What is God?

[ErGingerbreadMandude]

God is like a mirror. The mirror never changes, but everybody who looks at it sees something entirely different.And although the image tends to be similar it is never identical.

(bolded words mine)
I think i've finally found an accurate definition of God.
I wish Theists would agree.

[Redbeard The Pink]

Part of the problem with the question "Do you believe in god?" is the follow-up question, "Which one?"

How DOES one define god exactly? Does it have to be all-powerful? Does it have to have created the universe? Does it have to be non-material? Is it simply ANY being powerful enough to destroy us, therefore we should do what it says? Is it the source of moral authority? Does it have to be all those things? Only some of them? What is god EXACTLY that I might believe in him?

The answers to this question vary widely from person to person, which to me is part of the evidence that none of these people have anything objective to draw from; nobody can really agree on what god is supposed to be like, or what one even is. God is one of the poorest words in all human language; it carries such weight but lacks any real meaning.

[rexbeccarox]

I asked Google for a definition of God, and it responded with the following:


Sound good, pool? Good.

And the definition of Atheist according to Google is, 

a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods

And a lot of atheists disagree with it.

Really? I've never encountered an atheist who would disagree with that definition...

... care to show us some examples?

[Pizza]

Please don't make this difficult pool.
An atheist or nontheist is someone who is not a theist. We don't need to split hairs over this.

[ErGingerbreadMandude]

And the definition of Atheist according to Google is, 

And a lot of atheists disagree with it.

Really? I've never encountered an atheist who would disagree with that definition...

... care to show us some examples?

(What i understood from robvalue's website)
[start]
If someone says that the number of sweets in a bag is an even number then that person is making a claim.
When another person rejects that claim it doesn't necessarily mean that he is implying that the number of sweets in the bad is an odd number.It only implies that this person is rejecting the claim made by the first person,i.e,the number of sweets in a bag is an even number.
[end]
If the second person does in fact imply that the no. of sweets in the bag is odd,then that person is also making a claim.

Similarly,
When a person rejects the claims made by a theist(i.e,belief in a god) it doesn't necessarily mean that the person rejecting the claim is disbelieving in the claim.It only means that the person rejecting the claim is simply rejecting the claim.

I'm too lazy to look for it,but many a people in this forum has told me that atheists are rejecting the claims made by theists,that they are not claiming anything.
And then others have told me that Atheists are people that doesn't believe in a God.

Correct me if i'm wrong.But disbelieving a claim is not the same as rejecting a claim?
Because disbelieving a claim would imply that the person disbelieving believes in whatever is the opposite of the claim(from rob's analogy,believing that the no. of sweets is an odd number) but rejecting the claim doesn't imply anything other than rejecting the claim.

In short,some atheists think that Atheism is rejecting the claims proposed by Theism while some others think that Atheism is a disbelief in God.

Guys,please please please please please don't eat me for saying this.I'm sorry if my stupidity annoys you.

[ErGingerbreadMandude]

Pool, we've been through this. Unbelief is not an active stance, it is the default position. You either believe, or you don't. Since you don't comprehend what a god is, you don't believe in him; you are implicitly an atheist. End of story.

I don't understand what the Theory of relativity is,but that doesn't mean that i don't believe in it,neither does it mean that i believe in it.

Similarly,
I don't understand what a God is,but that doesn't mean that i don't believe in it,neither does it mean that i believe in it.

See,when someone is presented with an idea that they cannot understand and is asked whether they believe in it or not,it is extremely difficult to decide how to respond.
Can you tell me the appropriate response in that situation?

[Redbeard The Pink]

Really? I've never encountered an atheist who would disagree with that definition...

... care to show us some examples?

(What i understood from robvalue's website)
[start]
If someone says that the number of sweets in a bag is an even number then that person is making a claim.
When another person rejects that claim it doesn't necessarily mean that he is implying that the number of sweets in the bad is an odd number.It only implies that this person is rejecting the claim made by the first person,i.e,the number of sweets in a bag is an even number.
[end]
If the second person does in fact imply that the no. of sweets in the bag is odd,then that person is also making a claim.

Similarly,
When a person rejects the claims made by a theist(i.e,belief in a god) it doesn't necessarily mean that the person rejecting the claim is disbelieving in the claim.It only means that the person rejecting the claim is simply rejecting the claim.

I'm too lazy to look for it,but many a people in this forum has told me that atheists are rejecting the claims made by theists,that they are not claiming anything.
And then others have told me that Atheists are people that doesn't believe in a God.

Correct me if i'm wrong.But disbelieving a claim is not the same as rejecting a claim?
Because disbelieving a claim would imply that the person disbelieving believes in whatever is the opposite of the claim(from rob's analogy,believing that the no. of sweets is an odd number) but rejecting the claim doesn't imply anything other than rejecting the claim.

In short,some atheists think that Atheism is rejecting the claims proposed by Theism while some others think that Atheism is a disbelief in God.

Guys,please please please please please don't eat me for saying this.I'm sorry if my stupidity annoys you.

What's missing from your understanding is the word "positive."

The person making a positive claim is the one who has the burden of proof; in this case, it would be the person claiming that god does exist. "God does NOT exist" is a negative claim or not a claim at all, depending on how you want to define it, but it definitely isn't a positive claim any way you slice it. Positive claims are the ones that have to be proven with evidence because, in general, they're non-falsifiable. Negative claims (pertaining to existence, anyway) are easily falsifiable because all it takes is one shred of observable evidence that something exists to establish that it does.

Basically, the reason the burden of proof is on the positive claim is that the positive claim (god exists) is non-falsifiable. The negative claim (god does not exist), is falsifiable. Because of this, the negative claim is the default position until it is falsified with evidence. It's simply a matter of what it's logically possible to prove.

"God exists" can be proven but not disproven, and "God does not exist" cannot be proven, but it can be disproven. As such, it is never up to the atheist to prove their claim because that's impossible, and it is never right for the theist to demand their claim be disproven because that's also impossible.

[ErGingerbreadMandude]

(What i understood from robvalue's website)
[start]
If someone says that the number of sweets in a bag is an even number then that person is making a claim.
When another person rejects that claim it doesn't necessarily mean that he is implying that the number of sweets in the bad is an odd number.It only implies that this person is rejecting the claim made by the first person,i.e,the number of sweets in a bag is an even number.
[end]
If the second person does in fact imply that the no. of sweets in the bag is odd,then that person is also making a claim.

Similarly,
When a person rejects the claims made by a theist(i.e,belief in a god) it doesn't necessarily mean that the person rejecting the claim is disbelieving in the claim.It only means that the person rejecting the claim is simply rejecting the claim.

I'm too lazy to look for it,but many a people in this forum has told me that atheists are rejecting the claims made by theists,that they are not claiming anything.
And then others have told me that Atheists are people that doesn't believe in a God.

Correct me if i'm wrong.But disbelieving a claim is not the same as rejecting a claim?
Because disbelieving a claim would imply that the person disbelieving believes in whatever is the opposite of the claim(from rob's analogy,believing that the no. of sweets is an odd number) but rejecting the claim doesn't imply anything other than rejecting the claim.

In short,some atheists think that Atheism is rejecting the claims proposed by Theism while some others think that Atheism is a disbelief in God.

Guys,please please please please please don't eat me for saying this.I'm sorry if my stupidity annoys you.

What's missing from your understanding is the word "positive."

The person making a positive claim is the one who has the burden of proof; in this case, it would be the person claiming that god does exist. "God does NOT exist" is a negative claim or not a claim at all, depending on how you want to define it, but it definitely isn't a positive claim any way you slice it. Positive claims are the ones that have to be proven with evidence because, in general, they're non-falsifiable. Negative claims (pertaining to existence, anyway) are easily falsifiable because all it takes is one shred of observable evidence that something exists to establish that it does.

Basically, the reason the burden of proof is on the positive claim is that the positive claim (god exists) is non-falsifiable. The negative claim (god does not exist), is falsifiable. Because of this, the negative claim is the default position until it is falsified with evidence. It's simply a matter of what it's logically possible to prove.

"God exists" can be proven but not disproven, and "God does not exist" cannot be proven, but it can be disproven. As such, it is never up to the atheist to prove their claim because that's impossible, and it is never right for the theist to demand their claim be disproven because that's also impossible.

Is it really true that one cannot make negative claims?I didn't know that up until now,pretty cool.

Anyway,one thing i have to say is that any claim can be a positive claim as long as the negative of the negative of the positive is a positive.
I wonder how a claim is classified as a positive or negative claim?

I guess the one way to classify would be to observe whether a negative have another negative,if it doesn't then it is a negative.But if a negative has a negative,then the negative of the negative can be considered as a negative and the original negative as a positive?

(A!)! = A.
((A!)!)! = A!.
(((A!)!)!)! = (A!)!.

This can be easily proven by using a truth table..
Yeah,that's about the only problem i found

[Mr.wizard]

Pool, we've been through this. Unbelief is not an active stance, it is the default position. You either believe, or you don't. Since you don't comprehend what a god is, you don't believe in him; you are implicitly an atheist. End of story.

I don't understand what the Theory of relativity is,but that doesn't mean that i don't believe in it,neither does it mean that i believe in it.

Similarly,
I don't understand what a God is,but that doesn't mean that i don't believe in it,neither does it mean that i believe in it.

See,when someone is presented with an idea that they cannot understand and is asked whether they believe in it or not,it is extremely difficult to decide how to respond.
Can you tell me the appropriate response in that situation?

"I don't understand what a God is,but that doesn't mean that i don't believe in it,neither does it mean that i believe in it."  If someone makes a claim and you don't know if they are telling you the truth then you do not believe them. In your own example with the candy you demonstrate this, the claim of the candy is not believed to be even until there is evidence to justify it. You cannot not believe the god claim and simultaneously believe the god claim, there are only two positions.

[Nope]

I used salt because if someone asks what the taste of salt is the answer would be salty.

I know that I am getting nitpicky but salty is not the definition of salt. If I eat a grape, the definition of grape is not sweet.