FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > IIDB ARCHIVE: 200X-2003, PD 2007 > IIDB Philosophical Forums (PRIOR TO JUN-2003)
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Yesterday at 05:55 AM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 08-08-2002, 03:58 PM   #1
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Denver, Colorado, USA
Posts: 4,834
Post A different definition of God.

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

"A power not created by 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". 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.

[ August 08, 2002: Message edited by: ohwilleke ]</p>
ohwilleke is offline  
Old 08-08-2002, 09:24 PM   #2
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Fairfax, VA
Posts: 465
Post

Well the best definition of God that I've come up with is

'That which humans do not (or possibly cannot) understand.'
so-crates is offline  
Old 08-08-2002, 11:02 PM   #3
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 4,656
Thumbs up

Indeed. The burning issue we have with theists (and not with Deists) is that of divine sovereignty. It doesn't matter whether the creator is natural or supernatural; what matters is whether the creator is sovereign over the creation. Such a creator makes demands, allows and prohibits, and extracts tolls from believers, and is therefore a clear and present danger.

"God hath willed it" or "God ordered us to do so" is theism. Deus vult, that is the issue.

------

Theistic Explanation of Things:
ignoro, ergo Deus id fecit
"I don't know, therefore God did it"

Heathen Dawn
Φυσιολατρος απιστος

[ August 09, 2002: Message edited by: Heathen Dawn ]</p>
Heathen Dawn is offline  
Old 08-09-2002, 12:44 AM   #4
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 2,832
Wink

Quote:
Originally posted by so-crates:
<strong>Well the best definition of God that I've come up with is

'That which humans do not (or possibly cannot) understand.'</strong>
That would also include our Taxation System.
echidna is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 12:59 AM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.