Is the word "god" meaningful?

[Alceste]

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.

Literally exist, as unique, discrete entities, not literally "true". True is a different kettle of fish. But I think you'll find that all the deities and the natural places they inhabit are a little more complicated than you're imagining. Not only is Ganga literally a river and also a goddess personifying a river, she is also one of the many faces of Brahman, as is Ganesha.

 

[Shermana]

Literally exist, as unique, discrete entities, not literally "true". True is a different kettle of fish. But I think you'll find that all the deities and the natural places they inhabit are a little more complicated than you're imagining. Not only is Ganga literally a river and also a goddess personifying a river, she is also one of the many faces of Brahman, as is Ganesha.

From what I understand, even if everything is a facet of Brahman, they still "Exist" as independent separate beings who interact with each other, fight with each other, and engage humanity. And I'm pretty sure they believe these beings do in fact "exist" as actual spiritual entities with real powers and abilities.

Perhaps another question for the Hinduism DIR.

Now with that said, I await their response on whether they think the River itself is the goddess, or if the goddess made the river of which it is a part of her but not her herself.

 

[Alceste]

From what I understand, even if everything is a facet of Brahman, they still "Exist" as independent separate beings who interact with each other, fight with each other, and engage humanity. And I'm pretty sure they believe these beings do in fact "exist" as actual spiritual entities with real powers and abilities.

Perhaps another question for the Hinduism DIR.

Now with that said, I await their response on whether they think the River itself is the goddess, or if the goddess made the river of which it is a part of her but not her herself.

Even if it is exactly as you describe, there is still no similarity between that and the discrete, heavenly, supernatural chief god / minor god pantheon you claim is a universally accepted, historically supported definition.

 

[Shermana]

Even if it is exactly as you describe, there is still no similarity between that and the discrete, heavenly, supernatural chief god / minor god pantheon you claim is a universally accepted, historically supported definition.

My claim is that the word "god", regardless of its equivalent meaning in other languages, referred to actual beings (or rather, a classification of being which may have specific names and identities) and not some mystified abstract that no one can understand or that anyone can make up their own mystical definition for. You countered this by saying that in Animistic and Hindu cultures this is not the case. But it appears to most certainly be the case.

The fact that the concept is similar in European languages to the Hebrew/Canaanite idea is a side point, which was brought up after you said that the English word "god" has a different meaning than the Canaanite/Hebrew word "El", it is really unrelated to the initial OP, but I brought it up in reference to the fact that it further exemplifies the idea that "god" and "El" had specific meaning for a class of being as WELL as a specific being itself.

 

[Alceste]

My claim is that the word "god", regardless of its equivalent meaning in other languages, referred to actual beings (or rather, a classification of being which may have specific names and identities) and not some mystified abstract that no one can understand or that anyone can make up their own mystical definition for. You countered this by saying that in Animistic and Hindu cultures this is not the case. But it appears to most certainly be the case.

The fact that the concept is similar in European languages to the Hebrew/Canaanite idea is a side point, which was brought up after you said that the English word "god" has a different meaning than the Canaanite/Hebrew word "El", it is really unrelated to the initial OP, but I brought it up in reference to the fact that it further exemplifies the idea that "god" and "El" had specific meaning for a class of being as WELL as a specific being itself.

Can a "being" also be a river, a character in a story nobody takes literally, an archetype, and one iteration of a many-faced, incomprehensible universal consciousness all at the same time?

I think not.

Further, I can actually accept the "truth" value of Sarasvati as a river, the archetypal custodian of music and knowledge, a character in Hindu mythology, the aspect of each of us that thirsts for knowledge and beauty, and one face of an incomprehensible mystery. I can't accept a "chief god" of a big crowd of gods who are claimed to actually exist as discrete entities and live in the sky.

So they are different enough that I can not honestly discuss either with a theist unless I know whether they're talking about the former or the latter.

 

[Shermana]

Can a "being" also be a river, a character in a story nobody takes literally, an archetype, and one iteration of a many-faced, incomprehensible universal consciousness all at the same time?

I think not.

Further, I can actually accept the "truth" value of Sarasvati as a river, the archetypal custodian of music and knowledge, a character in Hindu mythology, the aspect of each of us that thirsts for knowledge and beauty, and one face of an incomprehensible mystery. I can't accept a "chief god" of a big crowd of gods who are claimed to actually exist as discrete entities and live in the sky.

So they are different enough that I can not honestly discuss either with a theist unless I know whether they're talking about the former or the latter.

From what I've seen so far, saying that "nobody" takes the character literally is false. If anything, it's a much later modernist development to not see these Hindu gods as literal beings with minds and spiritual bodies. Them being facets of a single great god has no bearing. With that said, it appears that Ganges was considered a real being, the river Ganges not exactly the same thing as her existence itself.

So thus, even in Hinduism, the concept of the equivalent word for "god" is just like all the others, a being and not some abstract quality. If the meaning has changed, it's a very recent change and does not represent the historical Hindu thought. They may not have the same concept of their word for "god" being used for both "The chief god" and "lesser gods" but that's irrelevant.

 

[Alceste]

From what I've seen so far, saying that "nobody" takes the character literally is false. If anything, it's a much later modernist development to not see these Hindu gods as literal beings with minds and spiritual bodies. Them being facets of a single great god has no bearing. With that said, it appears that Ganges was considered a real being, the river Ganges not exactly the same thing as her existence itself.

So thus, even in Hinduism, the concept of the equivalent word for "god" is just like all the others, a being and not some abstract quality. If the meaning has changed, it's a very recent change and does not represent the historical Hindu thought. They may not have the same concept of their word for "god" being used for both "The chief god" and "lesser gods" but that's irrelevant.

Not quite - we're getting a lot of different answers in that thread, as I'm sure you've noticed! I expect we must both be careful not to cherry pick the responses we like best and consider them representative of the entire religion.

I am fairly confident that the view that Hindu gods are discrete, unique entities who actually exist is a minority view. Even the one poster who seemed to be saying that they are was not able to say so outside the context of a lengthy myth. 96 hours worth!

I once went to a play - a Hindu reenactment of some of their myths. Apparently it goes on for four days or something, four hours a show - we only saw one. There was lots of singing and dancing and crazy special effects. I could make no sense of it (partly because it was in hindi), except that it culminated in a massive multimedia image of a god with endless faces fading into the infinitely distant background. They'd spent a lot of time and money on that - it was the grand finale. So i got the impression it's kind of complicated.

 

[Edwin]

A common argument of many atheists is that the word "god" is unintelligible, incoherent, inconsistent, etc, and therefore, they have no idea what you are talking about when you use it, and thus, they obviously cannot believe in something which hasn't even been defined.
As an atheist, I think that argument stinks to high heaven. So, what say you? Is the word "god" meaningless and undefined? Is it fair to say that you have no concept of what someone is talking about when they use that word? What is the defense of this argument?

It's not the word "god" with a small "g", but "God" with a capital "G", that I find meaningless to me. I can imagine the god Zeus, so "god" with a small "g" is not meaningless to me. The ancient Greeks made statues of Zeus and had Zeus's picture on their coins. Of course I don't believe that Zeus exists or that he ever existed, just as I don't believe that unicorns exist or have ever existed, but things don't have to exist in order for the words for them to be meaningful. You just have to be able to imagine something for them to refer to. The word "unicorn" and the word "god" with small "g" are quite meaningful to me, for I can imagine what they are used to mean. However when it comes to "God" with a capital "G", I cannot conjure up in my head any thought of anything that it could refer to, as I can with the words "god" (small "g"), "Zeus", "unicorn" and "mermaid". Even when I hear "Something must have created everything, the universe didn't just pop up without anything intelligent to cause it", I STILL am unable to think of anything those words could be talking about. My reasoning is that if you hear some words, but cannot conjure up any thought of anything they could refer to, then all you are doing is hearing some sounds. What else?

 

[LuisDantas]

So, what say you? Is the word "god" meaningless and undefined?

Very much so. It is essentially impossible to have a meaningful discussion involving the concept of god without first lending it some form of specification.

Is it fair to say that you have no concept of what someone is talking about when they use that word?

Often enough it is indeed. Even when we have a notion of the conception of deity being implied, there is a plethora of mutually exclusive formulations even inside many faiths and denominations - and worse, that fact often goes unacknowledged despite being of major significance for this kind of discussion.

What is the defense of this argument?

In a nutshell: "people are entitled to refuse to take sides about a concept that is undefined or worse".

 

[PureX]

A common argument of many atheists is that the word "god" is unintelligible, incoherent, inconsistent, etc, and therefore, they have no idea what you are talking about when you use it, and thus, they obviously cannot believe in something which hasn't even been defined.

As an atheist, I think that argument stinks to high heaven.

So, what say you? Is the word "god" meaningless and undefined? Is it fair to say that you have no concept of what someone is talking about when they use that word? What is the defense of this argument?

The problem within the minds of those particular atheists is that "undefined" equates to "meaninglessness", for them. If they cannot grasp it (own it) intellectually, it has no value to them. And if it has no value to them, it doesn't exist.

Whereas, I have generally found that just the opposite is true. That which has the greatest value to me in life is that which I cannot "own", intellectually or otherwise. It is the mystery of life that makes living, wondrous. And the greatest mysteries of all form the definition of "God": the mysterious source, sustenance, and purpose of all that is.