God can be defined, and even worshipped and adored

So whats new with this god? We had a debate about god allowing evil and still being classified as good and all powerful. Did you follow that debate? Did you see my argument that its is a contradiction in terms? Allowing evil + all powerful = ain't good.

xris,

Did you read the second-to-last paragraph in my post? It said that my God is NOT omniscient. Evidentally this was a big word. It would be a courtesy if you would look it up before you react, jumping to conclusions!

I agree with the argument you put forth in that debate. My God, however, is not only not all-powerful but does not allow evil. My God shows us how to overcome evil if we ask in the right way, i.e., if we ask how to find the Way, the way to Goodness. So I often pray, Show me the way. And God solves every problem. How can God allow badness when this Force doesn't even know of it? This God of which I speak knows only good. For it is the Good. It is Goodness itself.

And this makes sense in our ordinary experience. How many times have you heard someone utter - inter-changeably, "O my God !!!" or "Oh my Goodness !!!!" Ordinary language indicates, thus, that God is Goodness, and goodness is God. ..... ----{Wittgenstein would be proud........}

And this makes sense in our ordinary experience. How many times have you heard someone utter - inter-changeably, "O my God !!!" or "Oh my Goodness !!!!" Ordinary language indicates, thus, that God is Goodness, and goodness is God. ..... ----{Wittgenstein would be proud........}

I did not say omniscient, i said all powerful. If you limit his power, by how much?

You may not have meant this seriously, but for the record, Wittgenstein wouldn't have agreed with what you've said. In fact, he would have rejected the whole enterprise of trying to define God in the manner you've suggested. This of course doesn't mean your view is wrong. But it does mean that it's a bad idea to try to enlist Wittgenstein in support of your view.

First some preliminary definitions are helpful. For x to be valuable is for x to be meaningful, is for x to have some attributes that the valuer is looking for, or expecting - else he or she would not call it 'valuable.'

To be better is to be richer in meaning, to be more valuable: for when we say x is better than y we mean x is more valuable than y.

God =df.= that than which there is nothing better.

And why is that?
There couldn't be anything better because God, I shall argue, includes all the high, positive, values rolled-into-one. If we could conceive of anything better we would immediately make that into God.

For man is a co-creator, of and with God. Man creates God; and God, being the creativity principle itself, of course creates man. How does man create God? Every time we encourage goodness we are creating God; every time we uphold any one of the high values, such as pure love, we are creating God.


God is energy from within, and enthusiasm.

God is Information - and we have some of that in our DNA with its code for our genes. Information - gives structure to energy, makes it orderly, and makes it more valuable to us.

God is Goodness, and justice, and mercy.

God is Love - which is another high value all over the world.

God is all the values (and more) listed in people's essays on the meaning of Life, values such as fellowship, community, integrity, morality, liberty, etc.

I define "God" as "internal energy - combined with all the Intrinsic Values exponentiated." Do you not also believe in energy? Do you not also subscribe to the high values such as Goodness, Truth, and Beauty; and Humanity and Nature? That is my God. That is how I define it.

We can relate to this God personally just as a poet, using the rhetorical device of personification, relates to his desk or to a flower, or sailors relate to their ship. They personify it. Some car owners do this as well with their auto. There is nothing wrong with these people; they are fully sane. We talk to ourselves; why not talk to God. It, he, or she is what some regard as the Self of selves, the Friend of friends.


(How could we live without energy? To us, energy is quite valuable.)

Let us be careful not to confuse the God which I have been describing with traditional conceptions of God.

This God of which I speak is omnibenevolent (all Good), but neither omnipotent nor omniscient: It knows nothing of evil or badness. It is powerful enough. After all, energy can take many forms. It is quite versatile, and in the form of electomagnetism, it can render quite a jolt. But it is not all-powerful.

Whenever something good occurs, we can give thanks to God for it, whenever something is created we can give God the credit - for God is the Creativity Principle.

God =df.= that than which there is nothing better.

And why is that?
There couldn't be anything better because God, I shall argue, includes all the high, positive, values rolled-into-one. If we could conceive of anything better we would immediately make that into God.

You seem to be assuming that humanity strives for all the high, positive, values... people use the idea of god for a ton of different reasons.

Besides that I would argue that there can always be something better than God because the moment you say God is all-good and not all-powerful or all-knowing you limit God. Why not have the idea of a perfect God even if it conflicts with the pain and suffering we experience? After all, you said God was the creativity principle.

My real point would be to argue that all you are doing is creating confusion. I see no point in replacing words with "god" because most people will just think you mean something other than what you're trying to say. Why not simply say creativity, benevolence, etc... are what we should strive for? Why place a label where one isn't needed?

I define "God" as "internal energy - combined with all the Intrinsic Values exponentiated."

Whenever something good occurs, we can give thanks to God for it, whenever something is created we can give God the credit - for God is the Creativity Principle.

WOW, do you? Well, I'd say you can expect a following since it's hard to know what it is you mean, and mystical folk often enjoy that sort of thing. You know, being confused, but acting like you know what you mean.



And what about when something bad occurs, should we give thanks to God for it? I just created a sandwich with roast beef, mayo, and a spoonful of a horseradish on rye. But, the thing is, I don't want to give God the credit. I want to give myself the credit. After all, it took me about ten minutes from start to finish, and I really think the sandwich was well made.

And what about when something bad occurs, should we give thanks to God for it? I just created a sandwich with roast beef, mayo, and a spoonful of a horseradish on rye. But, the thing is, I don't want to give God the credit. I want to give myself the credit. After all, it took me about ten minutes from start to finish, and I really think the sandwich was well made.

Can I have my one without the mayo and a splash of gravy. Oh and a little white pepper.

What about the gun? Is it a good god creation invention or a bad god created invention. I would like to know if I should thank god for the gun's invention or to thank man for it.

I don't know. You may have to check with deepthot. I personally think the gun was a creative (and deadly) invention, but it may not have been creative enough to be dubbed a part of the "Creativity Principle". Maybe only the most creative things we humans have invented, we should give God credit for. Luckily that would mean I can take credit for my sandwich!

I think this is highly suspect. I never experienced your sandwich so it's goodness is purely subjective. I also haven't seen any credentials that prove you would be any good at building sandwiches. So in conclusion, it is probably just slightly better than mediocre.

Even a concept needs clarification,a handle. Why not admit you just don't know.

White pepper! That's a great idea actually. Gravy? What is that in Britain? I'm thinking you mean something else by gravy.



I don't know. You may have to check with deepthot. I personally think the gun was a creative (and deadly) invention, but it may not have been creative enough to be dubbed a part of the "Creativity Principle". Maybe only the most creative things we humans have invented, we should give God credit for. Luckily that would mean I can take credit for my sandwich!

What am I admitting to not knowing? What did you think I was trying to say?

creative , benevolence without actually mentioning the word god, appeared your advice. Then I passed the comment ,even they need clarification.