Define 'GOD'

[Anonymous No.13322885]

Define God, god dammit. All these fucking threads about atheism and god, nobody even defined 'GOD'.
You need a definition you fucking retards, god isn't a well defined noun and it can be quite complex and nuanced when you get in the metaphysics. All these edgy fedora tippers who are atheists and Christians, JUST STOP!
If I were to define god as the entire universe, ala Spinoza's pantheism then you can't say god doesn't exist because saying that would be denying the existence of the universe. While that might be an interesting metaphysical position it's retarded.

DEFINE THE TERM 'GOD' YOU STUPID KNOW IT ALL FAGS, DON'T FUCKING DUMB IT DOWN.

If you guys want a honest discussion about religion and the existence of god do it with a reference to books about it, we're on /lit/ for God's sake. Go to /his/, /pol/, /x/, /b/, /r9k/ or somewhere else you fags, or atleast lay out your metaphysical system before debating. Jesus f'ing Christ.

[Anonymous No.13322956]

>>13322885
a moment of self-reflection is appropriate I feel like. You are coming into a discussion that has been held for hundreds of years, with seemingly no understanding of basic philosophical argumentation, throwing around terms you read in other threads. Just do yourself a favor and go do something else with your time.

~an equally pathetic pseud sitting in his room by himself

[Anonymous No.13323068]

I see God as the unified consciousness from which we all spring, and which imagines the material universe. Within that imagination, we're dissociated sub-identities of God, the purpose of which is to create limited realms of experience which allow growth of the whole. In a sense, we are all low resolution fractal images of God; imperfect "copies" of the whole, although perhaps facets is a better word, since we aren't actually seperate from the whole. This, I suppose, is a sort of idealist panentheism.

If you don't believe in that definition of God, you don't believe in yourself. Checkmate, athiests :^)

[Anonymous No.13323097]

>>13322885
Have you tried reading books? st thomas aquinas has 4 "paths" to Gods existance. Before him st augustine, boethius... pseudo dionysius brings his negative and positive method (hint to plotinus). Aristotle has his own way of proving god aka first unmoved mover, but it is not christian God (it is but not in all ways).

Of course not all of them right and st aquinas is probably who i would recommend the most, but you can gather lot of info and get a sense of it.

[URANTIA No.13323103]

>>13322885
The Supreme Being
The First Cause, the one and only uncaused reality
The Unmoved Mover, the one being who exists by himself, not dependent on any other being for existence but beneficently conferring reality of existence on all things and upon all other beings

[Anonymous No.13323188]

incorporeal divine personality

[Anonymous No.13323255]

Go to bed, Peterson. You're getting very cranky.

[Anonymous No.13323268]

>>13322885
Logos is the greater intelligence of the universe

[Anonymous No.13323440]

>In classical Christianity, from the early Christians to the end of the medieval period and still upheld by Catholicism and other apostolic sects, God is not some anthropomorphic thing nor is it a being inside or outside the universe but something more fundamental and metaphysically ultimate: The very coming to be of being itself. This is in line with medieval thinkers who would label God to be "the subsisting act of being itself". In this view, God is not letting the world spin on its own after some first cause of the universe (if such a thing is possible) but rather there sustaining it and allowing it to be at all points of time. What comes to be and its order is according to the will of God and so to support the natural order of reality is to support God's will and ultimately to love the good itself would mean loving the unconditioned good which would be God, from this understanding. It is only through God that we live, and breathe, and have our being (Acts 17:28). Thus it is correct to say that by rejecting sin we are ordering ourselves towards God.

[Anonymous No.13323484]

>>13322885
"The Greatest Conceivable Being" is the terminology I've seen used by theist (Christian) philosophers. I'm not a theist myself, but it seems a fairly economical way to define it while also leaving that conception up to the imagination of those discussing it.

[Anonymous No.13323594]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UIMoFz8J1eA

[Anonymous No.13323757]

>>13323484
shit theological arguement

[Anonymous No.13323791]

>>13323484
That definition was used by some philosophers to afirm that nothing can be said or known about God. Talking about God is just a waste of time.

[Anonymous No.13323797]

>>13322885

It's the definition you won't find in the mouths of others, mate. It'll come to you when you are ready. But you know what you search for, and this will lead you to it.

[Anonymous No.13324628]

>>13323103
t h i s

[Anonymous No.13324630]

>>13322885
The totality of all things

[Anonymous No.13324643]

>>13323103
aristotlepilled

[Anonymous No.13324858]

>>13322885

Identity.

[Anonymous No.13324873]

>>13323103
That's all well and good, though still questionable, but how does it have any relation to the Christian God? It's just a philosophical principle (that can also have many spins on it, like humanising it or treating it as an impartial source), if anything it contradicts Christianity (if it hadn't replaced it).

[Anonymous No.13324892]

God is everything outside of everything, the possibility of an after dinner mint tagging along with the check. Things uncontrollable and unknowable. I guess more than the belief of any god, I just think there will always be shit we will never know and what that is might change but it will always be there. Not the conventional definition I feel like.

[Anonymous No.13324970]

Genesis 1:26

Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals,and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”

God is an acronym, He is the Grantor Of Dominion.

[Anonymous No.13325049]

lmaoing at op's life

[Anonymous No.13325122]

>>13322885
>defining God in human terms
that is yaiks form me daug

[Anonymous No.13325324]

>>13322885
>Define God, god dammit

Read this, it's a popular and easy read, not specified in any religion.

[Anonymous No.13325500]

>>13323594
>woman
>theologian
its a no from me big guy

[Anonymous No.13325504]

>>13325324
>it's a popular and easy read, not specified in any religion.
3 reasons why you shouldn't read him.

[Anonymous No.13325507]

Nothing

[Anonymous No.13325561]

>>13322885
God is the cumulative totality of all sense data in the universe. God is matter's immanent subjectivity experiencing and learning about Himself over time. Whatever "God" actually is, he's not ready to define himself yet, and likely will never be, certainly not in our lifetime anyway. The most we can understand him is through our individual positioning as a subjective node or relay within an incalculably large and complex circuit; we receive and transmit His signals, but we can never truly understand the completed schematic that underlies everything.

[Anonymous No.13325918]

>>13323068
based and non-dualism pilled

>the purpose of which is to create limited realms of experience which allow growth of the whole
"There is really no action or inaction; everything that is happening is the sport of the Self. The undivided One enters the courtyard of duality of His own accord. Unity only becomes strengthened by the expansion of diversity." - Amritanubhava

[Anonymous No.13326197]

God is the pain of the fear of death.

[Anonymous No.13326213]

>>13322885

If you think you've defined God you've erected instead an idol. God can't be defined in his essence, though he can be known through his operations.

While it's not incorrect to say God is the unmoved mover, it's also insufficient. Negative theology is much better suited to any attempt at defining God, though - as I'm trying to convey - God transcends all definitions.

[Anonymous No.13326298]

>>13323068
Contentious but breddy gud overall

>>13323103
Like a fine wine

>>13324892
You're onto something here, but you shoot yourself in the foot a little bit by anchoring God to some variable space of ignorance. Overall, promising.

>>13325561
>Defining god through empiricism, no matter how advanced
YIKES
>defining God by appealing to technological analogies
DOUBLE YIKES

>>13326213
I like the cut of your jib. Any working definition of God should have a nod to the apophatic, even just as an insurance policy.

[Anonymous No.13326591]

>>13326213
Good post.