Define God

[Heyo]

Panetheist I think it's called.

It's "panentheism" and slightly different from pantheism.
Your definition of god = all that is is more in line with pantheism.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

It's "panentheism" and slightly different from pantheism.
Your definition of god = all that is is more in line with pantheism.

Ok.

 

[blü 2]

As the title says.

Include qualities, accomplishments, responsibilities, attributes, etc. if any of these apply.

Something along these lines ─

A god is an imaginary being with supernatural powers who, it's said, can be propitiated with worship and offerings and who, it's also said, may sometimes magically answer prayers.

('Imaginary' here includes 'conceptual'. 'Supernatural,' as the name says, means 'not existing in nature' ie not existing in reality. 'Magic' is the imaginary ability to alter reality independently of the rules of reality.)

 

[an anarchist]

So, you two are pantheists?

(I think pan theist is a misnomer. It should be pan-deist as you don't believe in a personal god.)

I don't think I am. I'm reviewing the Wikipedia article right now.

I don't think I identify the universe with god.

 

[PureX]

God: the mystery source, sustenance, and purpose of all that is.

 

[an anarchist]

So, you two are pantheists?

(I think pan theist is a misnomer. It should be pan-deist as you don't believe in a personal god.)

Shoot well maybe. I do hold that human beings are god.

Well at least I am

I can regard everything as a manifestation of the infinite power.

Have to look into pantheism more

 

[SalixIncendium]

Shoot well maybe. I do hold that human beings are god.

Well at least I am

I can regard everything as a manifestation of the infinite power.

Have to look into pantheism more

Essentially, pantheism is the perspective that God is immanent in everything.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

This can be said about anything. Every person understands reality through their own personal lens, even if they use a common language system, be that theology or science. Everyone's mind is unique.

But in cases of real-world things, our understanding is constrained by intersubjective verification.

Point to a pear and say "that's an apple" and someone will probably say "no, that's a pear; this is an apple" and show you an actual apple.

OTOH, describe your version of God and you'll get both "yes, that's God!" and "no, it definitely isn't"... and there's no actual God that people can point to to say "see, that's the thing we're referring to."

 

[LuisDantas]

As the title says.

Include qualities, accomplishments, responsibilities, attributes, etc. if any of these apply.

Gods, also called deities and all to often extended a bit recklessly to include better defined entities, are any and all entities that anyone wants to call a god or deity.

Regardless of any considerations about literal existence; internal coherence; contradiction; moral value and/or significance; and religious value and/or significance.

It is an incredibly free-form concept - if it is a concept at all. Or perhaps I should say that it is the most abused and abusable of all concepts, by design.

There is really no constructive use to the concept in and of itself at this point in human culture; it lost all meaning and serves no purpose. Instead, we all should always point out what we actually mean when the word is mentioned - if we have any reason to use it at all.

 

[Windwalker]

But in cases of real-world things, our understanding is constrained by intersubjective verification. Point to a pear and say "that's an apple" and someone will probably say "no, that's a pear; this is an apple" and show you an actual apple.

This raises a good, and fascinating point. Intersubjective reality. Another term for that is consensus reality. And how is it that that takes form? The answer to that is a shared language and a shared sense of what is true and false. There become agreed upon terms and language, and at a deeper level shared cultural narratives, perpetuating though the arts, the cultural stories, symbols, its myths, etc. We are all programmed with this common language, or perceptual framework of what is considered "reality".

Now while this seems innocuous for simple things like nouns, like apples or pears, what about things not so simple like metaphysical or philosophical views, or values structures? For instance, why do you hear those who grew up with the cultural belief in God say things like, "What is wrong with the atheist? Everybody believes in God!". You are breaking with the consensus reality, or "intersubjective reality".

Reality is in fact perceptual, but it's a combination of our own personal subjective experiences, within the matrix of the intersubjective or cultural frameworks. If you grew up outside of culture and society, a "wild child", then you would be "crazy" when thrust into that mainstream consensus reality. There would be very few common frames of reference, except for the most mundane of things, like 'food', or 'danger'.

But larger, more than just mere survival experiences of human reality, are a matter of navigating our own internal subjective experiences and thoughts, within an externalized linguist shared structure or framework of common senses of what reality is, that comprises our experiences of reality. This applies to everyone alive.

OTOH, describe your version of God and you'll get both "yes, that's God!" and "no, it definitely isn't"... and there's no actual God that people can point to to say "see, that's the thing we're referring to."

Again, to those who have no such experience, to hear speak of something they have not interfaced with, such as the taste of an orange, they either have to take others who have tasted them at the word, or assume a cynical position that they are all nuts because they've never even seen an orange let alone tasted one. But to those where oranges are not unfamiliar to them, and they have tasted them, then they will say easily, "yes, I recognize you too have tasted an orange by the way you describe the taste."

That's really what all this comes down to. It's not whether or not God exists, but it's whether or not someone has had the type of experience that qualifies to use that word to describe that experience. You can't eat a pistachio nut and just call that an orange. The description has to fit the word, more or less.

 

[lukethethird]

God is an urban myth.

 

[Heyo]

Gods, also called deities and all to often extended a bit recklessly to include better defined entities, are any and all entities that anyone wants to call a god or deity.

Regardless of any considerations about literal existence; internal coherence; contradiction; moral value and/or significance; and religious value and/or significance.

It is an incredibly free-form concept - if it is a concept at all. Or perhaps I should say that it is the most abused and abusable of all concepts, by design.

There is really no constructive use to the concept in and of itself at this point in human culture; it lost all meaning and serves no purpose. Instead, we all should always point out what we actually mean when the word is mentioned - if we have any reason to use it at all.

:winner:

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

As the title says.

Include qualities, accomplishments, responsibilities, attributes, etc. if any of these apply.

The universe is fair and real epistemologically, orderly and knowable.