Atheists, before we declare that no god exists, must we first define what constitutes a god?

What would be the point of defining and declaring that a hypothetical something could not possibly exist? There are an infinite number of such hypotheticals that people might imagine. I'm not going to waste time trying to logically disprove the existence of any of them. I will simply disbelieve all of them, until the people, who insist that such ideas represent real things, come up with evidence of that existence.

So, for now, all the definition I need for god, is that it is just an idea in someone else's imagination.

--

Regards,

John Popelish

Yes, an immortal,powerful supernatural being worshipped as a god by humans. Then each god has its own definition - some were thought to have created the world and some not. Some are thought to be omniscient and some not. Some thought to be omnipotent and some not. Some benign, some not. Some interested in us and some not. The way to define something as a god is if it is worshipped as such by people.

If something doesn't exist, why do we need to define anything for it? In fact, we say God does not exist precisely because there is not a good definition of God that we can use to verify that he/she/it exist. The burden of proof is on the positive. If you think God exist, define a set of definition that defines God and let me know how you suppose to verify those description.

To completely and utter declare that no god exists, you must be able to survey the entire universe.

To indicate none of the gods that humans have created, that just requires various proofs that completely contradict those gods abilities.

To not believe in a god also doesn't require much work.

Who says I have to "declare that no god exists"? The only requirement for atheism is not being a theist. It's right there in the word: "a" + "theos" + "ism" = "without" "deity" "belief".

I realize that definitions of "God" vary from religion to religion and person to person, but I haven't found any that made enough sense to be of any practical use to me. The ones I've heard have been either so overly-specific that they were nonsensical (e.g. a being who's omnipotent AND all-benevolent AND omniscient), or so ridiculously vague that they were of no practical use (e.g. "God is love" -- so why not just use the word "love" and drop the pointless personification?)

The definition I've been working with right now is 'a divine supernatural authority'. That is to say, it must exist generally outside of the physical laws that govern us, and it must hold a guiding power over humans and/or physical reality. These seem to be the hallmarks of what we mean when we say 'deity'. However, I'm open to revising it if you think this version is inadequate.

Well, I don't declare that no god exists, I declare that I don't believe any god exists, as typically defined by established religions.

I operate under the notion that "god" is essentially universally defined as "an intelligent supernatural being, especially one who created the universe".

Other than the pantheistic version, I don't know that I have ever encountered any specific individual's definition of "God" for which my definition was not the fundamental underlying characteristic.

Apparently, there are over 2000 definitions because that is how many gods humans have invented. No matter how it is defined, I still won't believe in made up stuff.

Never bothered to declare no gods exist mate.