What People Mean When They Say "God"

A serious problem with debates about the existence of a god is that amateur debaters, and they mostly are amateurs, fail to agree to a specific topic, especially a specific definition of "god." The "atheist" side might be arguing against the existence of an old man with long white hair and a beard who lives in the clouds and the other side might be arguing for the existence of something else entirely. Obviously there can be no debate or communication unless both sides use the same definitions. Without the same definitions there can only be useless haranguing.

Much of the confusion is the result of fact that modern concepts of a god are usually not anthropomorphic. Rather, they involve abstract ideas that are not readily understood by some opponents in debate. As it turns out almost no one debates for the existence of an old man with long white hair and a beard who lives in the clouds. That image is usually just an accommodation to children who cannot manage abstract ideas. Although the "Christian" god has an anthropomorphic version, it is usually thought to be only present on Earth for a very short time very long ago. Some people can find it expedient in communication in some circumstances, but it can make debates with atheists troublesome.

Because of abstraction the concept various people have who debate for the existence of a god can have different primary aspects.

Specific Definitions

The abstract or indirectly identified forces in nature and society that assist society in developing ethical codes.

A benevolent director of spiritual or "extrasensory" phenomena such as clairvoyance, premonition, and other knowledge by revelation.

The answer to the question how life originated on a previously molten planet, which rather obviously is not found in lifeless nature, thus "supernatural," or the preferred modern terminology, intelligent designer.

The Evidence

To argue that there is "no evidence" for an abstract god is ridiculous because it is as evident as baseball. You can see the people going into and coming out of the buildings. It is important to understand that most people who attend religious services use this definition far above all others.

Arguments for extrasensory perception are problematic in that it is so easily faked. However there are tests and evidence where first hand witnesses can see proof. If a child suddenly speaks a language never experienced or studied the mother will know it was a special revelation because she knows exactly where the child has been and with whom the child's entire life. The rest of the world will just assume the child did have exposure to the language or studied it from books. Various denominations have various attitudes to spiritual phenomena. Some recognize it being possible in the modern world ("Pentecostals" for example) and some do not.

The intelligent designer is now a fact. Thus it is science not religion. The tornado-in-a-junkyard argument against assembly is well established. To claim there is a "false equivalence" between the biological construction and the tornado is the "backlash" that developed against the impending truth.

Not only atheists, but some amateur debaters for the existence of a god might fail to sort out specifically what they mean. Young people especially might depend on their milieu for their concept of a god and that might contain a murky mix of properties, as people with various definitions attend the same religious services.

There are other definitions of a god that do not ordinarily appear in debates. The dictionary definition of something "supreme" in either the universe or the life of an individual isn't specific enough for a formal debate. That of course results in the problem this article is intended to solve. People might speak of money as being the "god" of some group, some individual, or perhaps even themselves. Military prowess, physical attractiveness, and an unqualified faith in science are other "supreme" interests often found.