Define God

Nope not "teaching scientific facts".
Applying new & old scientific models to predict results.

Further I have no investment in any scientific model beyond its predictive efficacy (let alone your reference to so-called "scientific facts").

I should like to also point out that your viewpoint has no demonstrable predictive efficacy (despite my numerous requests for you to provide it - in as many words).

Yes, the difference between the early and later Wittgenstein is the difference between the positivists' goal or ideal of words objectively describing the world (by literally pointing to referents) and words expressing understandings/INTERPRETATIONS (i.e., cultural constructions of other words--texting about texts. I suspect this is where we see NIETZSCHE'S influence on Wittgenstein.

From the hypothetical vantage point our 200 years or so of "predictive efficacy" may be considered to be self defeating with respect to global stability. I am not indulging in ecological preaching here. I am merely pointing out that all "prediction and control" is necessarily a limited endeavour which panders to human cognitive traits. It is partly the recognition of those limits which resulted in the historical delegation of "ultimate control" to a deity or deities. Now if the vantage point has any significance at all it will at least enable us to evaluate our "striving to predict" together with its medium of "psychological time". This is the essence of the term "transcendence".

I can agree with that.

Apparently Wittgenstein may have been influenced via Spengler. He did not acknowledge Nietzsche directly, as I understand it.

I myself have been much influenced by Spengler.

No a scientific model is not a reference to global stability, ecological conditions, human cognitive traits, historical delegation, deities, etc.

Consider an older Newtonian scientific model: A body experiencing a force F experiences an acceleration A related to F by F = MA, where M is the mass of the body.

This is often erroneously viewed as a scientific fact and or law.

Entirely irrespective of global stability, ecological conditions, human cognitive traits, historical delegation, deities, etc this model has predictive efficacy as can be expressed in the formula F= MA, and again I should like to also point out that your viewpoint has no demonstrable predictive efficacy (despite my numerous requests for you to provide it - in as many words).

I've not discussed scientific models, only their epistemological limits.
Try re-reading the post.

righteousness, justice, integrity.(bases of love) Sovereignty. eternal, omniscience .omnipotence, immutability, and veracity.

Simple:

God: n. The author/inventor of the RNA/DNA information code which governs all known life.

Simple and wrong.
Using scientific terms to explain god is about as sensible as using god to explain science.

Unless, of course, you are working with a pre-defined and scientifically pronounced concept of god. Something we can apply our science to in other words. But I believe it is the absence of such a thing that has led atheists to scrap the term god altogether. Or is it all the confusion surrounding the term that renders it practically useless for anything but creating conflict among us that is the cause of that?

I think that even if science came up with a clear and logical definition of some force/entity that might fit the term god it would do well to chose another name still. Otherwise the spiritual degenerates would hear that science has proven the existence of god and then, without further investigation, celebrate that what the bible says is true just because their god and the scientifically proven thing has the same name.

The DNA/RNA code is obviously the work of a single pair of hands, as is all known life which is based on it. The man asked for a definition of God and I provided him with one.

Of course, that was from the beginning, whenever that was. Once you get to some sort of a point ten or fifteen thousand years back from the present on this particular planet, things become more complex.

An omniscient God would not need to go through fifty species of elephants or of horses before getting to the one which he wanted. Likewise, a well-intentioned God would not create the creatures of Pandora's box i.e. biting flies, chiggers, fleas, ticks, mosquitos, funnel-web spiders, or disease organisms. In fact, whoever created that **** was some sort of an asshole.

The evidence clearly indicates that at some recent point, the engineering and re-engineering of complex life forms on this planet had become some sort of a cottage industry with numerous pairs of hands involved in it.

But again, the original basis of all life which is the DNA/RNA code, is clearly the work of one pair of hands and the owner of that pair of hands is by definition God.

But gunga, what was the definition of God before the code was thought up as a fairly simple explanation of what we call life? Is this a new religion starting in 1953?

Which pair ?

I am identified as an atheist because the theistic thesis makes no sense to me, but I resist giving up the word, God, and its many cognates for lack of some other way to refer to the VALUE I ascribe to the mysterious Ultimate Reality, whatever that may be.

Wittgenstein wrote--

I think this refers to the dynamic adaptability of language rather than any transcendent connotation.

Using scientific terms to explain god is about as sensible as using god to explain science.

I agree. Indeed they are distinct universes of discourse, possibly favoring different sides of the human brain.

Come on fresco--there are no "transcendent connotations". What have you got in mind?

The pair pressed against eachother, because when god exists nothing else can.