You say that there is a god...

[TLK Valentine]

Yes. Rain is "a theistic god". A very potent god. It's not my god. But I understand that "rain" is a popular god among pagans. I could be wrong about its popularity, but it's a god none the less. Just because these natural gods have different names and are depicted as human forms in art and myth, those names and forms are just symbols for what the natural forces actually do and how they can actually inspire.

You seem to be conflating animism with theism - In an animistic theology, God (or a god) is in the rain, but it is not the rain itself.

In a theistic belief, the rain is a natural phenomenon caused by the actions of an outside entity.

In either case, Rain is not "a theistic god." Its presence may be praised as a sign of a god, but the rain is not a god.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Almighty is not the same as Mighty. Therefore Jesus was not considered Almighty God, by either the Hebrew, nor first century Christians.
That was a later doctrine.

This is true - Christian institutions have tied up the original Biblical theology into knots with its "doctrines."

I though it included all gods.

Which would be all but useless within a mentality where just about anything can be considered a "god."

For the question to have any meaning, we need to define our terms - hence my question: What is a "god" for the purposes of this discussion?

 

[TLK Valentine]

No. If that were true, everyone is living a fantasy. What's the science behind your name?

Linguistics.

How about your morality?

Ethics.

Your desires and goals?

Psychology and Sociology.

 

[dybmh]

You seem to be conflating animism with theism - In an animistic theology, God (or a god) is in the rain, but it is not the rain itself.

No, I don't think so.

"Animism perceives all things—animals, plants, rocks, rivers, weather systems, human handiwork, and in some cases words—as animated and alive."​

​

"Animism encompasses beliefs that all material phenomena have agency, that there exists no categorical distinction between the spiritual and physical world, and that soul, spirit, or sentience exists not only in humans but also in other animals, plants, rocks, geographic features (such as mountains and rivers), and other entities of the natural environment. Examples include water sprites, vegetation deities, and tree spirits, among others"​

​

Animism - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

So, no, rain CAN BE a god. In Animism there is no seperation between the physical precipitation, its spiritual defining attributes, and its agency. This doesn't stop a person from denying it's a god. But there's very little stopping a person from recognizing it as a real theistic god. It has its own agency.

In a theistic belief, the rain is a natural phenomenon caused by the actions of an outside entity.

That would be a divine executive. Animism places the agency on the rain itself.

In either case, Rain is not "a theistic god." Its presence may be praised as a sign of a god, but the rain is not a god.

Sounds like you have a specific subset of gods in mind. Which implies you have no problem defining a god. So, why ask a question if you already know the answer?

 

[nPeace]

This is true - Christian institutions have tied up the original Biblical theology into knots with its "doctrines."


Which would be all but useless within a mentality where just about anything can be considered a "god."

For the question to have any meaning, we need to define our terms - hence my question: What is a "god" for the purposes of this discussion?

I don't see why.
The title

You say that there is a god​

suggest to me that anyone who claims there is a god, is welcomed to support that claim.

 

[nPeace]

Linguistics.

Ethics.

Psychology and Sociology.

Can you explain how the science behind your name is Linguistics; how the science behind your morality is Ethics; how the science behind your desires and goals, is Psychology and Sociology.

 

[nPeace]

I am not asking you to answer ethical questions and the like so stop with the red herring. If there is no science behind your claim for the existence of x then simply admit it. Your no answers are telling.

How old are you?
Your question was answered in a very clear and simple way.
Can't you understand something as simple as the idea that "Scientific inquiry covers claims of existence, all claims, no exceptions." is false.
It is a belief of those who elevate science to a level that science cannot reach - a promotion of Scientism - a religious concept.

So, how else can I help you to understand...
Answer my questions - What's the science behind one's claim of morality? What's the scientific answer for the existence of absolute morality?

 

[lukethethird]

How old are you?
Your question was answered in a very clear and simple way.
Can't you understand something as simple as the idea that "Scientific inquiry covers claims of existence, all claims, no exceptions." is false.
It is a belief of those who elevate science to a level that science cannot reach - a promotion of Scientism - a religious concept.

So, how else can I help you to understand...
Answer my questions - What's the science behind one's claim of morality? What's the scientific answer for the existence of absolute morality?

Claims of existence such as claims of entities existing out there such as God or gods, I already stated that I am not asking about ethics and morals so enough of the insults already, but it's OK, I understand why you're hesitant.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Sounds like you have a specific subset of gods in mind. Which implies you have no problem defining a god. So, why ask a question if you already know the answer?

To check to see if my definition matches the OP's definition - all the better to prevent miscommunication.

 

[nPeace]

Claims of existence such as claims of entities existing out there such as God or gods, I already stated that I am not asking about ethics and morals so enough of the insults already, but it's OK, I understand why you're hesitant.

Hesitant?... and giving you the answer.
No. It's not me. It's your inability to understand basic explanations.
It's like someone asking, "why are there no apple trees growing in my fridge?", and getting a basic answer, but still asking the question.

 

[TLK Valentine]

I don't see why.
The title

You say that there is a god​

suggest to me that anyone who claims there is a god, is welcomed to support that claim.

Fair enough - I say that there is a singular, overarching force governing every action in the universe: The utterly inescapable process of cause-and-effect.
I'm curious as to whether or not this fits the definition of a "god." If so, I can say that I am capable of knowing such a thing through observation and extrapolation.

 

[nPeace]

Fair enough - I say that there is a singular, overarching force governing every action in the universe: The utterly inescapable process of cause-and-effect.
I'm curious as to whether or not this fits the definition of a "god." If so, I can say that I am capable of knowing such a thing through observation and extrapolation.

I guess you'll have to tell that to the original poster.

 

[lukethethird]

Hesitant?... and giving you the answer.
No. It's not me. It's your inability to understand basic explanations.
It's like someone asking, "why are there no apple trees growing in my fridge?", and getting a basic answer, but still asking the question.

It's alright, there is no science behind the claim that God exists, I already knew that that would leave you stumped.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Can you explain how the science behind your name is Linguistics; how the science behind your morality is Ethics; how the science behind your desires and goals, is Psychology and Sociology.

Certainly: They are human inventions.

Human beings -- perhaps as a consequence of their self-awareness and self-consciousness -- are innately curious creatures, and over time, have classified their fields of study according to the objects of study.

Currently, humans are (to the best of our knowledge) the only creatures that use spoken language to express both concrete and abstract concepts -we call the study of language, "linguistics."

The fact that we designate certain sounds to express the concept of identity, and how we do so, would fall under linguistics.
In English, one might say, "My name is Bob."
In French, the same idea is expressed as "Je m'applelle Bob," which, translated word-for-word, comes out as, "I call myself Bob."

"Ethics" one could argue, is more of a philosophical study than a scientific one, that studies our morality -- that is to say, our understanding of "right" and "wrong" -- and its application in a social context.
That social context is important -- one could argue that someone marooned on a deserted island would have no need for ethics, since his actions would affect nobody but himself.

"Psychology" (the study of our behavior) and "sociology" (the study of the development of human society) would both come into play when discussing desires and goals, for one reason, to determine to what extent our desires and goals are innate, or imposed on us by society?

If, for example, your desire and goal was to get married, settle down, and raise a family, is that the result of your own belief that these are fulfilling activities which give life meaning (and for many people, they are indeed), or is it a response to outside pressures -- from family, from education, from religion, from culture, etc... that this is what is expected of you?

All fascinating fields of study, IMO, and all borne from, as I said, human curiosity. The names are strictly to organize the fields to keep everything straight -- you don't get very far if you're not organized. As Granny Valentine used to say, "people don't plan to fail; they fail to plan."

 

[TLK Valentine]

I guess you'll have to tell that to the original poster.

I believe I just did.
It remains to be see whether the original poster returns to read my post, and if so, whether he chooses to respond.

 

[dybmh]

To check to see if my definition matches the OP's definition - all the better to prevent miscommunication.

But we confirmed that your definition is a subset, correct?

 

[TLK Valentine]

But we confirmed that your definition is a subset, correct?

A necessary one, I believe.

 

[dybmh]

A necessary one, I believe.

Maybe share your definition? Is there more to it than a divine executive or executives?

 

[TLK Valentine]

Maybe share your definition? Is there more to it than a divine executive or executives?

I'm just curious if the definition is limited to a theistic deity - an agent (presumably a creator) who lives outside the known universe and "intrudes" upon it, for lack of a better term, in order to influence it.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Which is nice, but for the purposes of this question, we are specifically referring to a theistic god.

Well, yes, it diverged from the OP

You say that there is a god, but irrespective of whether or not there actually is, why should I be convinced that you know or are even capable of knowing such a thing?

Header of the OP: You say that there is a god...