The Million Dollar Question

[Deepthought]

What is a God?

What is God is the $64,000 question.

The million dollar question is: Who made God?

[BrokenQuill92]

Me of course! I'm God.

[Statler Waldorf]

[Lemonvariable72]

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.

[The Valkyrie]

Me of course! I'm God.

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

Bad, BQ! BAD!

*Smack on nose*

[Whateverist]

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?

[Confused Ape]

[RaisdCath]

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?

[downbeatplumb]

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.

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.

[Statler Waldorf]

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?

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.

Okay, let's use that definition.

Good.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?