Freethought & Rationalism Archive

WJ · 08-08-2002, 06:44 AM

Taking the lead from the forum 'posits', I don't know whether that question has been asked before. It has been written by physicist Paul Davies that Einstein was not a religious person but used the word "God" as a metaphor for an omniscient force or some sort of ordered cause to the cosmos, so on and so forth. Similarly, in Christianity, the Bible is not considered a science book per say yet speaks to omniscience in much the same way using metaphorical language.

So in drawing these parallels, what does the word "God" mean? My belief is that God means different things to different people. Obviously, there is a distinction in the same use of the concept while applying it to the same methodologies as used in say the empirical sciences. For instance in that sense, both natural sciences; physics and the science of the mind (psychology) are both empirical in nature, yet uses and perhaps defines the concept "God" differently and for different reasons.

So in that light, without digressing too much with the old Anselm definition, I'm just taking a sort of poll...

Any and all facetious thoughts welcome.

Keith Russell · 08-08-2002, 06:50 AM

Greetings:

In most of the cultures and religions I've studied, the concept of God is usually employed to offer an explanatory story or myth of 'creation'--how existence came to be.

God is always claimed to possess great (though not always infinite) power, and God nearly always interacts with a particular people 'he' has 'chosen'.

These people (at least) are able to pray to God, and receive some sort of response or answer.

So God (or 'the Gods) is/are usually the 'Creator', almost God is (Gods are) always very powerful, and able to interact in a positive way with human beings who find themselves in God's (the Gods') favour.

Keith Russell.

DarkBronzePlant · 08-08-2002, 07:34 AM

This subject has cropped up numerous times in the forum. My personal conclusion is that it's really not that difficult to define god (lowercase) or God (uppercase.) Rather, I've seen a lot of people try to obfuscate the definition in order maintian justification for their beliefs.

Philosoft · 08-08-2002, 07:50 AM

I am a noncognitivist. Hence,

god
A being conceived of as possessing supernatural power, and to be propitiated by sacrifice, worship, etc.; a divinity; a deity; an object of worship; an idol.

A god can be a thing that actually, physically exists. The sun has been worshipped as a being with supernatural powers. Therefore, the sun is a god.

God
The name commonly assigned to a particular non-physical god.

This word, I contend, does not represent a thinkable concept. It is not possible to conceive of a non-physical thing that exists no matter how many attributes one assigns to it.

WJ · 08-08-2002, 08:44 AM

Thanks guys...keep them coming. As I said, I'm taking a pole as a learning tool or gathering of information. I have more thoughts but may wait for now.

In the meantime, speaking of 'cognitive science' or perhaps a sort of humanism, and just to add some more ideas, I believe that it is either Brighid or Samhain who has embraced the teachings of the Dalai Lama who in turn seems to advocate a sort of 'universal force' or God in the face of Being.

Anyway, one intent here is to break-free from the worn-out notions or stigmatization (for a lack of better word) of the use of the concept/word God in some of its accepted applications...

Keith Russell · 08-08-2002, 12:43 PM

phil said:
"It is not possible to conceive of a non-physical thing that exists no matter how many attributes one assigns to it."

I agree--especially when the attributes are non-physical, too.

Keith Russell.

EvilTeuf · 08-08-2002, 12:49 PM

According to most Apologists, it means whatever they want it to mean, whenever they can only prove the existence of x; they subsequently redefine god to be x, and so on.

ohwilleke · 08-08-2002, 04:06 PM

Most people try to define God in terms of the supernatural v. the natural. I'm not sure that this is a very sensible way to define God. If God exists, God is, in a sense, natural. Also, it leads to the odd idea that we have religions, such as Buddhism, which are atheistic.

The omni, omni, omni definition (omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent) is also not very useful as it differs from many common religious notions of God (Zeus, for example) and may not even be true of the Christian God under some fair readings of the Bible.

A better way to define "God" in my mind would be something on the order of:

"A power not created by humans (or other animals that share an evolutionary lineage with humans) that influences human affairs in a manner guided by moral purpose."

Under this definition of God, which is admittedly not the common use of the word, the notion of karma, would be within the definition of the word "God", while a Deist God that creates the Big Bang and leaves, would not be within the definition of "God." Criminal statutes would not be "God" because they are created by humans. But, "natural law", by some definitions, might be a form of "God" if it really exists. Aliens on a distant planet are not "God". Aliens secretly pulling the strings of human affairs are "God". Dolphins and monkeys and the like are defined out of the definition of God. The moral purpose language implies that tornados are not "God" as they are simply acting based upon the laws of physics, unless one could show that tornados actually strike particular houses for some moral reason, rather than (or in addition to) a physical law reason.

This definition is, I believe, operationally easier to prove or disprove, taking the existence of God out of a nebulous metaphysical sphere by including only the Gods that anyone should give a damn about in their daily life. There is no need to worship a God that doesn't intervene in human affairs.

No one cares if a God outside this definition exists. People should care if a God within this definition exists, even if it isn't within the conventional definition of God.

[ August 08, 2002: Message edited by: ohwilleke ]</p>

ohwilleke · 08-08-2002, 04:10 PM

Quote:

It is not possible to conceive of a non-physical thing that exists no matter how many attributes one assigns to it.

How about ideas? Just as an example of non-physical things that exist. Or, bank account balances, for another non-physical thing that exists.

Jobar · 08-08-2002, 04:49 PM

WJ, I think it would be polite if you were to give your own definition.

If the word has any meaning at all- I think that God is Infinity. God is all that is, was, and ever can be. God is All.

This means that God cannot be given a meaningful definition- because some*thing* cannot be said to be both itself, and its opposite. God is beyond words. "The God that can be talked about is not the true God."

08-08-2002, 06:44 AM	#1
WJ Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 812	What does the word "God" mean? Taking the lead from the forum 'posits', I don't know whether that question has been asked before. It has been written by physicist Paul Davies that Einstein was not a religious person but used the word "God" as a metaphor for an omniscient force or some sort of ordered cause to the cosmos, so on and so forth. Similarly, in Christianity, the Bible is not considered a science book per say yet speaks to omniscience in much the same way using metaphorical language. So in drawing these parallels, what does the word "God" mean? My belief is that God means different things to different people. Obviously, there is a distinction in the same use of the concept while applying it to the same methodologies as used in say the empirical sciences. For instance in that sense, both natural sciences; physics and the science of the mind (psychology) are both empirical in nature, yet uses and perhaps defines the concept "God" differently and for different reasons. So in that light, without digressing too much with the old Anselm definition, I'm just taking a sort of poll... Any and all facetious thoughts welcome.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

08-08-2002, 06:50 AM	#2
Keith Russell Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Overland Park, Kansas Posts: 1,336	Greetings: In most of the cultures and religions I've studied, the concept of God is usually employed to offer an explanatory story or myth of 'creation'--how existence came to be. God is always claimed to possess great (though not always infinite) power, and God nearly always interacts with a particular people 'he' has 'chosen'. These people (at least) are able to pray to God, and receive some sort of response or answer. So God (or 'the Gods) is/are usually the 'Creator', almost God is (Gods are) always very powerful, and able to interact in a positive way with human beings who find themselves in God's (the Gods') favour. Keith Russell.

08-08-2002, 07:34 AM	#3
DarkBronzePlant Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: San Francisco, CA USA Posts: 3,568	This subject has cropped up numerous times in the forum. My personal conclusion is that it's really not that difficult to define god (lowercase) or God (uppercase.) Rather, I've seen a lot of people try to obfuscate the definition in order maintian justification for their beliefs.

08-08-2002, 07:50 AM	#4
Philosoft Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Southeast of disorder Posts: 6,829	I am a noncognitivist. Hence, god A being conceived of as possessing supernatural power, and to be propitiated by sacrifice, worship, etc.; a divinity; a deity; an object of worship; an idol. A god can be a thing that actually, physically exists. The sun has been worshipped as a being with supernatural powers. Therefore, the sun is a god. God The name commonly assigned to a particular non-physical god. This word, I contend, does not represent a thinkable concept. It is not possible to conceive of a non-physical thing that exists no matter how many attributes one assigns to it.

08-08-2002, 08:44 AM	#5
WJ Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 812	Thanks guys...keep them coming. As I said, I'm taking a pole as a learning tool or gathering of information. I have more thoughts but may wait for now. In the meantime, speaking of 'cognitive science' or perhaps a sort of humanism, and just to add some more ideas, I believe that it is either Brighid or Samhain who has embraced the teachings of the Dalai Lama who in turn seems to advocate a sort of 'universal force' or God in the face of Being. Anyway, one intent here is to break-free from the worn-out notions or stigmatization (for a lack of better word) of the use of the concept/word God in some of its accepted applications...

08-08-2002, 12:43 PM	#6
Keith Russell Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Overland Park, Kansas Posts: 1,336	phil said: "It is not possible to conceive of a non-physical thing that exists no matter how many attributes one assigns to it." I agree--especially when the attributes are non-physical, too. Keith Russell.

08-08-2002, 12:49 PM	#7
EvilTeuf Junior Member Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Oxford Posts: 24	According to most Apologists, it means whatever they want it to mean, whenever they can only prove the existence of x; they subsequently redefine god to be x, and so on.

08-08-2002, 04:06 PM	#8
ohwilleke Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Denver, Colorado, USA Posts: 4,834	Most people try to define God in terms of the supernatural v. the natural. I'm not sure that this is a very sensible way to define God. If God exists, God is, in a sense, natural. Also, it leads to the odd idea that we have religions, such as Buddhism, which are atheistic. The omni, omni, omni definition (omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent) is also not very useful as it differs from many common religious notions of God (Zeus, for example) and may not even be true of the Christian God under some fair readings of the Bible. A better way to define "God" in my mind would be something on the order of: "A power not created by humans (or other animals that share an evolutionary lineage with humans) that influences human affairs in a manner guided by moral purpose." Under this definition of God, which is admittedly not the common use of the word, the notion of karma, would be within the definition of the word "God", while a Deist God that creates the Big Bang and leaves, would not be within the definition of "God." Criminal statutes would not be "God" because they are created by humans. But, "natural law", by some definitions, might be a form of "God" if it really exists. Aliens on a distant planet are not "God". Aliens secretly pulling the strings of human affairs are "God". Dolphins and monkeys and the like are defined out of the definition of God. The moral purpose language implies that tornados are not "God" as they are simply acting based upon the laws of physics, unless one could show that tornados actually strike particular houses for some moral reason, rather than (or in addition to) a physical law reason. This definition is, I believe, operationally easier to prove or disprove, taking the existence of God out of a nebulous metaphysical sphere by including only the Gods that anyone should give a damn about in their daily life. There is no need to worship a God that doesn't intervene in human affairs. No one cares if a God outside this definition exists. People should care if a God within this definition exists, even if it isn't within the conventional definition of God. [ August 08, 2002: Message edited by: ohwilleke ]</p>

08-08-2002, 04:49 PM	#10
Jobar Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: secularcafe.org Posts: 9,525	WJ, I think it would be polite if you were to give your own definition. If the word has any meaning at all- I think that God is Infinity. God is all that is, was, and ever can be. God is All. This means that God cannot be given a meaningful definition- because something cannot be said to be both itself, and its opposite. God is beyond words. "The God that can be talked about is not the true God."

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.