Define God

Yes....but the word "know" requires attention. It implies prediction and control (including prediction of boundaries). Theists merely delegate their own lack of control to "the Big Controller". This delegation is called "knowing God". It is the ultimate catch-all (closure) clause in the contract for a "meaningful life".

Define God? We are in God, God is within us. Just let go of the ego, become God. Why do you need a definition?

On the way to a "definition" we could make ourselves available to our human brothers & sisters who could use a bit of assistance with things like shelter, food, clothing, health care. How do you know that's not why we are here?

Do we mean by "define" a statement of knowledge. As I understand it definitions are conventions, points of conceptual consensus. Moreover, we START OUT with definitions in order to know what it is we wish to focus on in our empirical efforts. Knowledge is, ideally, what we END UP with.
Someone once said the proper way to define a puppy it to recall the answer we gave to the question "What shall we call a small dog?"

But, you see I've heard all the definitions, read and studied for many years before I released all the definitions of "God." I agree JLN, it's the question for which we search, not the "answer."

The real definition of "God?" Gosh, I guess I'd have to guess: The whole of us.
We just don't know, but some think there is one who is at the top, the controller, the one who created us. But, it blew itself up, so we must all be tiny little pieces of IT. God. That's all I know, currently. When I leave this rag, bone, and hank of hair, I'll beam down the answer, though I don't think that's allowed. You know why? Most people wouldn't believe it, and it would tend to scare their pants off.

The whole of us? That's more or less what I suggested earlier when I said that if there is a God, there is only God.

I am convinced that the concepts of prediction and control could apply only within our physical limitations.

Your very use of "convinced" and "limitations" signifies that you have a boundary concept. Assuming you are a believer, your "God" concept will extend beyond that boundary...am I correct ? If so that concept negates what would have been "the void". i.e. your "God" is like a "womb of existence"..a safe haven closed against uncertainty.

A Believer avoids a void !

You are the one who introduced the assertion that 'to know implies prediction and control'. I would not have said that.
I know my wife quite well.
That's why I never try to grab the TV remote.

Me and The Girl, we just take turns watchin' the tee-vee . . .

'bout the only thing Carole and I agree on is Leno.

Yeah, JL: I've know for a long time that we belong to the same (non) church. I see you as a very positive, life-affirming person. That's why it's somewhat puzzling to me that you identify yourself in negative terms (athiest). I see no reason to use a term in reaction to the literalists and fundamentalists as if they have a monopoly on religion.

I see man as a religious animal, not religion in the negative sense, but in the sense that we live in time and, therefore, are always trying to escape it. And escape it we do. Time is just an illusion, and the major part of our organism operates in a state of eternity--unaware of time.

I guess one difference between yoga devotees and Buddhists--zen sect--is that yogis want a permanent consciousness outside the field of time--a perpetual cosmic consciousness as an ultimate goal. Zen sees no difference between time and eternity-time operates within the field of eternity. Of course all animals, plants, and living things live in a field of eternity, but humans can become aware of it because we feel separate from it in time. Ironically, in order to be aware of eternity, one must first be aware of time, then transcend time.

I love the phrase "the major part of our organism operates in a state of eternity--unaware of time". When one meditates one (usually) does so in a state of profound indifference to time--which is why it passes so quickly. In meditation one is little more than an organism, as opposed to a social being.

I do not refer to myself as an atheist; I just assume that because theism's God makes no sense to me, I ignore it, but I do not believe in a No-god (and worship him). My "atheism" is thus passive rather than active.

Care for some orange juice? Guaranteed to resurrect your taste.

Here's a nice tall glass for your orange juice!

Oooh, I missed that.

Too late for a quick retort.

I'll have to lie await in ambush mode.

Orange ya glad Ize got a gud sensa humer?

Shirley or-Ange; they are both nice girls.

I was Shir Lee Baily wuz part of the OJ defense teem

The late Alan Watts said that if asked by his children--assuming he had some--what god was, he would reply that god was deep deep inside us, and that's where you would have to look.

I think most people's idea of god is one with an objective reality; they're literalists, in other words. I have no problem with this. The question is how their religion affects them; does it make them better or worse people? Do they become tolerant with an expanded identity or do they seek security in an exclusive group and xenophobic to outsiders who believe differently? Do they stand in awe and revere nature or do they feel above it--anthropocentric? Do they sense a feeling of mystery about their relationship to the universe or is everything plotted and planned for them by some religious authority, and do they believe there is an authority on the unknowable?