Fiach

Perhaps not for a generic undefined god, but for the Judeo-Christian god who is defined as a creator it is. That is because the Judeo-Christian God has human personality traits that include the need to be loved (worshipped), vanity (need for worship), jealousy, vindictiveness and the rest. JHWH/Allah/Trinity all require and need worship, maybe not because J/A/T is the creator or origin, but because he is "human."

Fiach

the_cave

But everything's wordplay.

Ever read any poetry? Or a good story? Wordplay. Does that mean it's valueless?

Meanings of God have always evolved over time, just as all meanings of all words have evolved over time, and never hold one single meaning at any time. I think the cosmos is often a rather pretty place--I am humbled by it. Sometimes I praise it, because it created me and my happiness. That's very similar to what worship has always meant to me. Now I wouldn't argue that I worship the universe, because I believe in God--but I do "worship", in the sense that I give it supreme humility and admiration, whatever it is that created the universe, and my personal being, and whatever it is that still resides within the universe from that original creator. It is a kind of poetry that I live my life by. Maybe it's wordplay in some sense; but wordplay is real, and a very vital part of being human.

beastmaster

If people find poetry or value in calling the universe "God," well then, more power to em. Even Einstein and Hawking have used "God" metaphorically to describe the ultimate operating principles of the universe.

However, my impression was that MAC was not using "God" in a poetic or metaphorical sense.

It seemed to me that he was simply redefining God in order to preclude the "unthinkable" possibility that there may in fact be no such being.

Of course, I understand that God has had many meanings to many people over the ages.

But a *meaningful* God is one that does at least one of the following things:

(1) cares about humans
(2) judges humans
(3) supernaturally intervenes in human lives, or
(4) supernaturally intervenes in human deaths

Using "God" for something that has none of these qualities simply sows confusion.

Worse, it would render "atheism" an impossible position, simply by operation of definition.

But this is a "qualm," not a rant. I love MAC's overall approach and am willing to forgive his indiscretions.

Fiach

But a *meaningful* God is one that does at least one of the following things:

(1) cares about humans
(2) judges humans
(3) supernaturally intervenes in human lives, or
(4) supernaturally intervenes in human deaths

What is a meaningul god? Is that necessarily a god with a human personality? Is it a God who really is creator of the vast cosmos, and personally cares about each of 8 billion talking primates on a little insignificant planet on a remote arm of a mediocre galaxy, one of billions of such galaxies?

God is hypothetical. God comes from subjective ideas = imagination of earlier human shamans. Obviously this has provided humanity with thousands of different Gods. None of the Anthropomorphic ones has any greater credibility than the others. A few are not anthropomorphic, Eastern Asian ones I am told, are not humanoid. Who has reason to say that any of these gods are obsessed by my sex life?

The idea is that an Anthropomorphic god has internal contradictions but aside from it's implausibility there is no reason to thiink that it "judges" humans. That is a Zoroastrian/Mithraic idea, that has no objective basis. I challenge anyone to find a single unequivocal example of "supernatural" intervention in human lives or deaths. Of course, there is none. In fact there is no evidence of anything "supernatural". That is imagination unleashed, magical thinking totally lacking in evidence.

Fiach

beastmaster

Fiach, I agree with everything you've written here. I'm an atheist and think that all gods are fictional. Are you "arguing" with me?

See 1-4 above.

No. See 1-4 above.

Not necessarily. See 1-4 above.

Fiach

Sorry mate. I am not sure what happened there. Perhaps I thought I was posting to someone defending the 1-4 rubbish. Obviously we are on the same planet.

Fiach

beastmaster

That's what I thought -- sorry if I contributed to the confusion!

BTW, your posts were great, you totally convinced me -- LOL!