Why don’t believers and non believers agree on what they mean by God before arguing about His existence?

Question

Doesnt it seem pointless to argue about some vague concept before agreeing on what it means to each person debating? For example, I can argue with u all day if there is such a thing as a good goal. BUT in the end it comes down to what u and I understand by a "good goal". That concept should be defined before proving its existence, right? I see how God believers and atheists are fiercely trying to convince one another in their righteousness. No one cares to define what they mean by GOD and THEN argue if there is one. Some see God as a superior being w/ supernatural powers. (not my idea of God) However, others see it as a Higher Intelligence, a certain law or principle by which we all are created. One of the greatest scientific minds of all, Einstein, said: "My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the sligh details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind." So, What idea of God is to u?

Answer 1

lol
true

i personally dont have a concept of any sort of higher being or higher reality, but i do believe in some sort of soul

Answer 2

First of all, I think this whole concept of God originated to let people understand that there is something bigger than they can see or understand. And it works regardless of your beliefs or non beliefs. God is in you and me and a flower and a stone.
I personally avoid any debates on God’s existence in general and avoid using the term “God” because some people tend to get the adverse reaction. This term has been misused and misinterpreted too much as is. I use the word Universal Intelligence or Laws, but I mean the same thing. Also, an atheist can sense God’s (Universal) rules and follow them better than an official God believer. It is not crucial what we call it; it is about understanding that we all obey some rules or laws, like laws of Nature; only there are some invisible ones that have not been discovered by science yet. So, good point by 'Fugitivea...', but I think that true idea of God was originally meant to make people get a sense of those unseen laws and principles and act according to them. There is one truth, and atheists and theists sometimes seem to talk about the same thing, but from different angles...
On a funny note:
A father is convincing his daughter to get married to a guy who is asking her hand in marriage.
The daughter says, “But Dad, I don’t want to marry him. He is an atheist! He does not even believe there is such a thing as Hell…”
Father to a daughter, “Honey, don’t you worry about that part. You just marry him. And then you and your mother will show him firsthand what Hell feels like.”

Answer 3

I do think that an idea of God sometimes needs an objective definition. Not all the theistic arguments imply Christians, nor do all the arguments are between Christians and atheists. So whose idea of God should be assumed when the “debate” starts?
I don't think this question is splitting hairs, because God is understood and interpreted by each person and religion differently. Sometimes scientists say that there is no way to prove God’s existence. But what God are THEY referring to? Which definition of God are they dismissing as non existent? This is where the need for definition occurs. I think this was the point of your question?
Now what God idea means to me. I personally feel that for every action there is reaction. I know I will have to answer and face consequences for the every action, word, and thought that I have. No energy disappears, it simply transforms into other kind/s of energy. I see some similarities and parallels between things proven by science and things said in religions. Science should drop its closed minded approach that it accuses believers of having and try looking at religions from scientific angle. Maybe religions simply reflect cause and effect relationships that science keeps discovering.
Sorry if I went off the subject. So God (“not a superior being”) is something we cannot comprehend, but experience every day of our existence. If an idea of God is dismissed completely, along with it we dismiss the faith into something bigger than a human mind can get.
I love Einstein's quotes and the way he looked at religions. Here is another quote by him: "The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and all science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead: his eyes are closed."

Answer 4

There are many ways to visualize gods. It is very narrow-minded if not downright ignorant for fundies and the like to presume that the word "God" means only theirs.
.
But some people begin by assuming that there is a God to "believe in", and that of course he must be the one they were taught as children to believe in (amazing coincidence!).
.
If the believer wants to assert that this and only this "God" exists, the burden rests on the believer to argue that there is something to argue about. The atheist bears no such burden.
.
The atheist just disses all such claims. The believer must show first that there really exist such things as gods, and, secondly, that only one of these is the "real" one.
.
To buy into that, the believer had better have lots of faith. He must be ready to accept that claims are valid in spite of the lack of evidence or even contradictory evidence.
.
Unless the believer is prepared to say "It is absurd but I choose to accept it as valid anyway", he is not exercising faith. The believer is quite free to make that choice, but faith is not and should not be considered to be based on reason or evidence.
.
The atheist has an easier time of it. The atheist only needs to say - All gods are B.S.
.
The believer has a problem. The believer carries the burden of arguing that it's necessary to be atheistic about all the gods except one. ("My god is the only real one.") This is pretty hard to sustain, since the evidence in support of the existence of Yahweh is exactly equal to the evidence in favor of the existence of Zeus, Thor, Wodin, Aphrodite, Ganesh, Athena, the Lord Krishna, etc., and maybe the resurrected L. Ron Hubbard.

So the atheists are in good shape when they say "no gods at all". The believer has a problem trying to show that only one God is "the" true God.
.
.

Answer 5

The defintion I use is pretty common. " The Creator of the entire Universe". I just believe the universe is not created so I am an atheist . Before you give me a thumbs down I do know this definition wouldn't include Thor or many other fictional god characters. This is intentional as I do not then have to make the argument that Thor does not exist. Thor is much harder to argue against than the Christian God.

Answer 6

We, Atheists, actually dismiss the 'Biblical God' which is, as defined by believers : 'an (better say, the only) eternal, omnipotent and omnipresent being'.

By virtue of that, we deny the existence of the concept of God, because that word always meant to refer to one or more supernatural beings allegedly able to determine/interfere with human beings' lives. I personally believe in the energy of the Universe (with all its scientific laws and principles), which cannot be called God, as that term has a precise, specific place and meaning which cannot be stretched to fit that definition.

Answer 7

i do no longer regard your 3 examples of saints as very staggering, yet it incredibly is a diverse subject. I an very tempted to declare, "yet they began the combat." that's no longer the problem the two. This internet site has grow to be terrorized various cases in the previous via the religious staggering. it relatively is heading that way back. you will possibly see the Creationists bickering and baiting the atheists with evolution questions simply by fact the combat. have confidence me, it incredibly is basically the top of the iceberg The type of atheist bills that have been reported to dying, suspended and banned is impressive. there is an relatively slender minded crew of fundamentalists in right here who regard any opinion from an earthly perspective as unholy heresy. They hate atheists tremendously, accompanied via Catholics and Muslims. you may plead for peace. I choose you good fortune with that. yet shop a pay attention and notice how lots of the atheist bills dissapear and are available back as new bills or basically fail to return back. think of roughly what form of cloth they're getting suspended/banned for. Then study that to the Fundamentalists even whilst they're posting organic hate. Your maximum suitable direction is possibly to easily forget approximately approximately all of it, ask respectable questions hoping for respectable responses, and take a inspect to stay tolerant whilst the Fundies attack your account.. Like I suggested, I choose you good fortune. no one asks questions right here bearing directly to the components of religions or bearing directly to the historic previous of religions simply by fact all that happens are violation notices.

Answer 8

It depends on which God or god they are referring to. People shouldnt argue about whether God exists especially believers. As a believer myself I dont think it is necessary to argue with an unbeliever about the "Living God, the creator of heaven and earth. He exists whether one believes it or not!!!

Answer 9

Most of the time its an arguement between Christians and Athiests. The Christain god definition is in their book called the bible, so there really isnt' a point in going over it.

Answer 10

You're splitting hairs.

I think that for the purposes of the theological discussions that take place here, it is generally agreed-upon that we are discussing theistic beliefs. When asking about Adam and Eve, for example, it isn't necessary to specify that the question pertains to the Christian god.