There is no conflict between:
1) defining your terms
2) not playing definition games
An example of playing definition games is by defining god into existence via a tautology in an effort to claim god exists. E.G., the universe is part of god. The universe exists therefore god exists.
Another example is by using obscure definitions and then equivocating. E.G., God is love.
I'm not saying you are going to do such things. I'm just letting you know up front I'm not going to waste my time debating such things.
Then you shouldn't have also dodged the question! Fair enough, though, I guess - and I would guess I'm unlikely to do any of those things, too. Moving on...
I can't define god myself because then i will be accused of making a strawman because every person has their own personal variation on what they think god is. Its only reasonable to have theists present their notion of god so as not to be accused of attacking a strawman.
I'm not a theist. And yes, there are many different definitions of God, many of which are unprovable (or even un-discussable, such as a God whose omnipotence transcends logic, or a God who is defined as 'undefinable').
I'm not sure I agree completely with ignosticism, though. Obviously some characteristics of God are going to have to be defined, but only strictly the ones which are relevant to the discussion. That's simply a matter of pragmatism - by analogy, you don't need to know how long my hair is in order to have a discussion with/about me, but a complete definition would include that.
For the purpose of the situation we're about to get into (and avoiding the nasty snarly definitions), I would go with God as being defined as omnipotent - as in, so powerful that the limits of His power are constrained by logic alone. He can't make a rock so big that He can't life it, but He can do pretty much everything else.
As for the definition of universe, the dictionary definition works well: the totality of known or supposed objects and phenomena throughout space; the cosmos; macrocosm.
Now can you answer the question: What does "outside the universe" actually mean in reference to a god?
Given that definition, simple - God is capable of existing in a realm which is not within the totality of known or supposed objects and phenomena throughout space. Given that our imagination shrinks away before omnipotence, that's a simple one - but have two possibilities which
are within the imaginable:
Flatland/Higher-dimensional deity: If you haven't read Flatland, you really should. Flatland imagines an entire world of only two dimensions, and what life would be like on it. It then imagines what a two-dimensional inhabitant would make of a three-dimensional entity - especially if said three-dimensional entity can lift the two-dimensional entity entirely off it's plane. Now, we're three-dimensional creatures - or eleven, or twelve, or whatever the latest iteration of String Theory indicates. If God existed in a greater set of dimensions than this (we're imagining these extra dimensions are not detectable in any way by our meagre 11-dimensional instruments), that would fit the theory quite well. Ironically, this bears some resemblance to the 'higher dimension branes' that Brian Greene has popularised as potential causes of the Big Bang.
'Bubble universe': If God exists in a universe entirely separate from our own, and is capable of influencing ours from there. We don't know if our universe is infinite, bounded, circular, or a little bit of all three - but if it is bounded, then it's possible that an entirely different universe exists 'elsewhere' that we have no link to - other than God. Not
probable, but...
1) i don't want to get side tracked by this tangent. So i will post a response here. If you are interested in more details then start a new thread and PM me.
2) I did not say i have evidence for non-existence, as in, I have some piece of evidence that can prove non-existence of something. What I did say--that you paraphrased inaccurately--is "there is adequate justification for taking the negative position based on what we KNOW from science, psychology, culture, history, and humans frailties. "
3) The main problem is that the response is dependent on which "god(s)" is being proposed. There is no one-size-fits-all argument against gods.
Take the typical Christian god beliefs. There are a vast amount of reasons people believe the christian god exists. Some of those reasons are addressed below.
To paraphrase; "If God didn't exist, then mad would have created Him". However, if you're going to take evidence as supreme, then you don't have any justification for taking a strong negative position.
