seebs

Good question. As a short answer, "the entity which made/makes the universe we observe". However, I can't show how to distinguish between a universe made and a universe happened.

nowhereman

If you don't know whether the universe was made, how do you know that an entity made it?

seebs

I don't, but it's like the "force which holds me in my chair" definition; if I find that this thing is done, I have a name for what did it. If I later find out that I am not held in my chair, then I discard gravity - but gravity is still the name I made up for "the force holding me in my chair".

Anyway, I don't *know*. I have a *belief*. Like several of my other fundamental beliefs, it is, to the best of my knowledge, totally untestable; it just seems more correct to me.

nowhereman

So your definition of "God" is whatever caused the universe and all the physical laws that we observe to happen. I accept that the universe exists (whatever that might mean), but I don't term its cause (or whatever) "God" because of the word's connotations, like the things primitive cultures created to explain things like the origin of life.

seebs

Ahh. I don't mind those connotations; they fit my experience tolerably well, although I think there's a tendency to try to expand God to use as an all-purpose answer to any question, which strikes me as a bad approach.

nowhereman

Yes, but there's a problem with all those connotations. See, once the universe and all the natural laws exist, one doesn't need a God (whatever caused the universe to happen) to explain things like the origin of earth and life; those natural laws are sufficient.

I'm glad that you don't find God (whatever caused the universe to happen) an all purpose answer to any question. Various religious sects are trying to do this precise thing, as well as other silly ideas, like a "soul"(whatever that is), "sin", afterlife, and other stuff.

seebs

I think that's probably true. However, this doesn't mean we don't have one; it just means we can explain the rise of life without one. (Mostly; I am personally agnostic on abiogenesis.)

Oh, I accept all of those - but I still don't think God is an all-purpose answer. In most cases, it's much more useful to work within the physical universe.

I don't see a problem with concepts like "soul" and "sin". They're very useful.

nowhereman

Useful as fiction to keep people in good behavior, or as truth?

seebs

As truth. The concept of sin is hardly unique to theistic belief systems; only the way in which people go about thinking about it. I have never heard of anyone who had an ethical system, and had never failed to live up to it. ("mythical" figures excepted.) So, a concept for that is useful. Likewise, "soul" seems like a good way to refer to "the part of you that isn't meat". Is there one? I don't know. I believe there is, but I see no way to confirm or deny this.

nowhereman

Since humans created ethics as a way to get along with each other, the breaking of ethical codes(sin) therefore has nothing to do with the expectations of God(whatever caused the universe to happen). Does God then punish us for sin, like some Christians would have us believe? In fact, is God(whatever caused the universe to happen) even an intelligent being?