after all, atheists over there.

Be necessary to determining whether such a being existed or could exist?

I'm agnostic so I lean towards no but that's based on my definition of God being more or less traditional (omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient, and yes "good&quot . It's those very qualities that make me doubt.

But if we defined God as something lesser, it becomes more possible. So I would think discussing what God is or isn't would be a critical part of both theism and atheism.

I’m an atheist (and apologize if posting in this forum is being rude, but the question is being discussed here).

I don’t need to discuss or make a judgement on the claim of whether or not unicorns actually only hang out with virgins until and unless I become convinced that unicorns actually exist. Someone could argue that positing non-virgin exclusive unicorns are more plausible than virgin exclusive unicorns, but that still isn’t evidence for the existence of unicorns.

Someone could also redefine unicorns as lacking a forehead horn, not being white coated, not having magical powers, etc, etc until that person’s definition of unicorn is essentially indistinguishable from a regular horse or goat. At that point, imo, you would no longer be talking about unicorns.

Someone can define supernatural/magical things any way they want to because there’s no way to check their definition against the reality we live in. I don’t feel a need to join such a discussion or change my beliefs because of such discussions.

I don’t feel animus towards people who do believe in those things (being in the minority, most of my friends and relatives do believe in some deity ) until and unless their beliefs lead to actions that negatively impact me or society as a whole.

I really don't care if you believe or don't. I only care about what I believe.

I do find any rigid beliefs lacking in introspection.

I believe in science. Science requires definitions. What makes a proposed thing a thing is required in science to determine whether something exists or doesn't.

Determining whether there is evidence for a thing requires defining that thing.

That includes God. I don't tend to think God as a supernatural being with omni-everything exists. I do think it possible that a being of vast intelligence could exist, but ultimately that being will be someone who was born, lives and eventually dies.

I don't know ultimately, universe is pretty big. But definition matters. Knowing what to look for informs whether or not we see it. So to answer my own question, yes, it's critical to define what God means. Omni everything is a lot different than really smart, old and powerful.

I wasn’t trying to be offensive.

You said "So I would think discussing what God is or isn't would be a critical part of both theism and atheism." As an atheist I was saying that, imo, discussing what god is or isn’t would be the same as discussing whether or not a unicorn has a spiral on it’s horn, because we have no evidence that unicorns or gods exist and no scientifically theoretical basis to posit that either should or might exist - unlike something like black holes, which were predicted by Einstein’s theories, so scientists went looking for them to see if those predictions were correct or not.

By and large science doesn’t start with definitions, it starts with evidence, unexplained phenomena, theoretical frameworks, etc. So postulating vast intelligences that can do…something…because the universe is big and old - hasn’t really got any meat on its bones for science to sink its teeth into.

There’s a quote from a famous science fiction writer, Arthur C. Clarke, called Clarke’s First Law - "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." Or from gods. If you want to redefine god as something very intelligent that can do things beyond our current comprehension, but is within this universe and is mortal, then you’re probably just defining an advanced technology.

Anyway, I wasn’t disputing your right to a personal definition of a God, but most atheists that I know don’t think making or discussing such a definition is integral to their lack of belief. Real phenomena/evidence is what would get most of us to pay attention, not a definition.

you'd need to know what a unicorn was before you could determine if it was fanciful or not.

You do the very analysis I suggest there as a matter of fact.

Science absolutely involves definitions. Science is about classification. You cannot come up with a hypothesis or examine phenomena without defining.

God can mean a wide range of things. In fact, in many religions it does. There's the Abrahamic God that's all knowing, all powerful, eternal who was here before, during and after, yadda, yadda, yadda. There's your "unicorn." Defining God that way does in fact take it out of science.

But that's not the only possible definition. God could simply be "creator of the universe." If the physics theory that says a black hole turns into a new universe ends up being true (and I am not saying it is, but it's not a crazy theory either), then if someone creates a black hole, they are, in effect, God under that definition for that universe. Now, certainly not a God with the ability to control anything after initial creation, but not much different from the "absent" God that created the universe and then stepped aside present in some religious belief systems.

Yes, there could be beings that have lived for billions of years, and achieved the ability to control the entire universe. And yes, there's a scientific theory that directly addresses that too, the Kardashev Scale. Type IV civilizations can control the entire universe. Type V can control multiverses. Again, theoretical, but not "unicorns" and such beings would, in fact, be as God to us. They could do most if not all of the things a "God" could do.

The definition of these Gods yes would be scientific instead of mystical, and yes Clarke was right about sufficient science, but again, definitions matter. Not every religion thinks the same way about God or what a God is, so assuming the simplest most fantastical version of God is the only definition, then saying, well, that's clearly so silly as to not even merit thought, is, well...not very scientific.

That's why there's a real difference between agnosticism and atheism, despite the claims of some atheists (not implying you have done this) that agnostics are just weak atheists. The former IMO simply has a more rigorous framework in which to analyze questions like this than atheists do. Less binary.

We have zero evidence of life on other planets...none, nada, zilch. Yet, as an intelligent person I'm almost 100 percent certain you believe it inevitable that life exists on other planets, including intelligent life. Not that it's likely any has been flying around visiting us (although not impossible). I suspect that there are entities out there either now, or one day a few billion years from now, who will have the ability to control the entire universe. No way guaranteed of course, there may be barriers to that level of power or control, we don't know, but it hasn't stopped people smarter than you or me from thinking about it. That's not evidence for sure, but it also isn't unicorn wasting time either.

I never said science didn’t use definitions or classification. I said "By and large science doesn’t start with definitions…" [my emphasis added], which is true. Richard Owen didn’t define ‘dinosaur’ then go look for fossils, the fossils came first (although some things are postulated by scientific theoretical models and named/defined before evidence is found, eg black holes, but then evidence is sought based on the predictive model. They didn’t just claim that a black hole could be anything from an atom to a giant star and call it proved!) As you show, ‘god’ can be defined any way people want because there is nothing in reality (or any theoretical model) to compare to the definition, so there is zero, nada, zilch way to determine if a definition is accurate.

I’m not here trying to define god or gods or unicorns or big foot or whatever (as in arguing for or against a definition). I’m expressing my opinion that making up definitions of things there is no evidence for is pretty useless and is not, as you opined, that "…discussing what God is or isn't would be a critical part of both theism and atheism." It is critical to theists, not necessarily to atheists. I’m an a-unicornist, an a-fairyist, an a-sorcerist and an a-theist, among many other things I lack belief in because there is no evidence that such things exist. So I don’t spend time worrying about or discussing definitions of those things. I may respond to someone pushing a definition but it’s not critical to my disbelief. Definitions aren’t evidence.

I’ll grant that using those words presupposes some mental definition of what those things are supposed to be, but since all those things are alleged to have attributes that defy our scientific understanding of the universe *and* there has never been any positive evidence that such things/persons have existed or could exist, I don’t find that tweaking the definitions makes any difference in my disbelief. Redefining god as some ancient, powerful being on the other side of the universe that can never be investigated is just an attempt at a god of the gaps position. I’m not interested in spending time on that speculation, lack of evidence isn’t convincing.

Speculating about life or advanced civilizations on other planets isn’t the same thing. We know life exists, we know technological civilization exists. We have some understanding of how both came to exist on this planet and are actively pursuing more knowledge in those fields. We’re not specifically searching for a god on other planets or in the universe as a whole, nor are scientists speculating that we may find unicorns or gods ‘out there’.

We’ll just have to agree to disagree. You seem to think you can define a god into existence, I think we shouldn’t be worrying about the definition of an entity until we have evidence that some such thing exists.

Peace.

and beyond cruel. Sort of goes against everything many believe about a "kind" God. But, then so, too does COVID-19 and war and famine and drought and wildfires and...

I'll just say I will lose it the next time I hear someone say "God's Plan..."

Maybe I'm being obtuse, but I don't...

At least in one part of the Bible, anyway.

“I form the light, and create darkness. I make peace, and create evil. I the Lord do all these things.”
Isaiah 45

of being logically consistent.

The ideas and thoughts are given to us by our players. If they are good, we are good and may have good lives. This could be where inspiration happens. When tragedy happens, it’s because the players are bored. All stuff relating to visions and near death experiences, as well as visiting past lives by hypnosis, are all provided by our players to make us think there’s something else.

The basis of Gnosticism was that God the Father (the former JHVH) was either evil or insane, explaining why there was so much suffering in the world. It was the role of Jesus the Son and the Holy Ghost to try to correct this problem. There were lots of different takes on this approach, which also included the idea that only by experiencing the "gnosis" for yourself could you understand the truth of the situation, but it was all largely lost in the suppression that occurred after the Catholic Church was formed with the Council of Nicea. Still it was a seductive and popular heresy necessitating a genocidal suppression every now and then (see what Mark Twain wrote about the St. Bartholemew's Day massacre for example), at least until the Enlightenment came along and gave people an even better alternate explanation of why the world was chaotic and unkind.

Every things is a bell curve. It's where one is on the curve. Words like racist, gay, liberal don't really have the meaning people assign to them. No one is 100% of any of them. They may fall near the very end of the curve, but chances are someone is even further from the top of the curve than another, if not today, tomorrow.
Words are symbols, not the thing or idea. Humans confuse that. We go to war over symbolic lines on a map. In reality there is no difference in the piece of ground or dirt that lies on either side of that line. But because words, we go to war and die over things that don't really exist. We honor, salute and fight for a flag, which is no more than a symbol, it's not the thing.
Secular Humanist is a better term for me than atheist, or Ethical Culture is another interesting idea as most have less strong feelings about those, yet they are same.

PS Atheists are being banned from the atheists forum for being the wrong kind of atheist? OMG!

well - that's about as convoluted as most theological efforts. also has the advantage of totally passing over the major point in the OP - namely that good and evil cannot exist in the absence of the other. good simply has no definition without the existence of a 'not good' by way of contrast.

but even more fundamental than that - if god doesn't exist (atheism) - how do we end up talking about whether he/she/or it is good or evil? I think I'm starting to develop a pain behind one (wait, maybe it's both!) eye(s).

forum for this question.

In my philosophy, God is necessarily beyond our comprehension and reduction to a definition. God is all of the universe. What we think of as good and evil, are part of the universe and, therefore, God. The problem is, that with our limited understanding, we really do not understand "good" or "evil" in the completeness understood only by God.

For we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when completeness comes, what is in part disappears. . . . For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known. (I Cor. 13: 9-12)

Spinoza.

While he declaimed religious mythology as children's stories, he did famously say that the universe was a creation. And if a creation, there must be a creator. Got into a huge fight with Bohr and a few others about that.

He said one point that as much as he admired the Jewish and Roman Catholic education he grew up with, actual knowlege of that creator is totally beyond us.

Said also that if he had a choice, he would be a Quaker. FWIW, I was a Quaker for years and was not surprised to hear that.

I think where I really am is that God is imponderable. Everything exists either is from God or is God. Exactly what that means is beyond my understanding.