Quote:

---

Sunny said:
That's EXACTLY why it's a big deal what we call it, because "god" is not equal to "that which we are all born".

the wikipedia defines god pretty well:

Quote:

---

God is the English name given to the singular omnipotent being in theistic and deistic religions (and other belief systems) who is either the sole deity in monotheism, or a single deity in polytheism.[1]

---

To call the concept which we are discussing right now "god", would be a gross miss use of the word itself, and would do very little justice to the concept we are trying to communicate.

---

Quote:

---

Sunny said:

Quote:

---

Silversoul said:

Quote:

---

God is a human construct.

---

All linguistic concepts are human constructs.  What's your point?

---

Don't be an ass. You know very well we are discussing "god" the omnipotent being, not the word "god" itself.

---

Quote:

---

the bizzle said:

Quote:

---

Sunny said:
That's EXACTLY why it's a big deal what we call it, because "god" is not equal to "that which we are all born".

the wikipedia defines god pretty well:

Quote:

---

God is the English name given to the singular omnipotent being in theistic and deistic religions (and other belief systems) who is either the sole deity in monotheism, or a single deity in polytheism.[1]

---

To call the concept which we are discussing right now "god", would be a gross miss use of the word itself, and would do very little justice to the concept we are trying to communicate.

---

had it ever occurred to you that to have this discussion on the terms you want it to be, would be probably at least 90% preaching to the choir?

secondly, wikipedia is not an ultimate authority on anything, including definitions.

Quote:

---

Sunny said:

Quote:

---

Silversoul said:

Quote:

---

God is a human construct.

---

All linguistic concepts are human constructs.  What's your point?

---

Don't be an ass. You know very well we are discussing "god" the omnipotent being, not the word "god" itself.

---

funny, my friends and I talk and sometimes use the word "god", yet it is a silent understanding between us that we are not referring to "god the omnipotent being"

and that is an important point. It was obvious to me when I first saw the thread title that the OP was referring to the definition of god that you described, but really I don't understand why this would even be a debate here, as I am guessing roughly 90% of the people who frequent this forum would agree, but some of that 90% might still use the word "god" because it is an easy way to refer to the whole, or whatever it is that is beyond human construct


although I do agree with the OP that "the universe" might be a decent alternative, my argument with that is

When you are trying to affect the lives of those who are probably more receptive to or familiar with the word "god," it is just easier to help them that way. I have successfully helped people to come to a less religious yet more personally healing understanding of things by expressing (among other things) that "god" is something that is beyond religion and human construct.

that might be debatable, but the proof of its effectiveness is in the doin, and imo that healing is ultimately more important, because either way there is definitely something beyond our understanding

---

Quote:

---

Silversoul said:
Having studied more theology than you'll ever encounter in your entire life, I am indeed familiar with the concept -- or rather, the many concepts -- of God.  I am also aware that the "omnipotent being in sky" is merely one of them, and that most of the great theologians of the last century or so would reject that concept.  But since you refuse to examine your terms or your premises, have fun with your self-congratulatory circle-jerk.

---

Thanks! Go away and enjoy your deep knowledge of everything under the sun.

Quote:

---

I do have trouble trying to explain this concept of "god" to other people though. Especially religious family members, and/or very religious friends. It's not that I'm making the affront to there beliefs, so much as they want to debate my inability to get involved with religion. They get very hung up on the word itself. Then I tell them the I think we have fundamental difference in our belief of what "god" is. This only further confuses them. So, in order to bypass this entirely, it seems easier for someone to simply say "I don't believe in God. I believe in formula X"

Maybe I'm looking at it from the wrong direction. But this seems to be a logical conclusion.

---

Quote:

---

Sunny said:
I have grokked this for many moons. It is the only logical conclusion.

Discuss.

---

Quote:

---

Silversoul said:
Having studied more theology than you'll ever encounter in your entire life

---

Quote:

---

Icelander said:

Quote:

---

Sunny said:
I have grokked this for many moons. It is the only logical conclusion.

Discuss.

---

Well I'm not going to read through all this but I will say that you might have given your personal definition of this God that  you don't believe in. Definitions vary tremendously and imo some are more plausible than others by a wide margin.

There seems to be no way to know if a god exists. End of story.

---

Quote:

---

Brainstem said:
I have no doubts that the leaders of a society would use religion for this purpose, the divine right of kings, and the divinity of emperors and pharaohs and so on, but I propose that they only manipulated, misrepresented, and exploited the moral thinking of the mystic/shamanic practitioners of their time and geographical location. A control mechanism yes, but not the first discovery made by inquiring minds to then be used in the control or domination of people.

---

Quote:

---

Sunny said:

I contend that perhaps Jesus/buddha/krishnas definition of "God" is in fact more akin to the idea we are now discussing, than the dictionary defined concept in use today. I think that, like this thread has illustrated, most people are unable to get past the semantics of the word itself. So, in the ancient world, it seems like the concept is repeatedly lost through secondhand preaching and misuse of a powerful word.

---