GOD- what does this word mean to YOU?

It is very true that much of great depth has been thought "around" this topic; e.g. Paul Tylick, Tielliard de Chardan (no clue how to spell them - both Jesuits), but the degree to which the 'god' idea actually effects the discussion is minimal.

the point of my comments is that god is immaterial; if it 'is', this bears no significance upon how we should conduct ourselves, and treat one another; merely a possibility that might be construed to effect our infinite repose after having done all that we can to make a positive ripple in the big pond.

[god is irrelevant]

To blithely say god is just a word is really selling it a little short. That little word summons a mass of deep feelings in millions of people. In light of those beliefs, accurate or not, the aforementioned evaluation could be regarded as simply whistling in the dark.

Cyracuz - I appreciate your kind reply. It is SO darned easy to turn any discussion into a pissing match.

However, to say that this word 'God' simply has no referent seems to be dismissing the concept out of hand and dismission the millions of evidential claims to counter.

With that said - even if theism is just wrong - I wish God's various believers could get it through thier thick skull that they cannot serve God without love - or serve through hate. Christians must take thier lions share of athiest creation.

BoGoWo - I misunderstood - I understand better now. I get your point and as a theist have struggled / continue to struggle with it. Franly, you sound like a materialist - and I struggle with that counter theory - because it is good.

Your still going to hell... but hey...

This is a very cool question - and this group has been very respectful - frankly it pisses me off that the non theists can talk more calmly about God.

TF

A well-known British atheist philosopher, Anthony Flew, has opened his view from atheism to theism.

Here is one small exchange with a colleague of his:

HABERMAS: Tony, you recently told me that you have come to believe in the existence of God. Would you comment on that?

FLEW: Well, I don't believe in the God of any revelatory system, although I am open to that. But it seems to me that the case for an Aristotelian God who has the characteristics of power and also intelligence, is now much stronger than it ever was before. And it was from Aristotle that Aquinas drew the materials for producing his five ways of, hopefully, proving the existence of his God. Aquinas took them, reasonably enough, to prove, if they proved anything, the existence of the God of the Christian revelation. But Aristotle himself never produced a definition of the word "God," which is a curious fact. But this concept still led to the basic outline of the five ways. It seems to me, that from the existence of Aristotle's God, you can't infer anything about human behaviour. So what Aristotle had to say about justice (justice, of course, as conceived by the Founding Fathers of the American republic as opposed to the "social" justice of John Rawls (9)) was very much a human idea, and he thought that this idea of justice was what ought to govern the behaviour of individual human beings in their relations with others.

HABERMAS: Once you mentioned to me that your view might be called Deism. Do you think that would be a fair designation?

FLEW: Yes, absolutely right. What Deists, such as the Mr. Jefferson who drafted the American Declaration of Independence, believed was that, while reason, mainly in the form of arguments to design, assures us that there is a God, there is no room either for any supernatural revelation of that God or for any transactions between that God and individual human beings.

Here is a link to the piece, which I find compelling:

http://www.biola.edu/antonyflew/index.cfm

Aristotle used the term "unmoved mover," to which I believe Flew is referring.

I wish everyone could get through their thick skulls that there is nothing within the power of a human, nothing that any human or any other part of anything can do that is not in the service of god.

I'd like to repeat what I said earlier, that in order to reach the decicion that you don't believe in god you first have to define god. It's no wonder you have trouble believing if your definition is totally inexplicable. Maybe a suitable definition of god could be: Omm, ergo sum.

Cyracuz:

I think, however, that would be like saying - to understand quarks you must have a definition for string theory.

Even the string theorists have agreed that thiers is much more of a philosophy than a science - they seek merely to measure effects because they realize the phenomena is unobservable to the human and thier tools.

I think when religion is operating properly it merely attempts to do the same.

I love your first portion however that there is nothing not in the service of God. We may differ on our conceptions of God - but we agree on many other things!

Kara -

Thanks for that - my concepts of God seem to well outside of my 'religion' and seem to much more greek based.

TF

I think that you think the thing to be thinking here. I concur

About the other, I realize that a definition of god is not nessecary in order to believe in god. But belief that isn't followed by understanding is not the right way to live one's life if you ask me.

Re: GOD- what does this word mean to YOU?


If I am bound to your conditions, "god" means little more than any of the letters I here type, should I remove from them what any dictionary says about them, what any teachers have taught me about them, or what I personally believe they mean.
Rather silly to introspect upon a word that has for so many generations and so many cultures bore such spiritual, academic and literal significance.
If I remove all that you have asked from "god's" meaning, then for all intents and purposes, I am typing on a qwerty god from HP. I can not make "god" mean anything other than what life experience and education has taught me.

It would be more relevant to say that within the constructs of our society, the term "god" has come to have metaphysical significance.
Do you subscribe to the common interpretation of the metaphysical god, or within our understanding of the word "god" what do you take this to be?

Maybe I've misunderstood.

I don't think you've misunderstood, candidone.

If you read the bible, for instance, you will get an image of what god is. If you talk to people you will get another one. No one agrees. Hundreds of years of bloodshed serve to prove that point.

The search for god is a personal quest, not one that can be undertaken in concert. It is the search for the most intimate secrets of the universe. Knowing god as an imaginary bearded man just seems so wrongheaded in my book.



I maintain that there is no common interpretation of god. For my part I think of god as the grand total, the perfect circle, omm ergo sum.

Cyracuz and candidone,

I too think that each person has a singular concept of what or who god is. However, these concepts tend to share many characteristics because of the shared beliefs within each or several organized religions.

Perhaps it is easier to borrow a concept of god from others than to try to shape a view of your own, especially when empirical evidence for god does not exist. Also, it may not be possible to form our own ideas of god exclusive of what we have been told since birth by churches, schools, and parents. Those ideas are ingrained in our brain wiring, even if we consider ourselves original thinkers and even if we don't support the theory that we are born with built in ideas or abstractions.

I wonder if we create god in our minds because we need something superior to ourselves to help us form a vision of the world and how we should act within it. We do not trust our own mental ability to do that or to make rules governing our beliefs and actions, which is an awesome responsibility when you come to think of it. So we posit a superior being who will hand down the rules we are afraid to figure out for ourselves. We can have that god speak rules that have existed since the beginning of time, common sense formulae for creating a healthy society. Most of the ten commandments are just reasonable ways to run a world of people who must live with each other, but they are more impressive if one thinks they "came down from on high."

Kara wrote:


Does it not now? Isn't that a conclusion you've reached based on what you think god is? There is empirical evidence for everything that exists. If not, then your imagining it, or you got it wrong.



No they are not. They are there, but you can remove them. They are not part of you.



There it is again, another description of god. One needs a keen and open mind to see past the indoctrinated knowledge. Even those who claim not to believe in god does on some level believe. They call god this superior being, puts a definition on it wich is impossible to rely on, and that does not make sense, only to refer to it as proof that god does not exist. It's quite pitiful.

My motives with this thread was to see if we cannot figure out what god could be in such a way that it is not impossible or insensible. It is possible to read the bible in such a way that it makes sense. It's just as easy as reading the manuals for the new kitchen appliance you've bought. It is the intention behind the reading that is important.