"God" is such a nebulous term.

[Falvlun]

So do ghosts, spirits, dead ancestors, dead saints, and various other non-gods.

As mentioned in the other thread, I don't consider any of those things to be supernatural. Should they exist, then they'd be just as natural as you and I, just in a different form.

Admittedly, my definition probably could be tweaked further, but I think most people know what I'm getting at. We have a feeling for what the word "god" means, and no, it doesn't include dead people.

 

[Falvlun]

I know what you're saying. I will admit though, it's a tactic I've used on those people who come on the forums and say "All Religion is evil/stupid/archaic because the Bible says nasty things." It's those people who need to do some research IMO, but not so that they might believe, just so they might not be such a tool in the future

That sounds reasonable to me.

My beef is more with atheists who have been thoughtful about this... almost too thoughtful. Overthinking things a bit, in other words. :yes: I agree, that people should have a good foundation for their beliefs-- or lack thereof-- which means knowing that the God of the Bible isn't the only dude in the running.

It's just ridiculous, in my opinion, to think that you have to know every single example of a god that has ever been described or ever will be thought up before you make a decision. That's not how our brains are designed to work, and it would be an impossible task. At some point, you should have enough information to develop a "type", a category, which you can develop an opinion around.

Part of the reason for making this thread was to get people sharing the manner in which they envision God/god/gods. There are a lot more God concepts than there are Bigfoot concepts (although I get what you were conveying in your example) and on a forum like this it's easy to get a lot of miscommunication simply through people having a different perspective on the same word (God, Atheist, Faith and Worship seem to be the biggest ones).

I agree. When arguing over whether god is _____, it's important to know which god we're talking about.

Because people have a lot invested in the notion of God existing. So much, in fact, that they'd rather reduce it to a neurotic word game than allow the concept to be subjected to the same scrutiny to which we insist on subjecting all other ideas in our society. Now God isn't a being, or a force, or a phenomenon, or anything else we can assess critically.

So God has become something no other idea in our culture is: a concept so vague that it can mean anything to anyone.

-Nato

That's just it. I don't think it needs to be all that vague, mysterious. Obviously, we have to have some conception of what the word means since we are able to use it meaningfully; in other words, when someone says "god" we don't act as if we just heard "garlarof". We have an idea of what "god" means; we have no idea of what garlarof could be referring to.

Went to dictionary online to see how they describe the word "god". Most of the definitions are too specific for my tastes, but there was one from the World English Dictionary that is broad and descriptive enough:
"god: a supernatural being who is worshipped as the controller of some part of the universe or some aspect of life in the world or is the personification of some force."

I think that basically covers the general idea people have when they hear the word "god". What's so hard about that? (My only quibble would be that this supernatural being wouldn't need to be worshipped in order to be a god. It's a god whether we know it exists or not, whether we choose to worship it or not.)

To a Pantheist or Panentheist every'thing, is evidence of gOd.
(or "gOd evident")

Ultimately though men are the Gods who define reality.
They are the Self Realization, and Creators of the UniVerse.

I'm glad you're here, cuz I had some questions for pantheists. In general, I'm not a huge fan of calling the universe "god", simply because we already have a word for it-- Universe. (I, of course, do not begrudge other people from calling the universe god if they want to.)

But, is there further connotations to calling everything "god"? As in, are you not just referring to the Universe, but something that is more than just the sum of its parts. Do you worship the Universe/Everything, or do you worship the lifeforce or the Sum of Everything? I'm not making myself very clear, but maybe you understand what I'm trying to get at.

EDIT: We have I can't even guess how many thousands of videos of evidence worth of this.

Netflix might be a good place to begin.

Obviously, I believe the Universe exists. But, I don't believe that the universe is God. How would evidence for that look? This probably ties into my previous question. If everything is a god, and a part of god, how would this rock in my hand look any different than if everything wasn't a god or a part of god?

 

[Jacksnyte]

It's a pet peeve of mine that most people do not distinguish between God and god. Capital "G" God is a proper name. Small "g" god is a generic name. The difference is the same as the difference between Smith, the name of a person, and smith, the name of an occupation.

Most folks spell both the proper name and the generic name for god with a capital "G". It's not all that important, but it's annoying.

The problem here is that (primarily) Christians refer to their god as if the word god were actually his name. Their god actually has a name, although the vast majority of Christians seem to be unaware of this, or if they are, they mistakenly think his name is "Yahweh", or "Jehovah". God is a term like human, or animal. It is not a Proper name, and really never was.

 

[E. Nato Difficile]

Obviously, we have to have some conception of what the word means since we are able to use it meaningfully; in other words, when someone says "god" we don't act as if we just heard "garlarof". We have an idea of what "god" means; we have no idea of what garlarof could be referring to.

Who says people use it meaningfully? In fact, it's the exact opposite of the process you describe above: when someone says "god," everyone has a different idea of what the word means. And believers, as I said, have a vested interest in protecting their belief in God from rational criticism.

Went to dictionary online to see how they describe the word "god". Most of the definitions are too specific for my tastes, but there was one from the World English Dictionary that is broad and descriptive enough:
"god: a supernatural being who is worshipped as the controller of some part of the universe or some aspect of life in the world or is the personification of some force."

I think that basically covers the general idea people have when they hear the word "god". What's so hard about that?

I have no problem with it. The problem arises when believers start qualifying their acceptance of this definition. It doesn't cover everyone's belief, they're likely to complain, or trying to define the ineffable is treating God like a mere phenomenon.

But good luck anyway.

-Nato

 

[Falvlun]

Who says people use it meaningfully? In fact, it's the exact opposite of the process you describe above: when someone says "god," everyone has a different idea of what the word means. And believers, as I said, have a vested interest in protecting their belief in God from rational criticism.

Well, it is meaningful regardless of whether people are using the exact same definition. And the definitions still circle around a general idea-- they are more similar than they would be to "dog" or "grafloc" for that matter.

Though, I do think it is possible to distinguish, and clarify if necessary, when one is talking about a specific god concept or the concept of god in general.

I have no problem with it. The problem arises when believers start qualifying their acceptance of this definition. It doesn't cover everyone's belief, they're likely to complain, or trying to define the ineffable is treating God like a mere phenomenon.

If someone's definition of god doesn't fall into the general god concept, it is always possible to say "I personally don't consider that to be a god, but you are more than welcome to consider it to be a god yourself."

Off the top of your head, can you think of a specific god concept that wouldn't fit that general god definition or my personal one mentioned earlier?

But good luck anyway.

-Nato

Thanks!

 

[E. Nato Difficile]

If someone's definition of god doesn't fall into the general god concept, it is always possible to say "I personally don't consider that to be a god, but you are more than welcome to consider it to be a god yourself."

-Nato

 

[Storm]

Off the top of your head, can you think of a specific god concept that wouldn't fit that general god definition or my personal one mentioned earlier?

Pantheism and most forms of panentheism. Some deism.

 

[Falvlun]

-Nato

Why the facepalm? If someone pointed to their pencil and said "this is god", I don't have to accept that the pencil is a valid definition for god.

A more realistic example, for me, is if someone said the Universe was God. If they are truly saying that the universe, and only the universe (ie, nothing over and above the rocks and gas and other bits of matter that compose the universe) is God, then I do not consider that to be God. I just consider that to be the Universe. But they are more than welcome to call it God in my book.

When I say "I do not believe gods exist" my definition of "god" does not include the "Universe is God" description in there, since obviously, I believe the universe exists.

 

[E. Nato Difficile]

If someone pointed to their pencil and said "this is god", I don't have to accept that the pencil is a valid definition for god.

I'm glad you're willing to take this matter on a case-by-case basis. You've got a long road ahead of you.

Once again, good luck.

-Nato

 

[Falvlun]

Pantheism and most forms of panentheism. Some deism.

Could you describe pantheism a little more to me? As mentioned above, if it is simply the idea that all the rocks, gas, and bits of matter in the universe are God, then no, I don't feel as if I need to include that in my definition of God, since it has no separate meaning from the other word I use for it-- Universe.

If, however, pantheism includes a belief that the sum of all these parts creates something over and above all the bits of matter, then that's something we can talk about.

I am more than willing to fit that within my original definition-- A supernatural entity or force that controls at least some aspect of reality-- since it is "supernatural" (ie, above and beyond simply the natural), and if it is everything, then it controls it too.

 

[Falvlun]

I'm glad you're willing to take this matter on a case-by-case basis. You've got a long road ahead of you.

Once again, good luck.

-Nato

That's the whole point of having a general god concept. You don't need to do it case by case. I didn't need to wait for someone to say "I believe my pencil is god" for me to be able to say "I don't belive in that god."

 

[Storm]

Could you describe pantheism a little more to me? As mentioned above, if it is simply the idea that all the rocks, gas, and bits of matter in the universe are God, then no, I don't feel as if I need to include that in my definition of God, since it has no separate meaning from the other word I use for it-- Universe.

If, however, pantheism includes a belief that the sum of all these parts creates something over and above all the bits of matter, then that's something we can talk about.

I am more than willing to fit that within my original definition-- A supernatural entity or force that controls at least some aspect of reality-- since it is "supernatural" (ie, above and beyond simply the natural), and if it is everything, then it controls it too.

It depends on the pantheist. Some believe there's and underlying and unifying force which makes it a God.

I disagree with your definition of "supernatural," however. I think a better one would be "in defiance of natural law."

 

[Falvlun]

It depends on the pantheist. Some believe there's and underlying and unifying force which makes it a God.

Thanks. Perhaps I should peruse the pantheist belief sections.

I disagree with your definition of "supernatural," however. I think a better one would be "in defiance of natural law."

To be honest, I am not particularly happy with the word "supernatural", but I can't think of a better one to convey that idea.

"In defiance of natural law" is precisely the sort of concept I don't want to convey. Because, afterall, if God or gods exist, then their abilities and ways in which they control the universe are completely natural. That's how the universe has been structured. I am using supernatural in a purely "above and/or beyond" nature, since that is the distinction I find most useful. That way a particularly powerful human or alien civilization couldn't end up as fitting the god definition.

 

[E. Nato Difficile]

I didn't need to wait for someone to say "I believe my pencil is god" for me to be able to say "I don't belive in that god."

But the believer is the one who's responsible for his or her belief. Your willingness to accept the terms of their belief is important how...?

-Nato

 

[Storm]

Thanks. Perhaps I should peruse the pantheist belief sections.


To be honest, I am not particularly happy with the word "supernatural", but I can't think of a better one to convey that idea.

"In defiance of natural law" is precisely the sort of concept I don't want to convey. Because, afterall, if God or gods exist, then their abilities and ways in which they control the universe are completely natural. That's how the universe has been structured. I am using supernatural in a purely "above and/or beyond" nature, since that is the distinction I find most useful. That way a particularly powerful human or alien civilization couldn't end up as fitting the god definition.

Well, that makes more sense to me, too, which is why I reject supernaturalism.

 

[Madhuri]

So, in your opinion what definitions of "God" are useful/meaningful? What term would you give to some of the God concepts that don't fit into this view? Do you have a problem with the word God being used for both (as an example) the Abrahamic God and the Dharmic God despite the two being quite different?

I think the term God represents that Being that is the Origin/Source of all that exists. Both Abrahamic and Dharmic (and other) concepts of divinity have this in common.
Sometimes I don't see the point in using the term, and pantheism is one example.

 

[Sunstone]

God for some people is simply the name they give to a certain kind of experience that otherwise cannot be described. That is, they say they have experienced god, and that not much more than that can be said about the actual experience.

 

[blackout]

To a Pantheist or Panentheist every'thing, is evidence of gOd.
(or "gOd evident")

I'm glad you're here, cuz I had some questions for pantheists. In general, I'm not a huge fan of calling the universe "god", simply because we already have a word for it-- Universe. (I, of course, do not begrudge other people from calling the universe god if they want to.)

But, is there further connotations to calling everything "god"? As in, are you not just referring to the Universe, but something that is more than just the sum of its parts. Do you worship the Universe/Everything, or do you worship the lifeforce or the Sum of Everything? I'm not making myself very clear, but maybe you understand what I'm trying to get at.

I do not worship anything in the exoteric sense.
I do not live in servitude to any 'other'.

I do sometimes "WerShape"
(shape/re'cast mySelf to forms of Personal Worth)
but that would be for another thread.

For me, divinity is everywhere,
waiting to speak. To Me.
Waiting for me, to divine.
Revealing itSelf in this or that.

gOd is the fabric,
the tapestry,
and the weaver.

The UniVerse is Divine.
I Am Divine.
We reflect that in each other
as thread and design
become I'm'age.
Intertwined.

I am engaged in a mysterious relationship
with my surroundings.

I Am-- The I'm-age of gOd, Self Realized.

Ultimately though men are the Gods who define reality.
They are the Self Realization, and Creators of the UniVerse.

EDIT: We have I can't even guess how many thousands of videos of evidence worth of this.
Netflix might be a good place to begin.

Obviously, I believe the Universe exists. But, I don't believe that the universe is God. How would evidence for that look? This probably ties into my previous question. If everything is a god, and a part of god, how would this rock in my hand look any different than if everything wasn't a god or a part of god?

Video's are not so much evidence that the UniVerse is gOd,
as they are evidence that...

...."Men are the Gods who Define Reality.
They are the Self Realization, and Creators of the UniVerse."

 

[Willamena]

I do not worship anything in the exoteric sense.
I do not live in servitude to any 'other'.

I do sometimes "WerShape"
(shape/re'cast mySelf to forms of Personal Worth)
but that would be for another thread.

For me, divinity is everywhere,
waiting to speak. To Me.
Waiting for me, to divine.
Revealing itSelf in this or that.

gOd is the fabric,
the tapestry,
and the weaver.

The UniVerse is Divine.
I Am Divine.
We reflect that in each other
as thread and design
become I'm'age.
Intertwined.

I am engaged in a mysterious relationship
with my surroundings.

I Am-- The I'm-age of gOd, Self Realized.






Video's are not so much evidence that the UniVerse is gOd,
as they are evidence that...

We have a word for universe. It isn't the word for this.

Well said.

 

[Falvlun]

But the believer is the one who's responsible for his or her belief. Your willingness to accept the terms of their belief is important how...?

-Nato

Reread my original rant. This is about my beliefs, as in "I believe that gods do not exist." In order to be able to say that, you must have a concept of god. Many atheists claim that they are unwilling to commit to that statement because they feel that they need to know every description of every god that has every existed or will ever exist in order to be able to say that. That is not only impractical, but unnecessary. We all have a concept of what the word "god" means, otherwise we would not be able to use it meaningfully. As we do in any other belief (or lack there of), we are able to derive the belief from the category-- the type-- rather than a need to know every individual expression of the type.

Our discussion was a spin off of that general argument. It was about the "What if you encounter someone who describes a god that does not fit the general type?" One answer is that you modify your type in order to include it. Another answer, the one which we were exploring, is that you simply note that you do not consider the thing they are describing to be a god. They are more then welcome to consider it a god, but you are not beholden to agree with their appellation.

Much like if I said "I like dogs." There are many different types of dogs, with many different personalities and traits. But I have a general dog "type" that allows me to make the statement without me needing to go meet an example of every single kind of dog. Now, if someone came up to me and said "Really? You like dogs?!? They are so creepy with their scales, and no legs, and the way they slither and hide in tall grass." I would be well within reason to say "You are describing a snake. I do not consider those to be dogs." My statement "I like dogs" is not compromised by the existence of someone who considers snakes to be dogs.