Define God

As a young kid I figured out a truism about people which is that you can convince yourself of anything. I told myself every day that “Pain exists to let your brain know that something is damaged. Once you’ve recognized the signal, there’s no more point in feeling pain.” And over time I was able to ignore pain whenever I wanted to. (Handy when you don’t have an aspirin.)

Another thing I figured out I call “The pschology of control.” The premise of this is that the thing people most care about is being able to control themselves. This makes sense since, controlling yourself is the only thing in the world you have any control over, and even here it’s not 100%. But the thing is, when people experience something that they can’t control, they will react wierdly to it, particularly if it’s something to do with their own body, and particularly if they are very young. This is why molestation of children really messes with their minds, is because the pleasurable feelings aren’t something that the child can control, while as the “I don’t want to be doing this”, logical part of their brain is forced to shush. It won’t necesarily mess up the child, but the odds are higher.

Now a third item to present is evolution. Evolution works to create a physical set of capabilites, and a socialogical set of impulses, desires, and fears that are ingrained into our bodies because these have been found to work successfully in perpetuating the species. These are largely independent of rational thought.

And a fourth item, as shown in the threads about the Stanford Prison Experiment, is that humans are liable to turn off their brains and accept what the alpha wolf says.

Now tying this all together:

God is (or gods are) was the creation of storytellers to raise children with so that they could learn about the history of their people, learn respect for their people, and go out and die for their people. The god stories taught you to be brave or meek, humble or proud, as the storyteller or as society thought was needed. In a land before scientific experiment and empirical evidence, though, these stories became legends, and eventually fact. The parents would tell their children that “Our people are descended from the God Uktamata, who brought the sun to the sky and made this land for us” so that the children felt safe in the world, and proud. And the parents let it rest at that because there was no need to say anything different because it made them feel good to say it.

Now the reason that the child likes to hear such things, and parents to tell such is because when kids are with their parents and when parents are spending time teaching their children, mother nature is happy. This is an approved human attribute that has been introduced by evolution to perpetuate the species. Humans care for their young. They don’t let the eggs hatch and fend for themselves.

Evolution enforces this behavior through chemicals in your brain which make you feel good. This is something that you have no control over. Just suddenly you feel good.

When you take care of your children, find a wife, fend for your family, grow food, look at green growing places and wide blue skies, fight for the the pack, we recognize these as being good things, and our brain gets drugged with endorphins. We experience a “high.”

And since we know that these things are now “good” things, we teach our children this, in the form of stories. “Uktamata took a wife. She bore his children. The gods gave gifts to the child, and swore to serve him. And the child would grow up to become the strongest fighter, the farest seeer, and he would lead the gods honestly, solving their struggles with the demons, or among themselves. And he protects us, for we are his children as well, and we give him gifts.” And how do you know that he protects you? You know it because when you do anything that the “gods” approve of, we get a good feeling that we can’t explain and that we don’t control. Certainly that is the gods?

Now it also happens that as people come to believe in these gods that the leaders of the people become enslaved to the gods. If keeping the gods pleased is required to make sure that the gods protect us, then the government must make sure this happens. And surely the gods chose Lokatil as the chieftan of the people because he was the fiercest fighter, and had the levelest head. And as the collecter of the tales of the gods, shaman Okraty should always be consulted to make sure that we are doing what the gods really want.

So suddenly Lokatil and Okraty are empowered by the existence of the gods. And surely what they think is right, is what the gods think is right, since they were the ones chosen to know about and appease the gods.

So as time goes on, the choices of Lokatil and Okraty become the law of the gods, the people teach it to their young children as fact, the children feel a high which enforces what their (always honest) parents tell them, and convince themselves that this is true. And when the gods need them to die for the people, they know it is true, for they have felt it, and learned it, and now convinced themselves that it is true.

So that’s my definition of what the gods are. People combining stories with a rationalization for what’s happening when endorphins are released into your brain, and reinforced through the generations because as a society, it was useful and felt “right.”

The concept of God refers to being(s) or force(s) able to create events outside of Natural Law.

I dunno, but I know my gurtilblaw is better than your gurtilblaw!

But natural theology considers God a part of Natural Law.

All right, so let’s come up with a definition of a god as opposed to the God.

Didn’t stop the Deists.

But the universe, bounded or unbounded, is a concept that can be clearly, certainly and noncontroversially defined. Likewise with infinity and eternity.

Unfortunately, at this point I’m at least as lost as you are. I have no idea what part of what I said you find less than compellingly self-explanatory at this point. Or how to make it clearer.

Unless maybe you’re just saying “I don’t see why you posted what you posted as a follow-up to my response to Liberal” ?

I don’t think so. SentientMeat and I have gone round and round on those very terms. Science uses lots of terms with nebulous definitions. Life, for example. As I used to say to Sentient, he seemed to want to define the universe as “everything conceivable plus everything that isn’t,” which makes it a meaningless term.

It’s hard parsing that cite, but I think it falls in the masturbatory realm I mentioned. If God just put the natural laws in motion and stepped back, then it is indistinguishable from the natural laws always existing without God. And, if God has stepped back, then there is no purpose to worship him/it in any case.

I don’t think that is a correct assertion, although I’m not sure what it has to do with my definition.

I believe the concept of natural theology is not that God is a part of Natural Law but that his existence is revealed by nature as opposed to a separate special revelation.

If God is bound by natural law the concept of God is meaningless.

Bingo.

How does that make it meaningless? Why can’t there be a meaningful term for everything, conceivable or not.

I don’t think it’s fair to conflate nebulous definitions: i.e. those without clear lines of demarcation, with those that people are saying are simply undefined or undefinable. We can very clearly say that a rock isn’t alive and a frog isn’t, even if we aren’t quite sure where to place viruses. That really isn’t the same problem as talking about characteristics like “existing outside time” that no one has any real clue how to even begin conceptualizing.

And strictly speaking science generally doesn’t rest on having to make those exact classification definitions in the way that abstract philosophical arguments often do. In science, they are often used mostly for simplified speed and convenience: when we get down to brass tacks, it’s not the classifications that matter as much as exactly what is being studied, how it works, and so forth.

We’d have to hear his take on it to be sure that was really his position: it sure doesn’t sound like this is something he’d really mean.

A dyslexics barking pet

I would go beyond that and regard the statement “God is bound by natural law” to be unparseable and meaningless to start wtih. Whatsoever is an expression of the will of God will be noticed, ascertained, and understood, eventually, as a natural law. It’s not like physicists live in a Godless vacuum until such time as they have created an unabridged compendium of natural law and then God manifests. No, however God is manifest, all of that which is attributable to God will be observable (unless it is not, in which case it isn’t relevant to us), making it fall under the broad rubric of things that are observable. We make observations about that which is observable and whenever we come across something that appears to be an immutable pattern, we declare it to be a law of nature.

My own personal definition of a god would be a being that not only is more powerful than anything else in existence (in terms of not being able to be affected by anything, unless they choose to act affected) but also to some extent is “outside” existence; if I were to say “Everything that exists is bound by this rule”, a god would not be bound by it. That would be what makes it different from merely an extremly powerful being. Oh, and there would have to be some kind of thought process present, differentiating it from some mindless force. When I say that I am an atheist, then, I am saying that I do not believe that any beings matching this definition exist (and technically I may be saying that I don’t believe in beings others consider gods but I don’t, so i’d want to make a more detailed examination of those beings).

I’d be interested in asking a couple of people a question, though; i’ve defined what characteristics “a god” must have in order for me to say “Yep, that’s a god. Er… nice god… please put down the thunderbolts…”. The OP on the other hand has defined their God, as in the one that they personally believe in. I’d be interested to know how Liberal and other believers would define “a god” in general, rather than just “my God”.

Well, there can. But then you’d have to concede that unicorns are a part of the universe. I can conceive them. You’d have to believe in God, too, at least as something that exists (however you might define it). In fact, you’d have to believe in all of them. And in contradictions as well. I can conceive those.

ETA: To clarify, that’d be if you used “universe” as that term.

I don’t really know that I can do that, but I hope that, after this thread, I’ll be able to. When someone tells me they believe in multiple gods, I really don’t know what they mean. Sentient beings more highly evolved than man? I just don’t know.

I have no definition of God. It’s a nonsense word to me. At best it’s a superfluous hypothetical contrived explain things which can better be explained by natural processes. At worst it’s an appeal to an undemonstrated moral authority by which some individual attempt to control others.