Knight -
Looking for what we're defining rather than defining what we find. I agree that that's a flaw. To which I'd add, in defining it, I'm finding it. I've defined god in such a way that I can look around and sincerely say that I'm seeing evidence of god. It's like I've created a self fulfulling prophesy. When people ask me to define god, and then I begin, and then they say "but hold on, you have no evidence that it exists", I think to myself "but let me finish defining it". I'm not saying that there isn't an element of faith in my definition, or that what I believe is falsifiable (then again I'm not that bright so maybe it is and I don't know it - but I wouldn't ask an atheist to tell me as they're biased), the only point I try to make when asked to define or prove god is this : If you defined god as I do, meaning if you genuinely believed that if, if, god exists then it is as I describe (this is entirely reasonable, seeing as atheists often talk about why they don't believe in god based on definitions of it), then you may find yourself either believing in it, or at least understanding why such a definition leads to such a strong belief (or is a symptom of it?), or, at the very least, seeing how such a definition can't be disproven. Issues of burden of proof aside, the point is that if it can't be disproven, then it's reasonable for the belief to remain.
Looking for what we're defining rather than defining what we find. I agree that that's a flaw. To which I'd add, in defining it, I'm finding it. I've defined god in such a way that I can look around and sincerely say that I'm seeing evidence of god. It's like I've created a self fulfulling prophesy. When people ask me to define god, and then I begin, and then they say "but hold on, you have no evidence that it exists", I think to myself "but let me finish defining it". I'm not saying that there isn't an element of faith in my definition, or that what I believe is falsifiable (then again I'm not that bright so maybe it is and I don't know it - but I wouldn't ask an atheist to tell me as they're biased), the only point I try to make when asked to define or prove god is this : If you defined god as I do, meaning if you genuinely believed that if, if, god exists then it is as I describe (this is entirely reasonable, seeing as atheists often talk about why they don't believe in god based on definitions of it), then you may find yourself either believing in it, or at least understanding why such a definition leads to such a strong belief (or is a symptom of it?), or, at the very least, seeing how such a definition can't be disproven. Issues of burden of proof aside, the point is that if it can't be disproven, then it's reasonable for the belief to remain.
