Thread: God and Life
View Single Post
  #173  
Old 04-30-2018, 04:36 PM
Lemur866's Avatar
Lemur866 Lemur866 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The Middle of Puget Sound
Posts: 22,137
The problem with treating "god" and "life" as synonyms is that various people have certain ideas about what "god" means, and various ideas about what "life" means.

If we try to equate them, we're going to find that lots of people carry over their ideas about "god" and think that those ideas now apply to "life" and vice versa.

So let's list some of those ideas about god:
Eternal
Uncreated
Creator of the Universe
Performs miracles
Throws thunderbolts at people who annoy him
Is a him
Was incarnated as a human being at one point
Is an uncaused first cause
Is a person
Thinks thoughts
Listens to people's thoughts
Hears prayers
Answers prayers (sometimes with "no", but still)
Has a long list of rules for people to follow
If you don't follow the rules as per above you're in trouble with God
Inspired a bunch of people to write stuff
We know what stuff is divinely inspired and what isn't
Carries around a big hammer to smite frost giants
When he incarnated as a human being he had blue skin
Ordered people to cut off some skin on their penises to prove their loyalty to him
Castrated his father with a sickle on the orders of his mother
Turned into a swan and totally boned some lady

Now, not everyone has all these ideas in their heads when they're talking about god, and some people would stridently deny that these ideas belong on the list. But they'd agree that some people did have those mistaken ideas about god, but those people were wrong.

But when we say that God is Life, do we mean that life carries around a big hammer to smash frost giants? I don't think so. But we do smuggle in some concepts about god. Especially things like "God is a person that thinks thoughts and cares about people".

People who talk about an uncaused first cause are guilty of the same thing. OK, either there was an uncaused first cause, or the universe existed eternally, either way it's kind of weird. But labeling the uncaused first cause "God" is an attempt to imply that we know a lot about this unknown uncaused first cause about which we actually know nothing. I mean, that uncaused first cause didn't have a long white beard. He doesn't sit on an ivory throne. He's not a he. The universe began existing at some point, but naming the cause of the universe "God" confuses everything and explains nothing. It doesn't add to our knowledge, it destroys our knowledge. So it's a bad practice. What's wrong with, if we believe in an uncaused first cause, or if we speculate about an uncaused first cause, just using the phrase "uncaused first cause"? Then we know precisely what we're talking about with no hidden assumptions built in. There are assumptions built in to the concept, but there' not nearly as hidden as if we called it "God" or some other more confusing name.