John P. M. wrote:

amkerman wrote:
Have you ever seen consciousness? Have you ever seen gravity?

Consciousness is all I ever see, and I think I recognize it in other as well, although I can't be certain.
Gravity is not something magical; there's a reason science can describe it, and so far it has been kind enough to be a natural, detectable, continuous phenomenon.

I would like to jump in here and not equate gravity with consciousness in any sense. I don't want the topic to move too quickly and become lost in extra word definitions. I will assume the definition of "will" being used here is like "motivation, volition or choice." In my first post I tried to preclude this topic, with the attempt to dissociate myself with any literal anthropomorphic characteristics of god. I see those characteristics and as of "right this very moment" am including "personal" as simplifications and historical jargon, rather than depictions of literal absolute truth. (Can one have a personal relationship with any inanimate object?) I don't know. http://amarillo.com/stories/030699/usn_mancar.shtml

The point I wanted to make was that gravity theory, (although we can see and measure its effects, consistency and presence) is unobservable directly (as of now.) We could go down this physics path, but I see no reason to try and do this. I don't think any of us have the knowledge to back up claims accurately.

John P. M. wrote:

DefineGod wrote:Let me know if I need to try and elaborate on something.

You continually tip-toe around the elephant in the room, even though a few of us have many times pointed to it, so I don't know if it's any use. We don't need elaboration, we need clarity with brevity, to know what you're on about.

Do you see the physical universe, and nothing but the physical universe, as God?

If so, I have "seen God", and " No one has ever seen God" (see my edited post).

Do you see God as something that has a will of it's own, and sometimes acts on that will?

Show me the elephant. Please cite posts which clarify this elephant.
Do you include unobservable forces as part of the physical universe (not the products, but the forces themselves) Just a question. I want to know. I have no ulterior motive here but I also have no desire to limit the concept of god unnecessarily by accident. No, I don't see reality as existing with human characteristics. (That includes divine intervention, miracles, etc.)

Thanks for the posts. I will "tip toe" much more deliberately in the future.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=skU-jBFzXl0

DefineGod wrote:I would like to jump in here and not equate gravity with consciousness in any sense.

You wouldn't have to jump very high or far, because no one here has equated gravity with consciousness.

DefineGod wrote:
I don't think any of us have the knowledge to back up claims accurately.

I'm not a physicist, so that may be true, but there are certainly members here who are qualified. As far as I can see though, gravity is very observable in the sense that I can personally do all manner of experiments and chances are they'll be repeatable and objects will behave the same way. In any event - I don't see how something being invisible or being an effect has any relation to the topic, as long as they are testable phenomenons. Are we saying "Gravity exists even if you can't see it, so why not God?".

My apologies. As you were.

DefineGod wrote:

John P. M. wrote:

DefineGod wrote:Let me know if I need to try and elaborate on something.

Do you see the physical universe, and nothing but the physical universe, as God?

If so, I have "seen God", and " No one has ever seen God" (see my edited post).

Do you see God as something that has a will of it's own, and sometimes acts on that will?

Show me the elephant. Please cite posts which clarify this elephant.

It was in what you just quoted; "Do you see God as something that has a will of its own, and sometimes acts on that will?"

Actually, I'm sorry, it seems I was a little trigger-happy. You did say this:

DefineGod wrote:I will assume the definition of "will" being used here is like "motivation, volition or choice." In my first post I tried to preclude this topic, with the attempt to dissociate myself with any literal anthropomorphic characteristics of god. I see those characteristics and as of "right this very moment" am including "personal" as simplifications and historical jargon, rather than depictions of literal absolute truth.

In which case, if I'm reading you right, we can now check off the boxes "Not supernatural", and "Not personal". Is this the case?

John P. M. wrote:

DefineGod wrote:I would like to jump in here and not equate gravity with consciousness in any sense.

You wouldn't have to jump very high or far, because no one here has equated gravity with consciousness.

Oh good.

DefineGod wrote:
I don't think any of us have the knowledge to back up claims accurately.

I'm not a physicist, so that may be true, but there are certainly members here who are qualified. As far as I can see though, gravity is very observable in the sense that I can personally do all manner of experiments and chances are they'll be repeatable and objects will behave the same way. In any event - I don't see how something being invisible or being an effect has any relation to the topic, as long as they are testable phenomenons. Are we saying "Gravity exists even if you can't see it, so why not God?".

We are not saying this. Do you include invisible forces in the physical universe? Why do we call this particular force, gravity? I am not questioning if gravity is testable or if it is not testable (or knowable or unknowable for that matter). The point is that, as an abstract symbol, the word "Gravity" is not directly representative of what we know about this force. Is this theory accurate? I don't know. Is the theory of god, accurate? I don't know. But It is representative.

I edited my previous post.

Be careful of accusing someone of quote mining, when all they do is leave in the portion that has relevance, instead of quoting entire paragraphs (especially since you do the same, often without including the name of the poster), or asking questions in order to get the other person to clarify their view, and not with the intention of putting words in their mouths. Thank you.

Thank you, I edited mine and removed the quote mining phrase. We are both too fast! Thanks for understanding. I am going to take a breather. Please do your best to respond to my comments. I will do my best to respond to yours.

HughMcB wrote:Theist redefines words to make theism more palatable. More on this story after Ice Road Truckers.

That's about it for me too.

I mean, bottom line if someone is a Christian. We're talking about a Bronze Age war god that tells people to kill other people and creates the world in six days, etc. We make make it all nice and more palatable to the modern, educated mind by fancying it up with "abstractions" and philosophies and whatever one cares to make up and perform the mental gymnastics to rationalize. But it has squat to do with the Christian god anymore. It's just a modern made-up concept to layer over an ancient made-up concept. Makes a person feel less silly for believing it.

The discussion has moved on a bit from where I last posted but I think John P.M. has been making the points I was attempting to (better )

What I do want to focus on is a few repeated claims that because you have got us to say 'well you sound like an atheist under that definition' or 'well calling reality god would make everyone theists/deists' this necessarily means the viewpoints of atheists (not atheism) and theists (not theism) is generally not very different. This is simply not true for the vast majority of cases any of us are likely to encounter.

If I decided to start calling myself a theist without changing anything else then sure, I could say "my worldview has a lot in common with atheists", but it would be meaningless to say that proved atheists and theists must have similar views about the world because I would just be mis-using the label. (This applies to messing with definitions of 'God' too).

I also still don't get why you think the bible is a source of wisdom or knowledge about anything. Using it as a tool to share experiences with your community and build relationships I can kind of get given its ubiquity in some places but I have no idea why you would assume it has valuable insight into reality beyond, at best, the philosophical ponderings of bronze age people and at worst a few pretty nasty fictions some people took too seriously.

Why would you think:

Genesis I believe is a metaphor for the creation of the human perspective.

? How did the writers come by knowledge of 'the creation of the human perspective'?

and

Although the evidence for the big bang is not as solid as it could be, perhaps no beginning and no end?

The big bang is the theory best supported by the evidence (expansion, cosmic background radiation etc), so what leads you to posit no beginning and no end? I'm not saying the big bang is 'Absolute Truth', just wondering about your motivation.

edit - I posted this very late/early when I just got tired of editing any more, sorry for any repetition and muddled points.

Moonwatcher wrote:

HughMcB wrote:Theist redefines words to make theism more palatable. More on this story after Ice Road Truckers.

That's about it for me too.

I mean, bottom line if someone is a Christian. We're talking about a Bronze Age war god that tells people to kill other people and creates the world in six days, etc. We make make it all nice and more palatable to the modern, educated mind by fancying it up with "abstractions" and philosophies and whatever one cares to make up and perform the mental gymnastics to rationalize. But it has squat to do with the Christian god anymore. It's just a modern made-up concept to layer over an ancient made-up concept. Makes a person feel less silly for believing it.

I know some of the posts are long and Its hard to read and follow all the posts. Please be aware that you are attacking metaphor. "Abstractions," theory, symbols, yea I said unto him, are very common. I don't hold atheists to 15th century versions of non-belief, nor do I hold other scientists to Lamarckian theory. I believe you are quoting from the first page, Mr. HughMcB hasn't added anything since. (Although, I prefer Gold Rush to Ice Road Truckers) I agree that modern interpretation is different than historical application, especially with regard to the catholic church and its corruption of power and the effect it had over 8 or more centuries. I agree, concepts must be created, otherwise they would not exist. Thanks for posting! PM if you have questions that were not covered by the earlier posts.

DefineGod wrote:Do you include invisible forces in the physical universe?

Ok. The thing here - the reason I / we keep harping on the issue of if you think your god concept has volition and self awareness etc. or not - is that... if you are simply talking about a metaphor for the physical universe (and yes, natural forces that cannot be directly seen by the naked eye except for their effects are included, although I fail to see the relevance), then you are not a theist under the common usage of the word. That is all.

DefineGod wrote:Why do we call this particular force, gravity? I am not questioning if gravity is testable or if it is not testable (or knowable or unknowable for that matter). The point is that, as an abstract symbol, the word "Gravity" is not directly representative of what we know about this force.

Etymologically? It comes from 'gravitas', meaning heaviness, weight (in this context). Why do we call a small sized sitting device a 'chair'? The word 'chair' isn't directly representative of what we know about a certain sitting device, other than as a label we commonly agree to use to refer to such things (in one language). That's how we can have language. If we didn't agree on the meaning of any labels, we wouldn't have language at all, or rather, we'd perhaps all have our very own language, and no one would understand one another. Which should point out how important it is to work under the same definitions. A commonly agreed upon definition of the universe, or reality, is not 'God'. Not that I have ever seen, anyway.

DefineGod wrote:
Is this theory accurate? I don't know. Is the theory of god, accurate? I don't know. But It is representative.

As anything in science, it's not dogmatically true. But so far it has held up when it comes to describing what we see, at least at the macroscopic level. I doubt it will be completely overturned, even if it may be revised and added onto.
Is the theory of god accurate? Is it even a theory? Not in the scientific sense, at least. Well maybe yours is, if you simply slap the label 'God' onto the physical universe. But that's neither here nor there. I could slap the label 'Nazi uniform' onto your clothes, but it wouldn't really make your clothes into a Nazi uniform (I thought Godwin's law was way over due in the discussion by now).

I realise that I am at risk of displaying a lack of nuance here, but why the attempts to define a god into existance? The OP has done his best to define how he imagines a monotheistic god, and has done so by completely rejecting traditional definitions and simply labelled it as a symbol...."God is a symbol for all that exists."
Another member of the forum has recently expended a great amount of effort into defending his definiton of god as the same as reality.
My question to the OP is the same to the aforementioned member; why? What is the point?
If you think god might be just a symbol for the universe, then why not just talk about the universe without the symbol? What makes it necessary to take a perfectly good word and swap the definitions around. If you think god is reality, why not just talk about the nature of reality? I don't see how the new version of god has any use whatsoever. In fact, it seems to me to be entirely self-defeating. The word god, and the idea behind it is a stick with which to beat people, let's only use it when no other word will fit.

If there are five and a half billion believers on the planet, then there are five and half billion defintions of god, and for those of us that choose to spend our time attempting to refute god, we must refute each and every incarnation (possibly not the best word) of god. Clearly, if god is redefined to mean something else, such as reality or existence, then it cannot be refuted, but does it not also lose its point? What is to stop us saying god is love, or god is toffee, or god is phrangle. Surely the only conclusion is that god is unnecessary?

YoumanBean wrote:The discussion has moved on a bit from where I last posted but I think John P.M. has been making the points I was attempting to (better )

What I do want to focus on is a few repeated claims that because you have got us to say 'well you sound like an atheist under that definition' or 'well calling reality god would make everyone theists/deists' this necessarily means the viewpoints of atheists (not atheism) and theists (not theism) is generally not very different. This is simply not true for the vast majority of cases any of us are likely to encounter.

Hiya!
I very much agree with you. I will admit, I am not most theists. Please understand that I make no attempt to defend the type of theism that includes supernatural aspects or literal anthropomorphic qualities which are assigned to God outside of metaphor. I do think there are more similarities than differences (although important behavioral differences) between myself and atheists who happen to agree or think like I do.

If I decided to start calling myself a theist without changing anything else then sure, I could say "my worldview has a lot in common with atheists", but it would be meaningless to say that proved atheists and theists must have similar views about the world because I would just be mis-using the label. (This applies to messing with definitions of 'God' too)

I agree it would be a misuse if you were an atheist and started calling yourself a theist. The implications are important on some level. Why do you think it would be misuse exactly? I doubt it is solely because the definition is uncommon and you don't like it? It seems to be common enough among atheists. I don't want to minimize the label atheist, I know it is a very important piece of identify for some. I think I would receive very little opposition if I substituted and adopted the atheist for theist label. I do think about that; semantic arguments are only meaningless if one either doesn't understand the argument (confused by the meaning), or disagrees with the title but not the message (or one would just attack the message). I am not "messing" with definitions of God anymore than an atheist would mess with the definition of "insert word here, which is comfortable to an atheist and which describes what I mean when I use the word God." What word would you use to describe what I mean when I use the symbol "god?" Perhaps, "Flim-flam?" "gobledgook somethingorrather?" I would appreciate a more descriptive label if god doesn't work. Others have made this same point. Please understand, I really only wish to be assertive, I mean no personal offense or insult directed at anyone

I also still don't get why you think the bible is a source of wisdom or knowledge about anything. Using it as a tool to share experiences with your community and build relationships I can kind of get given its ubiquity in some places but I have no idea why you would assume it has valuable insight into reality beyond, at best, the philosophical ponderings of bronze age people and at worst a few pretty nasty fictions some people took too seriously.

Sure that is one use. Do you really not understand, or do you disagree? There really are quite sophisticated ideas contained within the bible. lol, Are you a jealous member of the Stone Age, angry at those upstarts using that newfangled metal stuff? We really aren't that much different from people 2000 years ago. I don't know really. Bring in some scripture, we can look at it together to see if it is meaningful in some way. Maybe its not any better than you say, and its only value is its efficacy in relationship building. I don't think it is the the soul (hehe, see what I did there, oh boy I should sleep) source of knowledge. That would be silly.

Why would you think:

Genesis I believe is a metaphor for the creation of the human perspective.

? How did the writers come by knowledge of 'the creation of the human perspective'?

Because I don't think they were talking about the creation of anything else. I'm really not sure what you are asking here. Perhaps you would help me to understand? I think they were talking about the evolution of man's development of an advanced frontal lobe, and everything that entails. (knowledge, a larger head, awareness, separation from god) Its all there. I'm serious.

Although the evidence for the big bang is not as solid as it could be, perhaps no beginning and no end?

The big bang is the theory best supported by the evidence (expansion, cosmic background radiation etc), so what leads you to posit no beginning and no end? I'm not saying the big bang is 'Absolute Truth', just wondering about your motivation.

edit - I posted this very late/early when I just got tired of editing any more, sorry for any repetition and muddled points.

Edit: Ahh, I read the fine print! I won't/don't hold it against you. (forgiveness?) lol. I really do appreciate the time you took to examine these things with me.
Here is an interesting link. http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/node/1566
I would love to have a better understanding of CBR and how else it could be interpreted? For instance, if we really were in a steady state (perhaps with pockets of negative space which would explain the lack of pattern in the CBR), with an unknown geometry of space. That is my only motivation here. There is no related metaphysics followups to this part of the post, hehe.
I do look forward to the response!!

John P. M. wrote:if you are simply talking about a metaphor for the physical universe (and yes, natural forces that cannot be directly seen by the naked eye except for their effects are included, although I fail to see the relevance), then you are not a theist under the common usage of the word. That is all.

I can understand your position on this. By taking a positive position, I will, I believe, naturally have agreements and disagreements with other persons who identify with the label theist (or the label christian.) Taking the negative position, especially one so narrowly defined as atheist, it is quite easy to use one common label which is free from major disagreement. And I can rephrase an earlier use of the word "faith" to say that an atheist, must take a positive position (put faith in) on something. I do not deny the common usage issue. I posted more on semantic arguments in most last post I think.

John P. M. wrote:
If we didn't agree on the meaning of any labels, we wouldn't have language at all, or rather, we'd perhaps all have our very own language, and no one would understand one another. Which should point out how important it is to work under the same definitions. A commonly agreed upon definition of the universe, or reality, is not 'God'. Not that I have ever seen, anyway.

Yes, I think that with translation problems, and language changes over time there are many different understandings concerning the christian god of the bible (or other gods of which I am unaware) As for working under the same definitions, I agree, I did my best to include them in the OP and clarify throughout the thread as best I could. What is a commonly agreed definition of the universe or reality? I am very willing to go in this direction as I think this would be helpful if we are to keep going. Although, Lol, if we do come up with a commonly accepted definition of the universe, it is possible that amkerman will immediately label it god.

DefineGod wrote:
Is this theory accurate? I don't know. Is the theory of god, accurate? I don't know. But It is representative.

John P. M. wrote:
As anything in science, it's not dogmatically true. But so far it has held up when it comes to describing what we see, at least at the macroscopic level. I doubt it will be completely overturned, even if it may be revised and added onto.
Is the theory of god accurate? Is it even a theory? Not in the scientific sense, at least. Well maybe yours is, if you simply slap the label 'God' onto the physical universe. But that's neither here nor there. I could slap the label 'Nazi uniform' onto your clothes, but it wouldn't really make your clothes into a Nazi uniform (I thought Godwin's law was way over due in the discussion by now).

I agree, I am against dogma in the general sense.(mentioned this in the OP as well) I don't think it could be disqualified as a scientific theory, I have seen some pretty abstract scientific theories with less evidence (What is concrete memory?) If one could consider it a theory, perhaps it would similar to what a unified field theory attempts to do? I don't know. What do you think about that? I also love slapping god all over the place (see what I did there) Lol, and yes, quite overdue.
What?! No :goosestep: smiley? What the crap...
Thanks for the insight, I do seem to think we are progressing toward something.

trubble76 wrote:I realise that I am at risk of displaying a lack of nuance here, but why the attempts to define a god into existance? The OP has done his best to define how he imagines a monotheistic god, and has done so by completely rejecting traditional definitions and simply labelled it as a symbol...."God is a symbol for all that exists."
Another member of the forum has recently expended a great amount of effort into defending his definiton of god as the same as reality.

I would very much like to get to the point of that (at least my personal reasons). Perhaps post #101 would be helpful? Thank you for noticing, I am trying. I am aware of mentioned member and there are differences of opinion to be clear.

My question to the OP is the same to the aforementioned member; why? What is the point?
If you think god might be just a symbol for the universe, then why not just talk about the universe without the symbol? What makes it necessary to take a perfectly good word and swap the definitions around. If you think god is reality, why not just talk about the nature of reality? I don't see how the new version of god has any use whatsoever. In fact, it seems to me to be entirely self-defeating. The word god, and the idea behind it is a stick with which to beat people, let's only use it when no other word will fit.

Very good question. I can do both. Can you? As to definition swapping, I don't think it is an accurate swap, which is why I try not to overuse it. I am happy to talk about the nature of reality!! But is that really necessary if we agree on it? What is the new version of god? Is that on the same continuum as the old version of atheist? (you know the ones who believed in god, but not the right way and were promptly labeled as atheists.) I really do try and follow this. (not the stick part)

If there are five and a half billion believers on the planet, then there are five and half billion defintions of god, and for those of us that choose to spend our time attempting to refute god, we must refute each and every incarnation (possibly not the best word) of god. Clearly, if god is redefined to mean something else, such as reality or existence, then it cannot be refuted, but does it not also lose its point? What is to stop us saying god is love, or god is toffee, or god is phrangle. Surely the only conclusion is that god is unnecessary?

Having read Agrippina's more recent thread, I can imagine this is very difficult to face day in and day out. I understand one can become very tired of fighting. I don't want to fight either, I would much rather be united under a common definition of (being,reality, god, phrangle? or whatever one chooses,) and drop the labels which really do become meaningless as pointed out by a few savvy posters. (thank you savvy posters!) I would edit your final sentence to read. "the only conclusion is that god is unnecessary to debate." (Trying to be fair to people like myself who do use the word god)I make this suggestion with the idea that if we all agree what it is, the word, as with theist and atheist is irrelevant. Is that fair to say? What do you think?
@trubble76 I found your post polite, questioning, and relevant. Thanks!

DefineGod wrote:

trubble76 wrote:I realise that I am at risk of displaying a lack of nuance here, but why the attempts to define a god into existance? The OP has done his best to define how he imagines a monotheistic god, and has done so by completely rejecting traditional definitions and simply labelled it as a symbol...."God is a symbol for all that exists."
Another member of the forum has recently expended a great amount of effort into defending his definiton of god as the same as reality.

I would very much like to get to the point of that (at least my personal reasons). Perhaps post #101 would be helpful? Thank you for noticing, I am trying. I am aware of mentioned member and there are differences of opinion to be clear.

My question to the OP is the same to the aforementioned member; why? What is the point?
If you think god might be just a symbol for the universe, then why not just talk about the universe without the symbol? What makes it necessary to take a perfectly good word and swap the definitions around. If you think god is reality, why not just talk about the nature of reality? I don't see how the new version of god has any use whatsoever. In fact, it seems to me to be entirely self-defeating. The word god, and the idea behind it is a stick with which to beat people, let's only use it when no other word will fit.

Very good question. I can do both. Can you? As to definition swapping, I don't think it is an accurate swap, which is why I try not to overuse it. I am happy to talk about the nature of reality!! But is that really necessary if we agree on it? What is the new version of god? Is that on the same continuum as the old version of atheist? (you know the ones who believed in god, but not the right way and were promptly labeled as atheists.) I really do try and follow this. (not the stick part)

If there are five and a half billion believers on the planet, then there are five and half billion defintions of god, and for those of us that choose to spend our time attempting to refute god, we must refute each and every incarnation (possibly not the best word) of god. Clearly, if god is redefined to mean something else, such as reality or existence, then it cannot be refuted, but does it not also lose its point? What is to stop us saying god is love, or god is toffee, or god is phrangle. Surely the only conclusion is that god is unnecessary?

Having read Agrippina's more recent thread, I can imagine this is very difficult to face day in and day out. I understand one can become very tired of fighting. I don't want to fight either, I would much rather be united under a common definition of (being,reality, god, phrangle? or whatever one chooses,) and drop the labels which really do become meaningless as pointed out by a few savvy posters. (thank you savvy posters!) I would edit your final sentence to read. "the only conclusion is that god is unnecessary to debate." (Trying to be fair to people like myself who do use the word god)I make this suggestion with the idea that if we all agree what it is, the word, as with theist and atheist is irrelevant. Is that fair to say? What do you think?
@trubble76 I found your post polite, questioning, and relevant. Thanks!

Thnak you for the thoughtful reply. Can I press you address what I consider to be the most important part of my post with a little more clarity?

why? What is the point?

You have described your god as a symbol for all that exists, but we already have a word for that, "the Universe". A word that I consider to be far superior because it is more precise, better understood and free of the baggage and emotion linked to the word "god"

Given your definition, do you think it useful to proclaim that you believe in the universe, or that you have faith in the universe, or that you pray to the universe? Given your definition, is it now a category error to talk about theists and atheists?

Does the universe include the possibility for a multi-verse or extra dimensions should evidence be found? (string theory) Could the definition change, adapt, or otherwise evolve(in the broad sense of the word)?
To your very specific question- the point is to find and use a word that includes itself without the need to update the definition when theory changes. What makes "the universe" a better symbol? What is the definition of the universe by the way? (Does it include things that are sometimes ascribed to god? omni-this? and omni-that?) What can one offer as a reason to use one word over another if you just aim to describe the same thing?
I don't think I have used the phrase "I believe in god." God is a complex word, I will not deny. Because it is poorly understood, or emotional, or has historical misapplication or even positive misapplication,(supernatural) it does not fracture its use from the language, rather the relationship of people using it in a way to exclude others.

trubble76 wrote:Surely the only conclusion is that god is unnecessary?

Or, god is the putty used to fill the knowledge-shaped hole in peoples' heads.

Made of Stars wrote:

trubble76 wrote:Surely the only conclusion is that god is unnecessary?

Or, god is the putty used to fill the knowledge-shaped hole in peoples' heads.

Agreed, All knowledge is available. I think you are making a god of the gaps argument, yes? Referring to an argument from ignorance which must have a supernatural cause? Cite a specific reference to ignorance or a specific reference to supernatural cause please. We will discuss.