CREATOR / DEITY / GOD: How do we define what that means?

[BroncoBuff]

I'm fascinated by different scopes of reality. I think human beings are wildly prejudiced and too narrowly-focused upon data derived from their five senses. Vision informs us so powerfully of our "reality," that we stubbornly believe it to be dispositive of all that exists. When we look into space and see nothing, we assume nothing is there. Is that a reasonable assumption? Atheists (strong or weak) tend to shut down inquiry because they receive no data from human senses, human vision.

BUT .... how about other sentient creatures on Earth? Dolphins and Ants for starters. Both have extensive social interaction and great depth of communication. And yet, their understanding of the physical universe is extremely limited, at least from our point of view. So then what makes US so sure we understand our surroundings so completely?

Imo, Mankind is too "full of itself." What if WE are the Ants or the Dolphins in a much, much larger reality that we are incapable of understanding through our five senses?


So what then could God be? Most definitions I've run across are consumed with the survival of our human identities after death. That we will see our dead relatives, etc. I think it's more likely that afterlife - and "God" - are beyond the comprehension of our senses, and beyond mere definitional terms. Pure energy could be God ... God could be all around us and inside us, but like Ants not seeing the oceans, or Dolphins not seeing the mountains, WE do not see God. So, demanding PROOF of God/Creator/deity is a narrow-minded self-impotant belief that our five senses sense all that there is. Which just cannot be true.

[alkemical]

I wouldn't even know how to begin to define what god is/could be/etc - It would mean i have a 'definite' of what God "IS".

Could god be DNA, or gravity (or is gravity a "law") that "god" would create?

For me, my cross roads happen to be, before i can define what god is, what is concsiousness is. Are we merley just a program scripted running from DNA (in which all living things have DNA) and we are all operating our "program" according to it? Of course then - what/whom/etc made DNA?

I have a thousand questions and suspicions of what god "could be" - but i don't know what god is or could be.

[Bronco Bob]

So what then could God be?

Hairy thunderer or cosmic muffin?

[BroncoBuff]

Originally Posted by claviculasolomonis

For me, my cross roads happen to be, before i can define what god is, what is concsiousness is. Are we merley just a program scripted running from DNA (in which all living things have DNA) and we are all operating our "program" according to it? Of course then - what/whom/etc made DNA?

Those are very "Matrix" questions. But without getting too cute, I think that the fact we are able to ask such questions proves that there is some element of "free will" in our existence. If we were merely following the "program" as you put it, then such questions would be a bug in that program, and would serve no purpose.

OR - could that self-important inquiry serve the purpose of deluding us that our lives exist beyond this physical plane? NO is the answer. If the "program" was "written" to delude us into believing that we survive the death of our physical bodies, then the programmers surely would've provided more "proof" that we survive (if for no other reason that to keep orangeatheist at bay ). There would be a more visible "carrot" to keep our noses to whatever grindstone constitutes the purpose of the programmers.


And yes - DNA is the script WE are run from. But WE is merely the physical vessel fashioned from DNA's blueprint. The consciousness that "inhabits" these vessels is, in fact, a separate entity. But the rise/potential/ability/purpose of that consciousness is constrained by the limitations of our vessel and its five senses. These senses are (thusfar in the evolutionary process) insufficient to give our greater consciousness the window it seeks. So our DNA - our instinct - pushes us ever outward to enhance our limited physical senses. Telescopes, microscopes, science and technology expand the senses - searching, searching, searching - instinctively searching. But for what? We don't know yet (though I trust we'll know when we find it). So, instinctively we search, search, search - because our consciousness/program wills it. TO SUM UP - I think these physical vessels all house the same consciousness. Our physical plane is insufficient to host all that the greater consciousness is (God?), so the vessels are programmed to "go forth and multiply," and accordingly, there are 6 billion physical "nodes" that the greater consciousness can use toward its ends (whatever they are).

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Originally Posted by BroncoBuff

So what then could God be?

For most people, something to make them (their existence) feel worthwhile or necessary or validated, a reason why.

Once humans (if they) evolve past these insecurities and fears they may be able to finally become civilized.

[BroncoBuff]

Originally Posted by Bronco_Beerslug

Once humans (if they) evolve past these insecurities and fears they may be able to finally become civilized.

Agreed. FEAR is the enemy.

FEAR is what makes fundamentalists (of any religion) grip so hard, and lash out so hostilly toward anyone that questions their answers. Fundamentalists are those of us most consumed by fear I think. Those who demand ANSWERS - cold, hard, answers. Answers that any deviation therefrom can be ridiculed, marginalized and punished.

[BroncoBuff]

Wow ... I'm disappointed this hasn't resonated with anyone. To me, this is a SUBSTANTIVE discussion, rather than a definitional jerk-off like we had with "what is an atheist?" type arguments. Anyway, are my theories/descriptions too simple? Too complicated? Too silly? Too "far out, man"?

Lemme expand upon the thrust of my theory as laid out above:

The consciousness that "inhabits" these vessels (ourselves), that inserts part of itself in each of us, is in fact, a separate entity. But the rise/potential/ability/purpose of that consciousness is constrained by the limitations of our vessel and its five senses. These senses are (thusfar in the evolutionary process) insufficient to give our greater consciousness the window it seeks. So our DNA - our instinct - pushes us ever outward to enhance our limited physical senses. Telescopes, microscopes, science and technology expand the senses - searching, searching, searching - instinctively searching. Instinctively we search, search, search - because our consciousness/program wills it.

We are "programmed" to push outward - to seek. That is the instinct placed inside us by this "greater consciousness" as I call it, this instinct willing us toward that goal. Viktor Frankl called it a "will to a meaning" (in "Man's Search for Meaning"). Through his experiences in a concentration camp, he believed that the 'will to a meaning' - which I call a "programmed-instinctive-energy" instilled in us by the 'creator/God/greater consciousness/pure energy' - is something we all need to make our lives more worth living.

This greater consciousness/higher power expresses itself in varying levels in all humans, to push us to seek out. This "programmed-instinctive-energy" can be harnessed by each of us - as Frankl did in Auschwitz to survive - toward our own individual ends. Zen Buddhism harnesses this through meditation imo - meditation as the inward forcusing of that "programmed-instinctive-energy" toward a peaceful awakening of one's true nature. It seems as if clavicula might have harnessed this same "programmed-instinctive-energy" to re-train himself - even heal himself.

Most humans have virtually zero awareness of this "programmed-instinctive-energy" inside. But I think there is a greater consciousness ... perhaps not an individual deity or God per se - but a larger consciousness that imbues us/implants within us/expresses itself in this plane through us, with this "programmed-instinctive-energy." It follows from all this too, that it operates to reject material things.

Jesus' teachings in fact are filled with admonitions that each of us has God inside him. I don't recall the chapter&verse, but at one point he gets frustrated that everyone comes to him with requests to be healed or something, and finally gets impatient and says: "heal yourselves!" He wasn't angry, but seemed more impatient that he was being relied upon by so many, even after he had taught them that "the Kingdom of God" was inside each of them. Since I was a small kid, I was struck that Jesus seemed to tell us all, again and again, that we could do everything he was doing if we looked within. And that is how I tie all this together: this "programmed-instinctive-energy" inside each of us can be harnessed. Through meditation, whatever.

[BroncoBuff]

If anybody wants to REALLY trip out along these lines of an instinctive urge to seek out, imbued within us by a greater consciousness but limited on this physical plane by our senses and our awareness of it .... read Stanislav Grof's writings abnout LSD. I'm not joking, there are some seriously deep and scientific ideas about what LSD can do along these lines.

[orangeatheist]

Originally Posted by BroncoBuff

Atheists (strong or weak) tend to shut down inquiry because they receive no data from human senses, human vision.

So, demanding PROOF of God/Creator/deity is a narrow-minded self-impotant belief that our five senses sense all that there is. Which just cannot be true.

What is the matter with you? Are you so desperate to pigeonhole everyone into your own worldview that you just take out your broad brush and stroke everyone you see with it?

Do you really believe that atheists (like myself) reject belief in a god merely because this god cannot be sensed physically? Do you really think we don't have other reasons?

I certainly commend your efforts in your thread title, however. Before one can accept or reject any notion of a deity, it is critical that a definition of that deity be presented. It is only by defining that entity that the evidence produced for the existence of the thing can be brought forward in support. Otherwise you'll see nothing but ad hoc'ing and goal post shifting.

[mosca]

Originally Posted by BroncoBuff

So what then could God be? Most definitions I've run across are consumed with the survival of our human identities after death. That we will see our dead relatives, etc. I think it's more likely that afterlife - and "God" - are beyond the comprehension of our senses, and beyond mere definitional terms. Pure energy could be God ... God could be all around us and inside us, but like Ants not seeing the oceans, or Dolphins not seeing the mountains, WE do not see God. So, demanding PROOF of God/Creator/deity is a narrow-minded self-impotant belief that our five senses sense all that there is. Which just cannot be true.

I agree with the gist of what you're saying here ... if there is a "God" (for lack of a better word), I don't necessarily consider it to be a sentient being, or anything we can even try to comprehend. The concept of "God" is likely something far beyond our level of understanding. I'm comfortable admitting that - but I believe to some humans, that idea is threatening. It feels safer to worship a "God" that looks, acts, behaves like us, in a somewhat rational manner. Not to mention the enticing prospect of an afterlife, which for all we know, may still not exist, with or without a "God".

This video (and book by this author) sums up my viewpoint on "God" nicely:

[bdv]

Originally Posted by BroncoBuff

When we look into space and see nothing, we assume nothing is there. Is that a reasonable assumption?

I don't assume that. Why do you?

Atheists (strong or weak) tend to shut down inquiry because they receive no data from human senses, human vision.

The very rare absolutely strong atheist, regarding any type of supernatural deity, may be this close minded. I don't know. But the vast majority of weak atheists (AKA atheists) are extremely curious compared to the population as a whole. Most of us, in contrast to most theists, would far prefer a difficult or unanswerable question to an easy, lazy answer.

So what then could God be?

First of all, a literal god can not logically be a metaphor. Next, to be linguistically consistent with virtually all historical uses of the word "god," I'll start with some minimum parameters: 1) he would need to think, 2) he would need to have the free will to take actions and affect change whenever he so chose, 3) he would need to be more powerful than humans, 4) he would need to at least have the capability to interact with us, 5) he would not be subject to the laws of nature, he would be supernatural.

Also, so that we don't arbitrarily redefine the word "god," he can not simply be energy. Indeed, the more "natural" we suppose this "god" to be, the more spurious the use of the word "god" becomes.

There is one more little requirement for our god to actually be real: HE CAN NOT break the laws of hard logic.

I firmly believe that this being could exist. Bear in mind, though, that he is not a scientific necessity, and there is no evidence to support the claim that he does exist; he is not testable, falsifiable, observable, verifiable, etc. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence," though we have none. Doesn't mean we can't have fun supposing, though. After all, his existence is possible...


If you had something else in mind, you may want to reconsider the use of the word "god," in its literal sense, to describe this thing.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Originally Posted by BroncoBuff

When we look into space and see nothing, we assume nothing is there. Is that a reasonable assumption?

I think that it's just the opposite for most people (it is for me at least). Every since I was a young kid, sleeping out under the stars at night (scouts, mountain trips, etc...), trying to comprehend the vastness and infinity of space was/is mind boggling! My mind would race with hundreds of thoughts of everything imaginable from how small, insignificant and unspectacular we could/must be to how many different forms of life could/must exist out there to what's beyond the darkness, beyond that and what's beyond that, etc...

I highly recommend people get out of the light polluted cities and sleep out under the stars as often as possible to get ones self grounded again (leave your radios, ipods, etc... at home).

[orangenblue2]

Originally Posted by BroncoBuff

When we look into space and see nothing, we assume nothing is there. Is that a reasonable assumption? Atheists (strong or weak) tend to shut down inquiry because they receive no data from human senses, human vision.

Bulls**t. As an atheist, I most certainly don't "assume nothing is there". I can "see" all sorts of stars, planets, moons, galaxies, etc.; through my own eyes and with helpful "human" inventions like telescopes, satellites, photography, prisms, spectrometers, etc.. I can actually "touch" objects that have come from outer space as well as rocks brought back from our moon. I can "hear" the background noise of our universe with my own ears...and a little help from that "human" invention called science. I am profoundly amazed by "space" and all that it entails. Humankind learns more about our universe and our place in it every day. In fact, I would be willing to bet that a vast majority of scientists who work within these fields day in and day out are "atheists". The bottom line is that you need to quit generalizing "atheists"...seriously.

Originally Posted by BroncoBuff

BUT .... how about other sentient creatures on Earth? Dolphins and Ants for starters. Both have extensive social interaction and great depth of communication. And yet, their understanding of the physical universe is extremely limited, at least from our point of view. So then what makes US so sure we understand our surroundings so completely?

Classic strawman. I would defy you to find any legitimate scientist, or any "atheist" for that matter, that believe we "understand our surroundings so completely". We certainly don't, but humankind's efforts to understand the universe at all, is directly related to human curiosity, inquisitiveness, and ingenuity. More specifically, we "atheists" aren't quite satisfied with the old "god did it" routine when we can't explain something.

Originally Posted by BroncoBuff

Imo, Mankind is too "full of itself." What if WE are the Ants or the Dolphins in a much, much larger reality that we are incapable of understanding through our five senses?

Well, "mankind" is the best that we have. We may very well be the "ants or dolphins" as far as the universe goes...but we are the most highly developed creatures on our planet. I choose to celebrate mankind's achievements rather than grovel before an invisible being who we are supposed to feel unworthy of...

Originally Posted by BroncoBuff

Pure energy could be God ...

Why the extra step...why call "pure energy" anything other than "pure energy"?

Originally Posted by BroncoBuff

God could be all around us and inside us, but like Ants not seeing the oceans, or Dolphins not seeing the mountains, WE do not see God. So, demanding PROOF of God/Creator/deity is a narrow-minded self-impotant belief that our five senses sense all that there is. Which just cannot be true.

You've been talking to Clavi too much...

[alkemical]

Originally Posted by BroncoBuff

Those are very "Matrix" questions. But without getting too cute, I think that the fact we are able to ask such questions proves that there is some element of "free will" in our existence. If we were merely following the "program" as you put it, then such questions would be a bug in that program, and would serve no purpose.

Unless of course, that's part of the program. How much does free will really dicate and on what level does it exist? Does it merley exist on just a level of how you react to 'something'? I had an opportunity to move to seattle, and did. It didn't work out on a 'material' nature so well - but on a 'spiritual' side it paid major dividends in terms of grounding myself as well as some other things that for me personally, were very benificial. So did i really have much of a 'choice'? Was i always going to go on that trip because, well - that's what i was scripted to do?

Originally Posted by BroncoBuff

OR - could that self-important inquiry serve the purpose of deluding us that our lives exist beyond this physical plane? NO is the answer. If the "program" was "written" to delude us into believing that we survive the death of our physical bodies, then the programmers surely would've provided more "proof" that we survive (if for no other reason that to keep orangeatheist at bay ). There would be a more visible "carrot" to keep our noses to whatever grindstone constitutes the purpose of the programmers.

What's more visible and distracting than air conditioning, tv, and melted cheese? (Not that i disagree w/you at all, i just think that through our obsessions, we do what we are supposed to do - like an ant, or a bird.)

Originally Posted by BroncoBuff

And yes - DNA is the script WE are run from. But WE is merely the physical vessel fashioned from DNA's blueprint. The consciousness that "inhabits" these vessels is, in fact, a separate entity. But the rise/potential/ability/purpose of that consciousness is constrained by the limitations of our vessel and its five senses. These senses are (thusfar in the evolutionary process) insufficient to give our greater consciousness the window it seeks. So our DNA - our instinct - pushes us ever outward to enhance our limited physical senses. Telescopes, microscopes, science and technology expand the senses - searching, searching, searching - instinctively searching. But for what? We don't know yet (though I trust we'll know when we find it). So, instinctively we search, search, search - because our consciousness/program wills it. TO SUM UP - I think these physical vessels all house the same consciousness. Our physical plane is insufficient to host all that the greater consciousness is (God?), so the vessels are programmed to "go forth and multiply," and accordingly, there are 6 billion physical "nodes" that the greater consciousness can use toward its ends (whatever they are).

Not that the 'brain' is a computer, and while i do agree with you in some degrees, i disagree with you on somethings here:

I don't think it's IMpossible to say that our level of consciousness could not be just the product of environment and the structure/wiring of the brain. It's sort of like asking if the brain is just hardware or software. Until you can define what consciousness can be, that's where the limitation of what a 'soul' is, or what 'god' is, or how we precieve god. (See 'god gene')

(of course if there is a god gene, then is it any different than a hair colour - or height, and if not everyone has a god gene why don't they have it, and who put the god gene in DNA? God, or was it just a prank?)

Or is "God/Sprituality" just an 'artistic' impression of the world around? If you believe in angles and demons, does your brain filter that through this 'program' and shows you the world through that perceptive program?


Trust me, for all the 'spooky' & 'paranormal' events i've seen - i cannot begin to tell you if they are 'real', other than they "were real enough".

[alkemical]

Originally Posted by BroncoBuff

Agreed. FEAR is the enemy.

FEAR is what makes fundamentalists (of any religion) grip so hard, and lash out so hostilly toward anyone that questions their answers. Fundamentalists are those of us most consumed by fear I think. Those who demand ANSWERS - cold, hard, answers. Answers that any deviation therefrom can be ridiculed, marginalized and punished.

Fear also pushes the brain to move down to its bio-survival circuts, which often leads to decisions based on survival instead of 'logic'.

[alkemical]

Originally Posted by mosca

I agree with the gist of what you're saying here ... if there is a "God" (for lack of a better word), I don't necessarily consider it to be a sentient being, or anything we can even try to comprehend. The concept of "God" is likely something far beyond our level of understanding. I'm comfortable admitting that - but I believe to some humans, that idea is threatening. It feels safer to worship a "God" that looks, acts, behaves like us, in a somewhat rational manner. Not to mention the enticing prospect of an afterlife, which for all we know, may still not exist, with or without a "God".

This video (and book by this author) sums up my viewpoint on "God" nicely:

I cannot see the vid due to being @ work:

anyway - That's sort of how i view what would be 'god'. IMO, god would have to be so "big" that it would be 'everywhere'. It wouldn't nec. be an 'intelligence' like we westerners may think an 'intelligence' would be.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Originally Posted by BroncoBuff

CREATOR / DEITY / GOD: How do we define what that means?

OK - you asked for it, dude.

I would define "God" as the attempt to represent - either with images or ideas (which are just abstract images) - that which transcends all imagination, thought, and attempts at conceptualization.

These images and ideas both reveal and conceal "God."

For me, 'God' is not so much supernatural as suprarational.

That is, 'God' isn't a "person," i.e., some sort of cosmic male ruler or technocrat who is ontologically distinct from 'His' "creation" and who "rules" or manipulates space-time, matter, etc., from outside it.

The question of 'God,' for me, is related to most questions concerning the human mind and its place in nature. In my view, the ego, i.e., the center of rational reflection, conscious attention, and volition, is just a minute fragment (comparable to an onion floating on an ocean) of the totality of who and what we are. This totality is expressed or represented - through dreams, myths, images, symbols, and religious traditions - as 'God.'

Christ realized this, and He was denounced as a blasphemer and a heretic.

Had Christ lived in India and proclaimed "I am God," people would have said "congratulations - at last you found out."

[alkemical]

Originally Posted by bdv

I don't assume that. Why do you?



The very rare absolutely strong atheist, regarding any type of supernatural deity, may be this close minded. I don't know. But the vast majority of weak atheists (AKA atheists) are extremely curious compared to the population as a whole. Most of us, in contrast to most theists, would far prefer a difficult or unanswerable question to an easy, lazy answer.



First of all, a literal god can not logically be a metaphor. Next, to be linguistically consistent with virtually all historical uses of the word "god," I'll start with some minimum parameters: 1) he would need to think, 2) he would need to have the free will to take actions and affect change whenever he so chose, 3) he would need to be more powerful than humans, 4) he would need to at least have the capability to interact with us, 5) he would not be subject to the laws of nature, he would be supernatural.

Also, so that we don't arbitrarily redefine the word "god," he can not simply be energy. Indeed, the more "natural" we suppose this "god" to be, the more spurious the use of the word "god" becomes.

There is one more little requirement for our god to actually be real: HE CAN NOT break the laws of hard logic.

I firmly believe that this being could exist. Bear in mind, though, that he is not a scientific necessity, and there is no evidence to support the claim that he does exist; he is not testable, falsifiable, observable, verifiable, etc. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence," though we have none. Doesn't mean we can't have fun supposing, though. After all, his existence is possible...


If you had something else in mind, you may want to reconsider the use of the word "god," in its literal sense, to describe this thing.

What are the laws of hard logic? I did a google search and didn't find anything to reference that.

Also why couldn't 'god'(ess) be a term used if god would be 'natural'? I sort of like the suspicion that we are all part/make up a superorganism. I can't say it's true, but it can make a lot of sense. (Which means that maybe, just maybe those old shamans did talk to Momma Earth).

[alkemical]

Researcher induces out-of-body experiences

A Swedish neuroscientist at the University College of London announced today that he has reproduced the out-of-body experience often reported by stroke victims, epileptics, drug users and those who have been through near death experiences.

University H. Henrik Ehrsson’s experiment sheds light on how people are able to experience phantom pains in missing limbs, for example.

Ehrsson in his most recent experiment, published by the journal Science, today, used a virtual reality headset and camera to cause 12 test subjects to view their own bodies as someone else’s.

Ehrsson has also shown how a subject’s brain can tricked into thinking that a rubber hand is a part of his body, causing the subject to react to a threat to the false hand as if it were his own (see link and expert, below).

The UCL experiment also shows how the controllers of virtual worlds such as Second Life might be able to blur the distinction between reality and fantasy with devices that literally separate consciousness from the human body.

The consequences of that disembodiment would be catastrophic. “If the distinction fails, the animal might try to feed on itself and will not be able to plan actions that involve both body parts and external objects,” Ehrsson told the BBC several years ago.



_____

""This study shows that the brain distinguishes the self from the non-self by comparing information from the different senses. In a way you could argue that the bodily self is an illusion being constructed in the brain." - Dr Henrik Ehrsson

[bdv]

Originally Posted by claviculasolomonis

What are the laws of hard logic? I did a google search and didn't find anything to reference that.

I made up the term "laws of hard logic" to distinguish from a more loose use of the word "logic." Lazy on my part. Anyway, here are some logical impossibilities, even for a god:

Using the intended definition of 2 + 2, God can not make 2 + 2 = 3. Also, God can not cause a formal paradox to exist. For example, he can not cause an unstoppable and an unmovable object to both exist at the same time. There are many illogical things that even a most powerful god could not do. If we go further, and the claim is that God is omnipotent without exception, the logical problems become endless. In addition to the above, he could not set up a task too difficult for God to achieve? e.g. "build something so large that God could not move it." Etc....

I wish I had more time to respond to your other question. It has to do with my opinion on how the word "god" ought to be used, and my use of the word "spurious." We would be thought of as gods if we showed off our technology to a primitive culture, but we wouldn't really be gods. Got to go... Crying baby needs me...

Talk to you soon
-Tim

[alkemical]

Originally Posted by bdv

I made up the term "laws of hard logic" to distinguish from a more loose use of the word "logic." Lazy on my part. Anyway, here are some logical impossibilities, even for a god:

Using the intended definition of 2 + 2, God can not make 2 + 2 = 3. Also, God can not cause a formal paradox to exist. For example, he can not cause an unstoppable and an unmovable object to both exist at the same time. There are many illogical things that even a most powerful god could not do. If we go further, and the claim is that God is omnipotent without exception, the logical problems become endless. In addition to the above, he could not set up a task too difficult for God to achieve? e.g. "build something so large that God could not move it." Etc....

I wish I had more time to respond to your other question. It has to do with my opinion on how the word "god" ought to be used, and my use of the word "spurious." We would be thought of as gods if we showed off our technology to a primitive culture, but we wouldn't really be gods. Got to go... Crying baby needs me...

Talk to you soon
-Tim

Nope but even Pythagoras believed in math being the language of the universe. I'm sorry you are pent up on what 'god' should only be applied too. For lack of a better term - of saying the: "point of origin of the big bang/organizer of the ecosystem/the remote most high hidden self of man/etc'. But it's fine if you'd like to narrowly define god, i'm sure (s)he did the same.

[mosca]

Originally Posted by claviculasolomonis

Nope but even Pythagoras believed in math being the language of the universe. I'm sorry you are pent up on what 'god' should only be applied too. For lack of a better term - of saying the: "point of origin of the big bang/organizer of the ecosystem/the remote most high hidden self of man/etc'. But it's fine if you'd like to narrowly define god, i'm sure (s)he did the same.

Even your definition is a pretty loose one, not that I'm disagreeing with it. The problem is that most of the organized religions have a very narrow view of the word "God", and almost try to hijack the word. You or me, using the word "God" might be talking about something along the lines of "the remote most high hidden self of man" while talking to a Christian. They'll probably assume we're talking specifically about YHWH, even though that may not be the case. It's a communication problem.

[alkemical]

Originally Posted by mosca

Even your definition is a pretty loose one, not that I'm disagreeing with it. The problem is that most of the organized religions have a very narrow view of the word "God", and almost try to hijack the word. You or me, using the word "God" might be talking about something along the lines of "the remote most high hidden self of man" while talking to a Christian. They'll probably assume we're talking specifically about YHWH, even though that may not be the case. It's a communication problem.

So i need to invent a new word?

[bdv]

mosca, clavi et. el.,

Do you mean to use the word "god" metaphorically or literally?

Scientists speak of "god" metaphorically quite often. The problem, as with the many quotes of Einstein, who was actually an atheist, is that using "god" in a metaphorical, figurative sense can be confusing to those who only have a passing interest in all of this.

[alkemical]

Originally Posted by bdv

mosca, clavi et. el.,

Do you mean to use the word "god" metaphorically or literally?

Scientists speak of "god" metaphorically quite often. The problem, as with the many quotes of Einstein, who was actually an atheist, is that using "god" in a metaphorical, figurative sense can be confusing to those who only have a passing interest in all of this.

I guess it would be more metaphorical, since it couldn't be 'literal' (IMO)unless 'god 'imself' kicked me in the bum. For me "god" wouldn't pertian to say.... Eris (well cuz she's a goddess, and well - i have this other thing from my studies that indicate "god" for one could be "angel/demon" for another - but that's another digression) or quetzecotal - since they'd have to 'eminate' from 'somewhere/someone' - or - answer to someone higher (logically IMO anyway).