How broad is your definition of "god"?

[GliderGuider]

As someone who self-identifies as a spiritual atheist I have a great interest in what it is I'm supposed to be atheistic about.

When I consider just the gods of the dominant monotheisms that's easy. The further out I venture though, the fuzzier it gets.

The millions of gods of the Hindu pantheon, as far as I can tell, aren't generally ascribed the same level of "objective existence" as the Christian God or Allah, but are seen more as mythological cultural symbols, though many do believe that one or more of them are actual entities.

The Lord and Lady of Wicca are similar -- they seem to be more inner embodiments of a generalized sense of the sacredness of nature and its dualities.

When you get to pantheism, there isn't even a god-symbol, but rather a more abstract sense of divinity-of-the-all.

In Zen and Tao this abstraction is even more complete, with divinity replaced by such terms as "The Absolute" or "interdependent co-arising".

When one arrives at Deep Ecology (which has a somewhat pantheistic flavour) all that's left is a sense of the sacredness of the interconnections of life.

Where along this continuum does it stop feeling like "god" to you?

[daggahead]

1. All That Is. n/t

[Deep13]

46. How is that "god" and not simply the universe? nt

[daggahead]

47. Exactly. n/t

[Deep13]

48. Will you please spell it out? I'm not following you.

Unless you are suggesting that the universe necessitates a creator. That's really not true. If you are rejecting the distinction between the physical and the divine, we are back to the same question. If god is merely physical matter and energy, in what way is it god? "God" connotes an purposeful being that is somehow apart from the physical universe.

[YOY]

2. Broad enough to contain the great likelyhood of its nonexistance.

n/t

[darkstar3]

25. Ding Ding Ding!

Perfectly stated. :applause:

[tekisui]

3. So broad that it has no words.

Any definition of god is an attempt to define the unknowable, which may not even be. I just accept the unknown and the mystery.

[Ozymanithrax]

4. There might be a God, but then again, there might not be.

There is no eternal life... If there is, I will worry about it when I'm dead.

There might be Gods (plural). Then again, there might not be.

No living and beneficent God who takes care of his followers and tortures to death those that follow false gods/prophets.

There might be a god that really cares about people. There might be a god who doesn't give a rat fuck if chemicals with emergent properties developed movement and organization.

I'm an agnostic.

[damntexdem]

18. Hear, hear!

Little faith -- but enough faith to disbelieve in the monsters that RW reliticos preach about!

[SPedigrees]

5. I believe god to be the sum total of the physical laws that define the universe.

OK I expropriated this definition from an old (and hilarious) episode of "WKRP" where it was attributed to Einstein and Spinoza. I co-opted it because it so perfectly fits my own thoughts about god.

When asked about my religious views however, I usually just reply "I'm not religious in the traditional sense of the word."

[jody]

6. God is the preternatural answer to questions that cannot be answered by science.

Because the answer is preternatural it can neither be confirmed or rejected in the natural world that knows only science.

[trotsky]

7. So as science learns more, your god gets smaller.

I understand.

[GliderGuider]

9. Is this the "God of the Gaps"?

It sounds like it.

[jody]

13. Makes sense over the future "god gets smaller" as science gets larger. Poses an interesting question

will science ultimately explain everything or will there always remain an infinitesimal question that can only be answered with "God"?

[trotsky]

14. The more interesting question is,

Why should anything unexplained or unknown automatically be labeled "god"?

[jody]

17. I'm open to any title you wish to use. My casual reading of history suggests that during prehistory

people experienced things that in their ignorance they could not explain, e.g. thunder, and they made up explanations that god(s) were the cause.

My intent was to use "god" as the cause of effects observed by humans that could not be explained.

Over time humans using science discovered the laws of nature and explained the cause of observed effects usurping the role of god in the process.

The continuing brouhaha over evolution versus creationism is one such struggle.

[struggle4progress]

27. Just the opposite. The boundaries of our ignorance enlarge as our knowledge increases

[GliderGuider]

28. That's how I see it too.

The more we know, the more we know we don't know. (That sounds a little too Rumsfeldian, but I think you'll get my drift.)

I love the feeling of mystery. Like the when I heard of the research that concluded there were stars older than the universe. the more mystery the better, sez I.

[struggle4progress]

30. Imagine tryin to explain to Galileo all the questions we have today about the stars and planets

[GliderGuider]

31. That's a very nice example.

[jody]

33. Agree "boundaries of our ignorance enlarge" but the idea that a preternatural entity exists that at

will can violate the laws of nature becomes more untenable.

[tama]

34. Actually

that's very close to the standard scientific position - the preternatural entity is called "Singularity" and violent metaphor for the setting of initial values of natural processes is called "Big Bang".

[jody]

39. Darn it, why did you have to reveal the ending so soon? ROFL n/t

[struggle4progress]

36. *shrug*

I have no idea how to assess whether such an idea is "tenable"

[jody]

38. As science expands our knowledge and as stated new questions arise the answer "god" used in the past

is no longer accepted for old questions.

If new questions can be answered by science, so be it, but that leaves an ever dwindling set of questions for which "god" is the only answer.

Even for those it is probable that in the far distant future most all questions of the form "what caused this observed effect" will be answered by science.

Perhaps the last remaining question may be simply "why"and not "how".

[tama]

42. Last remaining question?

"What if...?"

[jody]

44. I surrender. n/t

[tama]

49. Well completed! n/t

[trotsky]

51. Nah.

[damntexdem]

19. But, then, gods of the gaps tend to go in for radical reduction exercises.

As science answers more, such gods shrink.

[jody]

23. Agree, see #13. n/t

[bain_sidhe]

8. I'm more of a Gaia-type believer...

It's ALL God.

[safeinOhio]

10. My God is one of two words

I use often when I bump my head going down the basement steps.

[GliderGuider]

22. Your god is named "Fuck"?

Mine too... :hi:

[darkstar3]

24. ROFL. n/t

[tama]

35. How fruitfull of you

in my language the equivalent god is named as primus inter paries after this god: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perkunas (In Finnish 'Perkele')

Of course it's really the Holy Trinity that we express our gratitude with the expression "Vittu Saatana Perrrrrrrkele!!!"

(Which, sorry to say, can be only translated as "Cunt Satan Sky-Daddy!!!")

[GliderGuider]

40. I love it!!! It's my new mantra.

"Vittu Saatana Perrrrrrrkele!!!"

It really rolls off the tongue, doesn't it?

[sfwriter]

11. Atheist here...

I sorta take the Sam Harris route with Buddhism. I am very open to spiritual experience, which I see as a function of existence with a brain capeable of foresight, inquisition and awe. Buddhism sharpens that.

All the rest is just comforting or fearful nonsense to me, but I try to live and let live.

Check out your local Unitarian Universalists. They are great partners for discussing such questions.

[GliderGuider]

15. Thanks for the suggestion. I was raised a Unitarian, but in a strong atheist fellowship

Maybe that explains some of my confusion :-)

[damntexdem]

21. Or your clarity -- or both.

;-)

[tularetom]

12. If god can be understood he/she/it does not exist

If you believe you can communicate with god, you are awfully presumptuous.

I don't understand god, but my theory is God does not give a shit about you. Or me. Or any other carbon based life form on this planet.

What it all comes down to is most people don't really believe in the existence of god, but they're hedging their bets about the afterlife by pretending to believe wholeheartedly. Which if you think about it, is an insult to the whole concept of god. If their god is so omniscient, he understands they are bullshitting.

[damntexdem]

16. As an agnostic, my definition is 'whatever.'

If there is such a thing as god, or gods, then my feelings have nothing to do with it. And that's the thing about agnosticism: knowing that wishes or feelings don't make it true.

[kick-ass-bob]

20. very broad.

Everything was created from a source of energy. It is the energy that flows through each and every little thing on the planet, in the solar system, in the universe, and beyond.
That's "god".

This energy helps us flow through our physical and spiritual existence, while we are here and when we are not. We fold back into the energy after our physical death because energy is never created nor destroyed.

To monotheists, I am generally called an atheist. But that's OK with me, because I don't really care. I really don't want a label anyways.

[iris27]

26. I don't have my own definition of "god"; I leave that up to those who suggest

the existence of such a being/force.

[beam me up scottie]

29. Ditto.

:thumbsup:

[JerseygirlCT]

32. Far broader than my only human mind can fully comprehend

So others' differing perceptions don't necessarily trouble me. Loving creator - beyond that, each person probably has a different idea - maybe different ideas depending on when he or she is asked.

I think our religious images of God are necessary for many people, and that religion is to serve humankind's search for relationship with the divine. So if person A finds that connection in Christianity and B in the Hindu pantheon, while C sees the divine in nature... it's all good.

[Odin2005]

37. It doesn't have a definition for me because the term is meaningless to me.

If "God" means exactly the same thing as "the whole cosmos", why use a redundant term?

[Silent3]

41. Like many words, I have to use different definitions in different contexts.

For any conversation about the nature of God or gods to be meaningful you have to make sure everyone is talking about more or less the same definition of God. God can both exist and not exist if you're referring to two different types of God. That's not any sort of great mysterious quality of godhood, however, that's just a practical problem with the imprecision of words. Nor is it an insurmountable problem, unless, as is often sadly the case, you try to discuss God with people who insist on vagueness about the word because slippery definitions suit their need to duck, dodge, and evade, people who will shift definition as needed while blurring parts of their argument that are made addressing different definitions.

The most annoying definition of God is the non-definition definition, the "God is too beyond man to define" God, or the could-mean-anything-so-you-can't-rule-it-out God. If you can't define your own God yourself, then how the hell do you even know what you're talking about?

As an atheist, when I say I don't believe in God, the definition I'm typically using is this: any being conceived of as a willful and/or intelligent creator of the universe, especially any such being conceived of as a personality or consciousness with whom human beings can communicate, that listens to prayers, sets rules, sits in judgment of human actions, and determines salvation or damnation in a purported afterlife.

There are other definitions of God which I don't often use, but I'm willing to entertain in the right context, like Spinoza's God. There is a poetic sense that this meaning of "God" helps convey about the wondrous and amazing qualities of the universe. That God "exists" just as much as the natural universe itself exists, simply by virtue of being a synonym for the natural universe. It is a mistake to use this definition of God while carrying over baggage from other definitions of God to imply that the natural universe is or contains any large-scale collective consciousness, personality, or force of will.

[tama]

43. Me too

I like Spinoza's God.

[Deep13]

45. I use the widely held and traditional definition.

A being that created the universe (or at least had a hand in creating it) who exists apart from the universe, but is free to intervene in it. A god must be immortal, hugely powerful (if not omnipotent), must have been instrumental in the creation of life and care at least indirectly what happens to humans, how we act and what we do in bed.

These are what people have always imaged as gods since the beginning of our existence. In my view, more vague definitions are the result of attempts to avoid being dispoved by increasing progress of scientific knowledge. These definitions make god so far removed from the traditional definition that they are essentially defined out of existence.

[H2O Man]

50. universal

and beyond.