Is the word "god" meaningful?

[Straw Dog]

I've made that point myself more than once. Therefore?

Therefore, I don't know. I don't accept the "first cause" argument, like I said in my second point.

 

[Willamena]

What is the defense of this argument?

It's meaningful to me.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

How can we technically say that we don't believe in something that lacks a coherent scientific or rational definition to begin with?

At the risk of seriously derailing the conversation: in what way(s) do you see "Uncaused Cause" as incoherent, irrational, or both?

Therefore, I don't know. I don't accept the "first cause" argument, like I said in my second point.

But this is not about 'argument' - it's about a definition that you insist must be incoherent and irrational.

 

[Straw Dog]

But this is not about 'argument' - it's about a definition that you insist must be incoherent and irrational.

Not true, or I haven't been clear in explaining my views.

It's only incoherant as a scientific hypothesis about something that can be tested as far as I know. I imagine there could be rational definitions invoking "first cause" in some vague deistic fashion. I'm not convinced of them, however, and they probably wouldn't be universally justifiable definitions either.

Just because I disagree with someone's conclusions, though, doesn't mean I believe that they're necessarily irrational in reaching them. Reason isn't one-sided and knowledge isn't on solid foundations. It's fluid and imperfect, but we work with what we got.

It might be helpful here to separate "god" from "god-belief". The former does remain internally incoherent in any universally justifiable way IMO, but the latter manifests itself in an actual social context. I believe the latter could be rational depending on how it relates to human well-being, even if the contents of the belief itself are non-rational. You see, it's not black and white.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

It's only incoherant as a scientific hypothesis about something that can be tested as far as I know. I imagine there could be rational definitions invoking "first cause" in some vague deistic fashion.

Then, given that one should not expect, much less demand, a coherent scientific hypothesis about that which is, by definition, out of scope, we are in essential agreement.

This thread is about whether the word god can be used in a meaningful way. Attacking all such use as necessarily incoherent and irrational is beneath you.

 

[Straw Dog]

Then, given that one should not expect, much less demand, a coherent scientific hypothesis about that which is, by definition, out of scope, we are in essential agreement.

This thread is about whether the word god can be used in a meaningful way. Attacking all such use as necessarily incoherent and irrational is beneath you.

Agreed. It did begin with deconstructing a definition offered by Shermana, though. He never responded to my reasons for rejection so I slowly but surely started generalizing the argument into useless abstraction.

Anyway, it was nice talking to you. Thanks for helping me flesh out my thinking on this subject. Perhaps I'll start a different thread branching out from these ideas.

 

[Alceste]

Do you not seriously understand the point? I didn't say the word "god" referred to the exact same being/character/representation as the Israelite god. I said that the word "god" as we know it referred to both the "god of the gods" as well as lesser gods, and in fact had a meaning to describe a specific type of being, as well as a being in itself, though not the specifically same being. It's like the word "king". It can mean "The ruler of the region" as well as "a lesser noble who rules a province of that region". Doesn't mean that "king" will refer to the same exact person who sits on a throne anywhere. This is all about how it relates to the OP.

The proto-Germanic concept of "god" thus likely came from their title for the Chief god, just like how "El" came from their title of the chief god. There's barely if any real difference, regardless of their back stories.

And to take it a step further, the word "Deus" (From which stems Zeus) comes from "The Sky Father", which was the name for the Highest god in such pantheons yet also came to be used for lesser "Deuses". What a remarkable coincidence!

I repeat, it doesn't matter if they share the same characterIistics. It's about the concept. Chief of the gods. Doesn't matter if one has a magic reindeer or if another floats in a magic bubble with Goku from Dragonballz.

And actually, Odin/Godan DID create the world and the universe in the Germanic pantheon, though he was not the first god or being, unlike the traditional account of the Israelite god, he made it from the carcass of his Father Ymir who he killed. But he's still the god of the gods. It's actually remarkably similar to the Gnostic story in a way, as well as the Greek myths. And he very well DOES take an interest in human affairs. In fact, he is so concerned with their heroic bravery in combat, that he keeps Valhalla as an exclusive social club only for warriors who are deserving of entry, and routinely intervenes in the world as he sees fit and to answer to those who call upon him in rituals and sacrifices. For a god who didn't care about the human world, the Germans sure seemed to devote a lot of rituals to him trying to earn his favor.

The main point however, is that the word "god" has an essentially similar concept with "El". It can be used for other deities as WELL as was used for the chief of the gods. And this is in relation to the OP, which is a question of whether the concept of "god" has meaning and has had meaning.

So again, and I hope I don't have to repeat this again, it doesn't matter whether Godan was the same exact concept as the Jewish god or the Canaanite god in terms of characteristics. I thought I made this clear, but the question of the OP is whether the word "god" has a meaningful concept or whether it's mystical fluff.

And it DOES have a specific meaningful concept, and that concept is roughly similar, if not exactly similar, to the meaning and concept of "El", which means both "The chief god" and "a lesser god", but still pertaining to a meaning of a class of being which is..."a god". Therefore, the mystical fluff are these new agey revisionist concepts of what "God" means outside of its nearly universal traditional usage. In fact, I don't think ANY place on Earth has ever had a concept of "god" that didn't involve actual heavenly beings with supernatural powers.

So it doesn't matter if one was born from a hermophraditic super primordial being and BECAME the king of the gods who made the universe using the corpse of his slain Father, or one who always existed as the Chief of the gods (assuming this was the original Israelite concept), the point is the same: They are both the chief gods, and the use of the word "El" and "god" is a derivative of the concept of the fact that they are both THE god, and in that the word can be used for "lesser gods".

So to summarize again, it doesn't matter if they are the same exact characters. What matters is that they are beings, they have CERTAIN similar qualities in that...they are beings, they are the chief deities of their systems, and their title is used to refer to them as well as lesser beings. Thus, the concept of "god" in English is almost exactly the same as the concept in Israelite and Canaanite beliefs, regardless of their backstories and depictions. It is thus ridiculous to say that the meaning of "god" has no meaning or can't be understood. It's a very simple concept: Heavenly beings with supernatural powers. Regardless of who they are.

Do you need further clarification ?

Again, the word god was originally gender neutral and only became masculine after christianity penetrated Europe.

If all this is to argue that the word god has a definition, I don't necessarily disagree. It sort of does, but I can't help but notice your definition excludes the gods of pantheists and animists,.neither of which are "heavenly beings with supernatural powers", so you need to do some tweaking.

 

[Thief]

Again, the word god was originally gender neutral and only became masculine after christianity penetrated Europe.

If all this is to argue that the word god has a definition, I don't necessarily disagree. It sort of does, but I can't help but notice your definition excludes the gods of pantheists and animists,.neither of which are "heavenly beings with supernatural powers", so you need to do some tweaking.

So....Moses refered to God as God.....and refrained the gender notation.

And Jesus (founder of Christain faith) came centuries later....
refering to God as the Father....

And you say it was some historical event that came after that?

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Apparently, the word "god" is meaningful to just about everybody in a different way.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Much like good soup.

 

[Alceste]

Apparently, the word "god" is meaningful to just about everybody in a different way.

Sure - all the more reason to insist on additional information whenever theists want to talk about "god". They are talking about THEIR god, and I can't participate unless I know what it means to them.

I can't deny the god of pantheists, since it IS the universe. The universe obviously exists and contains consciousness, whatever that is, so agnosticism is the only reasonable response. I can certainly deny the existence of a "chief god" of a god club in the sky where Nordic warriors go when they die in battle. They are completely different concepts.

 

[Shermana]

Apparently, the word "god" is meaningful to just about everybody in a different way.

Only in recent times, as people have rejected its use for most of history as it was used in virtually every single culture and language for their own new-age connotations.

 

[Shermana]

Again, the word god was originally gender neutral and only became masculine after christianity penetrated Europe.

If all this is to argue that the word god has a definition, I don't necessarily disagree. It sort of does, but I can't help but notice your definition excludes the gods of pantheists and animists,.neither of which are "heavenly beings with supernatural powers", so you need to do some tweaking.

Can you link to some of these gods of the animists for further examination?

 

[sandandfoam]

Apparently, the word "god" is meaningful to just about everybody in a different way.

That's what I think makes it so interesting.

 

[Alceste]

Only in recent times, as people have rejected its use for most of history as it was used in virtually every single culture and language for their own new-age connotations.

Once again, this is not true.

Online Etymology Dictionary

"Originally a neuter noun in Germanic, the gender shifted to masculine after the coming of Christianity. Old English god probably was closer in sense to Latin numen. A better word to translate deus might have been Proto-Germanic *ansuz, but this was used only of the highest deities in the Germanic religion, and not of foreign gods, and it was never used of the Christian God. It survives in English mainly in the personal names beginning in Os-. "

 

[Alceste]

Can you link to some of these gods of the animists for further examination?

Animist gods are diverse, and associated with natural places. One of the most common examples is the Ganges. It is literally a god to the Hindus, as is the river Sarasvati.

All You Need to Know About Hinduism: River Goddess Ganga

 

[Shermana]

Animist gods are diverse, and associated with natural places. One of the most common examples is the Ganges. It is literally a god to the Hindus, as is the river Sarasvati.

All You Need to Know About Hinduism: River Goddess Ganga

That site depicts the Goddess Ganga as being an actual personified being who represents the Ganga river, a "goddess of the river" so to speak. It is not the river itself that's the god, though she may consist of the river which is made up of her. There's a complete back story with personalized information. She's the one who makes the river holy, the river is a part of her.

"Prayed for Goddess ganga to come down to earth" with her water.

The Ganga is the most sacred of India’s rivers. Goddess Ganga is represented as a fair-complexioned woman, wearing a white crown and sitting on a crocodile. She holds a water lily in her right hand and a lute in her left. When shown with four hands she carries a water-pot, a lily, a rosary and has one hand in a protective mode.
The story of Ganga’s origin is very interesting. Sagar, a king of Ayodhya, had no children. On doing a long penance he was promised, and got, sixty thousand sons. He then decided to perform a horse sacrifice. Indra, the lord of the heavens, when he heard of this, got scared and stole the horse and took it to the nether region. The sixty thousand Sons reached the nether region after searching the earth for the horse and manhandled a sage by mistake, thinking he had stolen the horse. The sage in anger cursed them and turned them to ashes. Sagar on hearing this prayed to Goddess Ganga to come down to earth and with her water to bring salvation to his Sons.

His son and grandson also carried out the penance and it was only Bhagirath, the great, great grandson, who managed to propitiate Ganga. The Goddess came down on earth in a rush, her impact being mitigated by being caught in Shiva’s matted hair. She was led to the nether regions by Bhagirath. Hence the Ganga is divided into three parts. One part which remained in the heavens was called Mandakini. The part that came down to earth is known as Ganga, and the part (lowing in the nether region is called the Bhagirathi, named after the king Bhagirath.

Most of the holy cities of India are located on the banks of the Ganga. These are Rishikesh(Video Below), Haridwar, Varanasi (Benares), Allahabad etc. Those who die within the specified limits of the Ganga go to the heavenly world. If after cremation the ashes are thrown into the Ganga, the same purpose is served. No Hindu would dare speak a falsehood with the Ganga water (Ganga-jal) in his hand.

As we can see, it's not the River that's considered a god, the river is considered holy, but the goddess Ganga is not the river itself. She may consist of a river, but she's still a personified actual being.

Ganges in Hinduism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

She CREATES rivers and streams. She may be a part of the river and stream, but is still independent of it.

Ganga arrogantly fell on Shiva's head. But Shiva calmly trapped her in his hair and let her out in small streams. The touch of Shiva further sanctified Ganga. As Ganga travelled to the nether-worlds, she created a different stream to remain on Earth to help purify unfortunate souls there. She is the only river to follow from all the three worlds – Swarga (heaven), Prithvi (Earth) and, Patala (netherworld or hell). Thus is called "Tripathagā" (one who travels the three worlds) in Sanskrit language.
Because of Bhagiratha's efforts Ganga descended to Earth and hence the river is also known as Bhagirathi, and the term "Bhagirath prayatna" is used to describe valiant efforts or difficult achievements.

 

[Alceste]

That site depicts the Goddess Ganga as being an actual personified being who represents the Ganga river, a "goddess of the river" so to speak. It is not the river itself that's the god. There's a complete back story with personalized information. She's the one who makes the river holy.

"Prayed for Goddess ganga to come down to earth" with her water.



As we can see, it's not the River that's considered a god, the river is considered holy, but the goddess Ganga is not the river itself.

Ganges in Hinduism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You misunderstand both animism and hinduism. The river is quite literally a goddess. The personification of the river is one face of the river goddess. The stories of hindu gods are mythology, and not taken to be literally true.

 

[Shermana]

Once again, this is not true.

Online Etymology Dictionary

"Originally a neuter noun in Germanic, the gender shifted to masculine after the coming of Christianity. Old English god probably was closer in sense to Latin numen. A better word to translate deus might have been Proto-Germanic *ansuz, but this was used only of the highest deities in the Germanic religion, and not of foreign gods, and it was never used of the Christian God. It survives in English mainly in the personal names beginning in Os-. "

That contradicts other information we know like the Godan/God equivalent. It's simply too murky of a subject to say one way or another in regards to its English usage.

 

[Shermana]

You misunderstand both animism and hinduism. The river is quite literally a goddess. The personification of the river is one face of the river goddess. The stories of hindu gods are mythology, and not taken to be literally true.

I edited it before you posted that to reflect that the river itself is a component of the goddess but not the goddess itself.

Perhaps I should post in the Hinduism DIR and I'll link here with the results.

And for one who thinks Hindus don't believe their deities are literally true, you should reconsider which one of us understands Hinduism less. The Ganesha believers alone will tell you otherwise.