The definition of god
If I don’t know what god is it is impossible for me to try to negate god. God is defined differently, therefore the negation from the atheist is different in most situations, depending on how “god” is defined. But atheism is still the default position, since the defined claim needs to be proven. When the defined claim about a god is proven, then and only then is it justified to believe it
Let’s start with a simple statement:
“I believe in god”
The statement above needs to be defined in order to make it meaningful. Now compare it to this statement:
“I believe in the sun, and I call the sun ‘god’”
The second statement is much more compelling, since the term “god” is defined as something we can see and investigate on
But since there generally is no satisfying definition of a god that everyone agrees on, the statement “I believe in god” is virtually meaningless. The statement is different for each individual, and as is shown above it always needs a definition to have any meaning at all. There is a saying that “there are as many gods as there are people”
The definition of god needs to be of the kind that it:
i) only includes things and/or phenomena that aren’t already explained,
doesn’t have a definition, and doesn’t already have a name
ii) excludes things and/or phenomena that are already explained, does have a definition,
and does already have a name
The two criteria above are necessary, firstly in order to avoid confusion and give wrong connotations, and secondly because things and phenomena that already are explained and have been given a name are in no need for further definitions or explanations. Explained things and phenomena are already defined, otherwise they wouldn’t be what they are, and wouldn’t be called what they are called
Let’s look again at the statement:
“I believe in the sun, and I call the sun ‘god’”
Here, “god” is defined as “the sun”. But since the sun already has a working definition, i.e. we know what the sun is, the statement violates both of the two criteria above. It includes a phenomena, “the sun“, that already has an explanation, a definition and a name. To infer the term “god” to represent the sun gives the wrong connotations, and it unnecessarily gives the sun a new label, a new name, and (probably) new characteristics
So it is easy to see why the two criteria above are necessary when defining god, and a lot of confusion and unnecessary debating could be avoided by keeping them in mind
* * *
But this is of course "god of the gaps". That is, filling in god wherever we have a gap in our knowledge. When that gap is filled there is no longer any need for god to occupy it, for the reasons stated above. In that way god keeps getting pushed further and further back as our knowledge is increasing
God will only disappear completely when we know all that there is to know, untill then there will always be gaps for a god to occupy
