Thread: God and Life
View Single Post
  #184  
Old 05-01-2018, 07:31 PM
begbert2 begbert2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Idaho
Posts: 11,432
So okay, I just got here, and reading through the thread has failed to clarify one basic point I'm wondering about.

What's the point you're trying to arrive at, exactly?

I mean, yes, you're attempting to equate the terms "God" and "life" and making the claim that "many" people equate the terms (which is probably true if "many" means "more than twenty"). Most of the people here aren't particularly interested in playing this semantic game, because this sort of thing has traditionally been used in flagrantly invalid semantic arguments that make a mockery of rational thought.

For myself, I'm actually okay with recognizing that the term god is really badly defined - I meet the definition, as does a styrofoam cup I once owned. (It had styrofoam cup powers.) The word "god" is a shitty word, that imparts with it very little meaning, is what I'm saying.

But among the meanings it does have is that it's almost universally agreed upon as referring to an entity, rather than a concept. A god is a thing, a discrete thing. The thing in question may be omnipotent or not, eternal or not, immense or not, bearded or not, intelligent or not, magical or not, sentient or not, or real or not. But it's still a discrete thing.

Which makes the idea god=life a little hard to swallow, because life isn't a thing - it's actually an activity. Sometimes we refer to the collective set of things engaging in the activity by the same term, but any one of those things can exit the set of living things rather easily, simply by stopping living.

But, for the sake of argument, suppose I were to entertain the idea that the collective, constantly changing and shifting set of things that are alive, can be referred to by the term "God". Where do we go from here? This set of things is entirely disjoint and disconnected (in my opinion), and there's nothing particularly magic about it; it's just a bunch of things that happen to be behaving in the activity we call "living". You could alternatively define "God" to be equal to the set of things that are currently tumbling down hills and it would be equally magical and sublime - as in, not at all.

Of course, you probably disagree with that, but if you do, what do you think we should get out of the practice of collecting a bunch of disjointed disconnected stuff together and assigning them a misleading label?

Last edited by begbert2; 05-01-2018 at 07:32 PM. Reason: typo