"Thomas P." <tonyofremovethisbexar@yahoo.dk,> wrote in message
news:4s2nlvo9qs44qr5gqomq4ms9ts82o6lhqt@4ax.com...

On Sun, 31 Aug 2003 10:14:47 GMT, "ArWeGod" <ArWeGod@sbcglobal.net>
wrote:

"Cerberus" <Cerberus@techie.com> wrote in message
news:RV63b.99814$Ij4.73643@news2.central.cox.net...

I've never actually seen a definition for what a god is. Could anyone
supply me with one?

That which one calls out to or invokes.

That could mean just about anything from a dog to some deity.


Thomas P.

What's the difference?

Oh yeah, dog are real.

I think they mean "call out"
as to invoke some mystical creature to help, not just yelling.

Anyway, it's from the dictionary: Webster's New World(tm) College Dictionary
4th Edition, in this case.

"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote in message

"George Dance" <georgedance@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:6312c50b.0308310602.70e7e961@posting.google.com...

Cerberus <Cerberus@techie.com> wrote in message

news:<RV63b.99814$Ij4.73643@news2.central.cox.net>...

I've never actually seen a definition for what a god is. Could

supply me with one?

That's a good question. Obviously, if anyone wants to assert whether
any gods exist or not, he should give (1) the definition of a god, (2)
the observable events that would exist (if something satisfied the
definition) and would not be (if nothing did), (3) a method of
detecting those observable events. As you point, most peope making
those assertions don't even give (1).

Here's my try:

a) First of all, a god is, by definition, a 'necessary being.' That
means that it was not created ...

That won't work, Mr. Dunce, due to the fatal problem of logical
inconsistency in it which Russell points out. If anything must have a
creator, then God must have a creator.

Yes, and if everything ...

beowulf_is_not_here@hotmail.com (Beowulf) wrote in message news:<3f54de8c.4398379@news.alterdial.uu.net>...

On 31 Aug 2003 07:02:30 -0700,

Cerberus <Cerberus@techie.com> wrote in message news:<RV63b.99814$Ij4.73643@news2.central.cox.net>...

I've never actually seen a definition for what a god is. Could anyone
supply me with one?

That's a good question. Obviously, if anyone wants to assert whether
any gods exist or not, he should give (1) the definition of a god, (2)
the observable events that would exist (if something satisfied the
definition) and would not be (if nothing did), (3) a method of
detecting those observable events. As you point, most peope making
those assertions don't even give (1).

Here's my try:

a) First of all, a god is, by definition, a 'necessary being.' That
means that it was not created, and cannot be destroyed; it always was.

By this definition, the Norse pantheon is comprised of things that
aren't gods. It is incomplete, thereby.

Not that I'm conceding that the Norse stories about their pantheon are
all accurate; but your point is well taken. If there is more than one
god, then it's possible that a god could be destroyed by another god,
or that a god could be created by another god. So 'necessary' is too
strict a criterion.

Which I've already noted and modified. Hoping that we can take
'material reality' or 'physical reality' as primitive, what I've
offered as a substitute for 'necessary' is 'not contingent on physical
reality' - that is, cannot be created or destroyed (or, perhaps,
harmed or hurt at all) by anything in physical reality.

I'd also like to propose, as another necessary part of the definition,
that a god should be able to affect at least some part of physical
reality.

So the revised definition would now be:

"A god is an agent the existence of which is not dependant on anything
in physical reality, but which is able to affect at least some things
in physical reality."

How's that?

"A god is an agent the existence of which is not dependant on anything
in physical reality, but which is able to affect at least some things
in physical reality."

How's that?

Mark Richardson <mark.richardson@die.spammers.die> wrote in message news:<4b85lvk7upho9uftno5unvvtssd5nprtsr@4ax.com>...

On 31 Aug 2003 07:02:30 -0700,

Cerberus <Cerberus@techie.com> wrote in message news:<RV63b.99814$Ij4.73643@news2.central.cox.net>...

I've never actually seen a definition for what a god is. Could anyone
supply me with one?

That's a good question. Obviously, if anyone wants to assert whether
any gods exist or not, he should give (1) the definition of a god, (2)
the observable events that would exist (if something satisfied the
definition) and would not be (if nothing did), (3) a method of
detecting those observable events. As you point, most peope making
those assertions don't even give (1).

Here's my try:

a) First of all, a god is, by definition, a 'necessary being.'

Doesn't work/not useful.
Apollo isn't a necessary being (being the offspring of pre-existing
gods) - but was nevertheless a god to millions - has temples built in
his honor, priests dedicated to his worship, etc.

There's quite a few interesting points crammed into that one sentence
- the sign of a well-thought-out reply. Unfortunately, I'm thinking
on the fly here, so my reply to you will have to be a bit longer. I'd
like to take your points in reverse order:

1) First, I don't think that whether something is a 'god to' anyone -
whether they have temples and priest, for example - should be part of
the definition. For the question "Does a god exist?" is a question
about objective reality - "Is there a god in fact?" - the answer to
which requires being able to objectively determine what is objective
evidence that a god exists.

But the evidence of priests and temples
is only subjective evidence that a god exists

; objectively it's
evidence only that some people believe that this god exists.

And
since we can't take all beliefs as evidence (as they contradict),

we
can't take any belief, qua belief, as evidence - beliefs as such are
irrelevant to whether anything is a god in fact.

What I'd like to say is that a god cannot be created or destroyed by
anything in nature (that last being, roughly, everything physics
purports to describe). A god would have to be 'immune' from nature.
(The first word that comes to mind is 'supernatural,' but that word
also implies being able to violate or suspend natural laws, and that
is not a necessary part of the definition either.)

The Emperor Augustus was a god - had temples built in his honor,
priests dedicated to his worship, etc. - and obviously not a
"necessary being".

That's a good paradigm case. Here's someone who by all the objective
evidence, was a man - was born, grew, ate, slept, fucked, and finally
died.

Objectively, we have no more than the belief that Augustus was
a god.

Not only was that belief not supported logically, but it was
supported by a particularly glaring _ad baculum_ fallacy: if anyone
denied that Augustus was a god, Augustus would have him killed.

It's reasonable to conclude that Augustus was not a god - and for the
same reasons, it's reasonable to define god in a way such that
"Augustus was a god" comes up false.

You are obviously taking an alleged property of a particular god and
using it to define the entire category "god".

No. I am looking for properties such that, anything that has them
would be a god,

It's the equivalent of a Thor worshiper saying
"well obviously, a god must have a magic hammer".

Umm, no; because there are plenty of 'subjective gods' (even
thunder-making gods) that don't have magic hammers

Particular gods have magic hammers, incarnate sons, wield lighting
bolts and are "necessary beings" - none of these particulars defines
the general category.

These are all what I would call 'subjective gods';

things believed to
be gods. But there's no reason to accept any of that subjective
testimony as true

first, because we can't accept it all as true (as
as a whole it's contradictory); second, because at least some of it
(as I hope I've shown for Augustus) is false: what was believed to be
a god was not.