To explain why we can define God to affirm his existence!

[Esquilax]

For example, you can think a thought and never do it but it would be a really awesome thing to do for the world. Or you can do it. We all know the latter is better because is HAS REAL existence, and REAL effect.

It's more beautiful and praiseworthy act than simply to imagine.

Greatness and existence are linked. That all possible greatness necessarily has to derive it's reality from existence and not from mere imagination or possibility.

God being conceived, it automatically means he exists, even though we don't fully conceive him.

Two problems with this: For one, your premises also work in reverse. Like, you can do a thing that's really terrible for the world, or you can just imagine it and never do it, which would be far greater because it would have NO existence, no REAL effect. Therefore, greatness and non-existence are linked. Therefore, god being conceived, it automatically means he doesn't exist.

Do you see what happens when you mistake vaguely connected free association with a legitimate position?

Secondly, the greatness you're talking about is inherently subjective and based in human desires... and reality is under no obligation to conform to similar standards. It's no accident that your one example of greatness being predicated on existence is a human-derived awesome thing, being enacted for the edification of human beings, even if just the actor themselves. The moment you try to talk about greatness divorced from subjective actors, you'll find you can't: greatness as a condition requires subjective metrics for what is great. Rendered without the obscured premises then, your argument is "I feel like god existing would be great, and I feel like great things should exist, therefore god exists." It's barely anything, really.

[SuperSentient]

Greatness and existence are linked. That all possible greatness necessarily has to derive it's reality from existence and not from mere imagination or possibility.

God being conceived, it automatically means he exists, even though we don't fully conceive him.

This is where the fallacious thinking comes in. Conceivability has no impact on existence.

[Astreja]

The very thought of trying to carry a load of laundry up 2 flights of stairs with a deity parked  on my shoulder makes my back ache.

If you had listened to Allah, you'd've had the good sense to live in a bungalow.

Boru

Ah.  That must be from the long-lost surah "Staircases."

[Mystic]

Can you translate this into layman terms?

Either greatness is derived from imagination or it's derived from real existence.
A thing that points that it's from real living existence is that our good actions, the more "life" force they have, the more praiseworthy they are.
Furthermore, if we simply imagine, but don't actually bring to existence our actions, it's obvious existing actions are more praiseworthy and great.
This shows greatness is derived from existence, not mere imagination.

Do you agree with this much so far?

[WinterHold]

MK, I advice you once not to use walls of text.
But that doesn't mean to shorten them while keeping the content the same.

Understanding. That's the most crucial thing in life.
Look. You're a Shiite, but your religion says "Love of Ali".
Then down there you write "witness".

Why the hell are you taking cover?
Like I ask you

me:"What's your religion, friend"?
you:"Love of Ali".
you:"And a Witness too...."

What the hell?

Just say your religion, damn it!
Oh.. sorry..I remember
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taqiya

But look. You know I'll be honest. Really.

Being "mysterious" is a good dating technique, and also a strong defense mechanism.
Also, it makes winning arguments easier because others don't know what your religion is, and maybe they have no time to ask.
Add to it these topics. The way the logic is presented. They are too deep for me, but in reverse.

So you can try to figure out a new way to convert me to Shiitism. Iran is killing people to bring back "Imam Mahdi". You can tell the story of that, it will be amazing.

Especially the gore and... you know.

[Esquilax]

Either greatness is derived from imagination or it's derived from real existence.
A thing that points that it's from real living existence is that our good actions, the more "life" force they have, the more praiseworthy they are.
Furthermore, if we simply imagine, but don't actually bring to existence our actions, it's obvious existing actions are more praiseworthy and great.
This shows greatness is derived from existence, not mere imagination.

Do you agree with this much so far?

You aren't talking about greatness, though. You're talking about human opportunities to express how great a given concept is. Obviously if you do a thing instead of keeping it to yourself then more people will be able to praise it, but that's not an increase to the qualitative greatness of the concept, just an increase to the amount of people able to express that it is great.

The problem is that you mistakenly think that the distinction here is between the greatness of an imagined thing versus the greatness of that same thing enacted for real, when in actuality it's a distinction between how much humans subjectively value those two states.

[Edwardo Piet]

Defining something into existence doesn't work.

You can define something OUT of existence... or perhaps a more accurate way to put it would be there are some things that can't be defined because they're logically incoherent... E.g. a square circle or libertarian free will given by a God that knows the future in a deterministic universe....

Defining something into existence doesn't work because that's merely labelling something that already exists with a word referring to something that doesn't.

[downbeatplumb]

Defining something into existence doesn't work.

You can define something OUT of existence... or perhaps a more accurate way to put it would be there are some things that can't be defined because they're logically incoherent... E.g. a square circle or libertarian free will given by a God that knows the future in a deterministic universe....

Defining something into existence doesn't work because that's merely labelling something that already exists with a word referring to something that doesn't.

But what if you really REALLY want it to exist, what then?

[Edwardo Piet]

Keep feeling rushes of relief followed by dips of disappointment as you try to prove to everyone else and yourself that something exists that doesn't.

...or just eventually realize you're banging your head against a wall and none of these arguments make any sense and you're happier and freer without God.

[brewer]

Am I missing something here? Based on the title I thought we would get a god "definition" from a theist. At least something different from the usual horseshit. 

All I see is great, exists and concept. Is this suppose to pass for a definition? Maybe for others, not in my book. 

MK, do you understand how many other things that are not a "god" these words can be applied to?