definition for a god; a supreme being makes perfect sense.

You’re an atheist right? What do you lack a belief in?

(May 12, 2014 at 2:42 pm)downbeatplumb Wrote: A number or integer can be representative of actual things:

I have one sheep oh look there is another sheep that makes two sheep.

Wait, how do you know that you had one sheep and that you now have two sheep?

Quote: We can think of the integer as a box that contains the value of the amount of sheep we have.

We can think of the term god as a box that contains the name of the Supreme Being we believe in.

Quote: No that's not how it works.

Here is what you have just said in essence.

If you can't adequately describe what a god is, we should believe in it.

This is a false line of reasoning based on the assumption that non-belief has to include total knowledge of the thing you don't believe in.

That is not what I am saying at all. I am saying that if you cannot define what a god is then you cannot claim to lack a belief in it. If I do not know what a “Zaboom” is then I cannot say I have never seen one because it could be a synonym for something that I have seen. If you cannot define the term god then you cannot say you lack a belief in gods.

Quote: Look there's a Gargle Snark! you have to believe it exists Waldorf because you don't know all of its properties.

Precisely! I cannot claim to lack a belief in Gargle Snark because it may be just another word for something that I do believe in.

At best you could claim to be some form of weak agnostic because you do not know what the term god means and you may actually believe in the existence of one and just not know it.

(May 12, 2014 at 4:42 pm)Deepthought Wrote: The million dollar question is: Who made God?

Why would a non-contingent being require a maker?

The definition of a integer is consistent because it doesn't change, the definition of god changes with nearly every person. Also the definition of calling g it a supreme being falters as well because a supreme being is so vague.

(May 12, 2014 at 4:45 pm)BrokenQuill92 Wrote: Me of course! I'm God.

So, you're responsible for the genocides in the bible?

Bad, BQ! BAD!

*Smack on nose*

(May 12, 2014 at 6:20 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote:

(May 12, 2014 at 4:42 pm)Deepthought Wrote: The million dollar question is: Who made God?

Why would a non-contingent being require a maker?

Why would we? I don't feel contingent .. do you?

(May 12, 2014 at 6:20 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: No the definition would still apply, each of those gods or goddesses were supreme in one attribute or domain.

Okay, let's use that definition.

The Egyptian Ra

Quote:Ra /rɑː/[1] or Re /reɪ/ (Egyptian: ?ꜥ, rˤ) is the ancient Egyptian solar deity. By the Fifth Dynasty (2494 to 2345 BC) he had become a major god in ancient Egyptian religion, identified primarily with the midday sun.

All forms of life were believed to have been created by Ra, who called each of them into existence by speaking their secret names. Alternatively humans were created from Ra's tears and sweat, hence the Egyptians call themselves the "Cattle of Ra."

So, he was a sun god and a creator but he wasn't supreme in the creation domain because -

Quote:Amun was a member of the Ogdoad, representing creation energies with Amaunet, a very early patron of Thebes. He was believed to create via breath, and thus was identified with the wind rather than the sun.

Eventually -

Quote:As the cults of Amun and Ra became increasingly popular in Upper and Lower Egypt respectively they were combined to create Amun-Ra, a solar creator god. It is hard to distinguish exactly when this combination happened, but references to Amun-Ra appeared in pyramid texts as early as the fifth dynasty. The most common belief is that Amun-Ra was invented as a new state deity by the Theban rulers of the New Kingdom to unite worshipers of Amun with the older cult of Ra around the 18th dynasty.[10]

If Ra had been real he would have suffered something of an identity crisis because he was merged with other gods as well. For example -

Quote:Khepri was a scarab beetle who rolled up the sun in the mornings, and was sometimes seen as the morning manifestation of Ra. Similarly, the ram-headed god Khnum was also seen as the evening manifestation of Ra. The idea of different deities (or different aspects of Ra) ruling over different times of the day was fairly common, but variable. With Khepri and Khnum taking precedence over sunrise and sunset, Ra often was the representation of midday when the sun reached its peak at noon. Sometimes different aspects of Horus were used instead of Ra's aspects.

We mustn't forget Aten.

Quote:Aten (also Aton, Egyptian jtn) is the disk of the sun in ancient Egyptian mythology, and originally an aspect of Ra.

The solar Aten was extensively worshipped as a god in the reign of Amenhotep III, when it was depicted as a falcon-headed man much like Ra. In the reign of Amenhotep III's successor, Amenhotep IV, the Aten became the central god of Egyptian state religion, and Amenhotep IV changed his name to Akhenaten to reflect his close link with the new supreme deity.[1]

The full title of Akhenaten's god was "Ra-Horakhty who rejoices in the horizon, in his Name as the Light which is in the sun disc." (This is the title of the god as it appears on the numerous stelae which were placed to mark the boundaries of Akhenaten's new capital at Akhetaten, modern Amarna.) This lengthy name was often shortened to Ra-Horus-Aten or just Aten in many texts, but the god of Akhenaten raised to supremacy is considered a synthesis of very ancient gods viewed in a new and different way. The god is also considered to be both masculine and feminine simultaneously. All creation was thought to emanate from the god and to exist within the god. In particular, the god was not depicted in anthropomorphic (human) form, but as rays of light extending from the sun's disk.

The Egyptians weren't ready for this. After Akhenaten's reign Ra went back to being the version of Ra they preferred.

So, let's try this as a definition - a deity is a supernatural being whose attributes and domain depend on whatever the theology of the time is.

(May 6, 2014 at 1:36 pm)Lemonvariable72 Wrote: What is a God?

Before I answer....I want to know who's putting up the million....and what guarantee do I have of payment?

(May 12, 2014 at 6:20 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote:

Quote: No that's not how it works.

Here is what you have just said in essence.

If you can't adequately describe what a god is, we should believe in it.

This is a false line of reasoning based on the assumption that non-belief has to include total knowledge of the thing you don't believe in.

That is not what I am saying at all. I am saying that if you cannot define what a god is then you cannot claim to lack a belief in it. If I do not know what a “Zaboom” is then I cannot say I have never seen one because it could be a synonym for something that I have seen. If you cannot define the term god then you cannot say you lack a belief in gods.

Quote: Look there's a Gargle Snark! you have to believe it exists Waldorf because you don't know all of its properties.

Precisely! I cannot claim to lack a belief in Gargle Snark because it may be just another word for something that I do believe in.

At best you could claim to be some form of weak agnostic because you do not know what the term god means and you may actually believe in the existence of one and just not know it.

Again no.

Theists inability to totally define a god allows them to constantly move the goal posts so they can continue with their delusions.

It is a ploy to not present us with a solid thing that we can disprove instead, you shuffle the definition around, make excuses and then say that's metaphorical when the evidence is too much.

I am not an atheist because your theism lacks the ability to define god , I am an atheist because the whole concept is laughably childlike and stupid.

(May 12, 2014 at 9:21 pm)Lemonvariable72 Wrote: The definition of a integer is consistent because it doesn't change, the definition of god changes with nearly every person. Also the definition of calling g it a supreme being falters as well because a supreme being is so vague.

I am sure that if I asked 100 people on the street to define an integer I’d get nearly 100 different definitions.

How is a supreme being vague?

As an atheist what do you lack a belief in?

(May 13, 2014 at 12:54 am)whateverist Wrote: Why would we? I don't feel contingent .. do you?

Sure I do, there are thousands of factors that make my initial and continued existence possible.

(May 13, 2014 at 11:48 am)Confused Ape Wrote: Okay, let's use that definition.

Good.

Quote:So, he was a sun god and a creator but he wasn't supreme in the creation domain because -

He was the Supreme Being in the Sun domain so the definition still applies.

Quote:Eventually -

…..

If Ra had been real he would have suffered something of an identity crisis because he was merged with other gods as well. For example –

This is irrelevant, the conception of Ra as the Supreme Being of the Sun was combined with Amun-the Supreme Being of the wind- to form another Supreme Being called Amun-Ra. The definition still applies. All you are proving is that Egyptian theology was not very well thought out and does not make much sense.

Quote:Khepri was a scarab beetle who rolled up the sun in the mornings, and was sometimes seen as the morning manifestation of Ra. Similarly, the ram-headed god Khnum was also seen as the evening manifestation of Ra. The idea of different deities (or different aspects of Ra) ruling over different times of the day was fairly common, but variable. With Khepri and Khnum taking precedence over sunrise and sunset, Ra often was the representation of midday when the sun reached its peak at noon. Sometimes different aspects of Horus were used instead of Ra's aspects.

Again a very muddled theology which is bound to happen when people create their own gods, I am not sure how you think that’d change the definition of a god.

Quote: So, let's try this as a definition - a deity is a supernatural being whose attributes and domain depend on whatever the theology of the time is.

No, that’d only apply to created gods; it would not apply to Yahweh. The definition I cited applies to false and real gods.

(May 13, 2014 at 12:48 pm)downbeatplumb Wrote: Again no.

Theists inability to totally define a god allows them to constantly move the goal posts so they can continue with their delusions.

Christians have had a very consistent definition for a very long time now so that is just factually incorrect.

Quote: It is a ploy to not present us with a solid thing that we can disprove instead, you shuffle the definition around, make excuses and then say that's metaphorical when the evidence is too much.

Have you been reading this thread? It’s been me-the Christian here-who has been arguing for a set definition for the term god. The people trying to argue that there is no actual definition for that term have all been atheists.

Quote: I am not an atheist because your theism lacks the ability to define god , I am an atheist because the whole concept is laughably childlike and stupid.

So you are an atheist for irrational reasons? Good to know. What exactly do you lack a belief in?