What do we really mean by "God"?

Why do we use a word like God for things that are clearly unlike a God? Some people believe God is an impersonal energy or omnipresent supernatural force. Others conceive of a being beyond spacetime in some higher dimensional mode of existence. Aren't we stretching the term God here beyond the boundaries of its original meaning and scope? Why not just call a force a force or an energy an energy? Why christen it with a mysterious and religion-laden name like God? Suppose we still wanted to believe in invisible unicorns. Would it be justifiable to so stretch the meaning of the word unicorn that it no longer refers to an invisible one-horned horse but refers to things like self-structuring fields of energy? Not imo..

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

While it may seem like ignorance abounds, it really isn't so easy, anymore.

In the days of old, one could easily be ignorant. Education was reserved for the elite and information jealously guarded.
But these days, information is readily available and there are few places left that do not offer a public education system.

It's not so easy anymore to chalk up unknown effects or desires to a God.
We have too many more rational explanations available.

This requires that one who wants to believe in a God must expand the definition of God to workaround rationality and education.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Do you know what God is like?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

And "rational" is, by definition, "something that doesn't involve God"?

Do you know what "God" is?

 

I find the "belief" in Gods, Goddess', deities and dragons and the like to be irrational.
I cannot say that "God" is irrational. You might ask if Santa is irrational. He needs to exist in order to be defined as rational or not.

 

But do you know what "God" is?

 

Again: There must exist a "God" to know what it is. I could define the myth, if you like...

Otherwise:
It depends on what axioms are accepted to start with.
The question assumes that there is a "God" to know what it is.
If we accept that there May Be a God, then I have several alternatives. Many denominations, a Torah, a Bible ( A bibbly bubbly biblie), a Koran (Quran), numerous denominations- Which pretty much all describe the God to the point of complete absurdity. I can use any of these absurdities to try to know this elusive creature.
The trouble is the overwhelming absurdities and contradictions that make it appear as though this God deliberately fudged the whole universe to hide his existence. I find that very irrational.

The next option is the strong trend in a more scientific and educated society: The "Unfathomable, unknowable God" which I cannot know so why bother; I am expected to just accept on blind faith that he moves in mysterious ways- when a more rational explanation is the clear lack of existence of any such being and this Unfathomable trait is a way of shifting the goal posts out of reach to protect the belief that keeps the tythes flowing in.
I find that kind of strict belief extremely irrational, as well.

 

You have been making claims about God, and about people who believe in God, and yet you admit that you don't know what God is.

Doesn't that strike you as odd?

What if some other people have knowledge - and certainty - of God that you don't have?

 

No, it doesn't.

In order to "know what God is," God must exist. My needle's stuck in the groove, here. Your question assumes the axiom to be true.
Pretty much, a fictitious creature can be anything I want. And that does seem fitting of this "God" I hear so much about that is always a different description.

If some people have knowledge or certainty about a truly existing "God" then I'll end up eating crow, won't I?

My own certainty is based on something that I value a great deal: Hard Evidence.
Which is something that faith, by it's definition, often is lacking in.

It is far easier to claim someone has some divine or mythical knowledge than for them to work hard and struggle to gain factual knowledge. I'll hedge my bets in that which is earned, not made up.

 

perhaps if there was some suggestion that invisible unicorns were the singular element behind all other ontological categories I could see your point in bringing up the subject of horses and what not. That aside, if you want to look at whether the term "god" is being stretched one way or another, I guess you have to settle on an impersonal or personal definition of the word.

 

Do you? Does anyone? How can they have certainty about it when certainty can only come from omniscience?

 

It should.

"I'm gonna talk about X, as if I would know X, even though I don't know what X is."

:bugeye:

Not at all.

You were the one talking about God, as if you would know what God is.

Well, yes.

That is a truism that doesn't automatically make the religious camp wrong.

 

If even atheists can take on board enough of the substance to engineer a parody (like the FSM) I think its pretty clear that you guys are simply being cerebral (unless you had trouble understanding whether the FSM was dealing with issues of italian cooking or divinity)
:shrug:

 

No.

I don't see how that possibility can be excluded, so I have to allow for it.

Since God is defined as unique, it follows, at least as far as definitions go, that the path to knowing God is unique too, so that we cannot judge what is declared as "knowledge of God" by the same epistemological and other standards as we judge knowledge of other things.

 

That's presuming that you are right and trustworthy.

 

We absolutely can when the Uniqueness you refer to was put forth in order to shift the goal posts out of reach.

 

actually I am presuming everyone knows whether the FSM is parodying subjects of divinity or Italian cooking.

 

I'm not sure the FSMers think the FSM is a parody. I don't think they do, it seems to me that it is an accurate analogy in their view.

 

On the grounds of what do you believe we should take for granted that such foul play is at work?

 

The grounds of evolutionary biology and human psychology.
That the want for the belief is stronger than the willingness to let go of the belief. The irrational mind will simply shift the goal posts to protect the belief from "Questions" which my undermine it's validity.