# God and Life **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 26, 2018, 10:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-and-life/813192 "2018-04-26T22:27:09Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 20
**Author:** ![Biffster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/biffster/32/339_2.png) [@Biffster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Biffster)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2018, 2:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-and-life/813192/381 "2018-05-08T02:54:14Z")
> [@Darren\_Garrison](#): > > How about that you are very obviously fixated on one very specific god, the Ancient Near Eastern one that somehow became a recent breakout hit from amongst his pantheon? Because the vast majority of all gods, past and present, have nothing whatsoever to do with “connectedness.” The vast majority of all gods that have any remaining traces in history are just Big Humans In The Sky with more powers but with mental and physical limitations of their own, not Cosmic Connectness. Thus, your hypothesis that people originally created gods because they felt The Force falls apart on even the most cursory glance at scrutiny. So why do you think humans invented Gods? I’ll agree that my reference has mainly been to the Catholic concept of God that I grew up with, and that are thousands of other Gods one could refer to. However, I have to start somewhere, so I start with my own experience. I don’t see how there’s anything wrong with that approach, apart from the fact that it’s limited. But I knew that when I first posted. ---
**Author:** ![Biffster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/biffster/32/339_2.png) [@Biffster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Biffster)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2018, 3:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-and-life/813192/382 "2018-05-08T03:00:31Z")
> [@Telemark](#): > > OK, how so? I regard life in that it’s something that exists, can be studied, can have an impact on myself and the people around me. I have no need for a “God” that fulfills that same role; the natural world does all that just fine. It sounds almost like a Deist definition of God, but one that ultimately falls short in the same way the Deism does. It assumes there must be a God because of poor logic, then fills that perceived gap with something we can’t detect or interact with. > > It really boils down to the question of “How do you regard Life?” Because the way I regard Life is purely scientific and rational. If I regard God the same way, I’ve reduced God to just empty concepts. The argument is unconvincing to me (an atheist) because I don’t see and spiritual meaning in Life. The argument is probably unconvincing to at Theist because they see spiritual meaning in God. Either way, I don’t see how this idea makes anyone better off. You say you regard life as purely scientific and rational. But does life ever throw you a curve ball? Have you ever become emotional about the bookends of life, as in birth or death? I certainly have, and I know many people find comfort in religion when dealing with life’s mysteries. I think that’s why we invented gods, to be honest—as a way to deal with life’s mysteries, especially affairs of the heart. Sometimes the scientific approach just doesn’t cut it. I certainly hope there’s more Life to live after this Life is over, though I know for atheists, it’s kind of irrelevant. ---
**Author:** ![Biffster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/biffster/32/339_2.png) [@Biffster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Biffster)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2018, 3:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-and-life/813192/383 "2018-05-08T03:01:54Z")
> [@Darren\_Garrison](#): > > [Um](https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=20926361&postcount=15). Sorry. I was jus going back to the beginning and answering everything so as not to miss anything. Point still stands though. God is but a dream., ---
**Author:** ![Darren\_Garrison](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/darren_garrison/32/92_2.png) [@Darren\_Garrison](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darren_Garrison)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2018, 3:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-and-life/813192/384 "2018-05-08T03:03:17Z")
What is wrong with that approach is that you are choosing a trait of a specific recent god and attempting to project that trait back into gods invented unknown tens of thousands of years ago. It is like saying “My shirt is red. I bet people invented clothing because they like red things.” ---
**Author:** ![Darren\_Garrison](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/darren_garrison/32/92_2.png) [@Darren\_Garrison](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darren_Garrison)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2018, 3:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-and-life/813192/385 "2018-05-08T03:11:46Z")
> [@Biffster](#): > > You say you regard life as purely scientific and rational. But does life ever throw you a curve ball? Have you ever become emotional about the bookends of life, as in birth or death? Wow. More not understanding words. We have been talking about life as in “biological entities”, not as in “the set of daily experiences that a human encounters.” That the two are described by the same word is true in English but not necessarily other languages. So are you trying to say that God is “living organisms” or that God is “daily experiences?” ---
**Author:** ![Biffster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/biffster/32/339_2.png) [@Biffster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Biffster)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2018, 3:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-and-life/813192/386 "2018-05-08T03:28:28Z")
> [@Darren\_Garrison](#): > > Wow. More not understanding words. We have been talking about life as in “biological entities”, not as in “the set of daily experiences that a human encounters.” That the two are described by the same word is true in English but not necessarily other languages. So are you trying to say that God is “living organisms” or that God is “daily experiences?” I think I’d say both interpretations work, but I think daily experiences comes closest to what I imagine when I think about the word Life. Or the word God. Or the word Love, but let’s not make it any more confusing than it already is. ---
**Author:** ![Telemark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/telemark/32/372_2.png) [@Telemark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Telemark)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2018, 3:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-and-life/813192/387 "2018-05-08T03:32:39Z")
> [@Biffster](#): > > Sometimes the scientific approach just doesn’t cut it. I certainly hope there’s more Life to live after this Life is over, though I know for atheists, it’s kind of irrelevant. Do you accept that many people deal with emotions, loss, pain, and joy with a need to invoke spiritualism? The two aren’t in conflict. Science isn’t the right tool for every problem but I haven’t found a situation where God is the right tool. Bottom line, yeah, it kinda does always cut it. ---
**Author:** ![Biffster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/biffster/32/339_2.png) [@Biffster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Biffster)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2018, 3:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-and-life/813192/388 "2018-05-08T03:33:18Z")
> [@Darren\_Garrison](#): > > What is wrong with that approach is that you are choosing a trait of a specific recent god and attempting to project that trait back into gods invented unknown tens of thousands of years ago. It is like saying “My shirt is red. I bet people invented clothing because they like red things.” A fair criticism. However, it’s difficult for me to go back to ancient gods with which I am unfamiliar. That’s going to take someone wiser than I am. ---
**Author:** ![Biffster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/biffster/32/339_2.png) [@Biffster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Biffster)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2018, 3:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-and-life/813192/389 "2018-05-08T03:36:29Z")
> [@Telemark](#): > > Do you accept that many people deal with emotions, loss, pain, and joy with a need to invoke spiritualism? The two aren’t in conflict. Science isn’t the right tool for every problem but I haven’t found a situation where God is the right tool. > > Bottom line, yeah, it kinda does always cut it. I agree that each discipline has its best uses. Science may not provide much comfort, but it does explain things really well. I regard religion more like literature—stories with a theme that I can learn something from. For that matter, many times literature does a much better job than religion does in providing comfort. In my experience anyway. ---
**Author:** ![DavidwithanR](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3bc359/32.png) [@DavidwithanR](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DavidwithanR)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2018, 5:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-and-life/813192/390 "2018-05-08T05:54:02Z")
> [@Biffster](#): > > I would tend to agree. Can you elaborate on what you mean by takedown? Refutation. Arguing against it so effectively that it collapses and vanishes. ---
**Author:** ![Biffster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/biffster/32/339_2.png) [@Biffster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Biffster)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2018, 6:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-and-life/813192/391 "2018-05-08T06:02:12Z")
> [@DavidwithanR](#): > > Refutation. Arguing against it so effectively that it collapses and vanishes. Somehow I don’t think religions are going to vanish anytime soon any more than other kinds of literature that have been around for thousands of years. Religions actually reveal a great deal about a society. I don’t suggest taking them literally however. The odd thing about NDW though is that he and isn’t religious at the same time. Maybe that’s why I find his ideas intriguing. ---
**Author:** ![QuickSilver](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quicksilver/32/7832_2.png) [@QuickSilver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/QuickSilver)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2018, 11:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-and-life/813192/392 "2018-05-08T11:48:17Z")
> [@QuickSilver](#): > > Have you read much in the way of books about the human brain, written by actual scientists, neurologists and reputable researchers? > > I recommend Robert Wright’s, “Moral Animal”, and Stephen Pinker’s, “How the Mind Works”, to start. > [@Biffster](#): > > Thanks for the suggestions. > [@Biffster](#): > > The odd thing about NDW though is that he and isn’t religious at the same time. Maybe that’s why I find his ideas intriguing. With all due respect, you have no intention of reading anything that contradicts your views, do you? ---
**Author:** ![Telemark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/telemark/32/372_2.png) [@Telemark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Telemark)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2018, 12:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-and-life/813192/393 "2018-05-08T12:24:18Z")
> [@Biffster](#): > > I regard religion more like literature—stories with a theme that I can learn something from. So God is Prose? ---
**Author:** ![Biffster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/biffster/32/339_2.png) [@Biffster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Biffster)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2018, 12:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-and-life/813192/394 "2018-05-08T12:25:15Z")
> [@QuickSilver](#): > > With all due respect, you have no intention of reading anything that contradicts your views, do you? Ah contraire, mon ami. I’m not going to read anything TODAY, but it’s on my to do list. I have a feeling you won’t be reading Neale Donald Walsch though. Perhaps you could link to an excerpt from one of the books you recommend. I’m certainly not going to buy a book that’s been recommended by someone who doesn’t like what I’ve shared unless I find it very intriguing, just as I’m sure you wouldn’t. A link is a good start. ---
**Author:** ![Biffster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/biffster/32/339_2.png) [@Biffster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Biffster)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2018, 1:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-and-life/813192/395 "2018-05-08T13:27:09Z")
> [@Telemark](#): > > So God is Prose? I think I said religion, not God. I would hope God is more like poetry, to be honest. ---
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2018, 1:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-and-life/813192/396 "2018-05-08T13:47:38Z")
> [@Biffster](#): > > Funny. The part I was keying into us the fact that we can see anything at all, even when we close your eyes and imagine something. I’m not saying it has anything to do with God or other dimensions. I just think it’s interesting how we see and hear things that aren’t there. Kind of like hallucinations or hypnosis. Hypnosis is my wheelhouse and you have no idea what you’re talking about here. The human brain processes different stimuli in a variety of ways, and while we don’t have a perfectly clear picture of how things work (I find the “bayesian brain” hypothesis to be very compelling, but I lack the expertise to really judge), there’s really no need to invoke anything supernatural. It’s interesting. But once you insert a supernatural element, all you’ve done is make the same mistake people have made since time immemorial when they heard thunder in the sky and thought “god is angry” - inserting a supernatural stopgap which doesn’t explain anything, teaches us nothing, and leaves us less well-equipped to find the _real_ answer. And I _resent_ that. > [@Biffster](#): > > I agree that each discipline has its best uses. Science may not provide much comfort, but it does explain things really well. I regard religion more like literature—stories with a theme that I can learn something from. For that matter, many times literature does a much better job than religion does in providing comfort. In my experience anyway. Except these just-so stories do more than simply comfort. When you learn from religion, you’re often learning things that aren’t true. That are nonsensical. That actively impede our understanding of reality. That teach grossly immoral lessons. Even the very basic, innocuous religious belief of meeting your loved ones in the afterlife teaches us that we don’t need to care as much about the one _real_ life we know we have. I’m firmly of the belief that there’s no such thing as a harmless lie when you’re lying to yourself, because it’s epistemological poison. It teaches you how to think _wrong_. And leads to muddled, confused beliefs. > [@Biffster](#): > > Shall we start here? I don’t think there is much to discuss, since you want to stick to “standard” definitions of God and Life, and I am proposing to change those definitions to suit what Inwould like to believe. Okay, this might be a stupid question. If you want to change these definitions, why not just make new labels? Here’s a radical suggestion: if you want to create new definitions for words, and are frustrated when people get confused by conflating your new definitions with the old definitions, just make up new words instead. What you insist on calling “god” can be called “bregg” and what you insist on calling “life” can be “clube”. These are completely new, unique labels in the english language. They have no baggage attached. Nobody is going to get confused, because the only meaning these words have is the meaning you explicitly attach to them through your definition. Try it! Go back through this thread, and whenever you’re talking about “bregg” or “clube”, mentally replace the word, and see if what you’re saying makes any sense whatsoever. If it does, congratulations! You’re talking about discrete concepts that make some coherent sense and have some relation to reality. Keep using those terms to reduce confusion, and to keep language nerds like me from shouting obscenities at you. If it doesn’t, congratulations! This entire discussion has been a _huge_ waste of time but we can at least save ourselves the next ten interminable tedious pages of this thread. Keep using those terms anyways, to help make that more clear to others. > [@Biffster](#): > > So why do you think humans invented Gods? See, this is _exactly_ the kind of confusion I’m talking about! By _your_ definition of “Gods”, humans have been inventing “Gods” for maybe a couple centuries. By the classical definition, it’s completely irrelevant question, because throughout history, almost all “gods” have been, in one form or another, larger-than-life anthropomorphizations of nature created to attach meaning and significance to a world that lacks both. Think back to ancient times - the gods of the mesopotamians, the egyptians, or any other ancient civilization - and you’ll find that their gods, traditionally, embodied aspects of nature. The sun god, who carries the burning chariot across the skies. The thunder god, who doles out his vengeance. The god of death. And so on and so forth. From there it’s not exactly a huge conceptual leap to get to one god who can just do everything. Now, if you instead say, “So why do you think humans invented breggs?” the answer becomes obvious - it’s a fairly new invention; new-age woo from people who grew up believing in traditional gods, understand that the classical interpretation of “god” doesn’t make any sense, but still have emotional attachment to the idea, and so want to salvage it _somehow_. These “gods” have approximately fuck-all to do with what you’re talking about. This is why I’m so bothered by the shifts in definition - because the _entire point_ seems to be this confusion! > [@Biffster](#): > > You say you regard life as purely scientific and rational. But does life ever throw you a curve ball? Have you ever become emotional about the bookends of life, as in birth or death? I certainly have, and I know many people find comfort in religion when dealing with life’s mysteries. I think that’s why we invented gods, to be honest—as a way to deal with life’s mysteries, especially affairs of the heart. Sometimes the scientific approach just doesn’t cut it. I certainly hope there’s more Life to live after this Life is over, though I know for atheists, it’s kind of irrelevant. Rationality is not simply “examining problems rationally”. It’s “examining problems rationally _from within the framework of the human brain_”. It’s dealing with the fact that we, as humans, aren’t beings of cold logic, and trying to reach rational conclusions despite the numerous significant biases we have. We get emotional, sure. It rarely actually helps us to take those emotions and run with them - if my father is dying, and some shady witch doctor offers me a miracle cure for a thousand bucks, my emotional side is going to want to cut them a check right away, regardless of how stupid that actually is. (It would behoove me to _not_ do that.) ---
**Author:** ![Biffster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/biffster/32/339_2.png) [@Biffster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Biffster)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2018, 3:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-and-life/813192/397 "2018-05-08T15:07:49Z")
> [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > Hypnosis is my wheelhouse and you have no idea what you’re talking about here. The human brain processes different stimuli in a variety of ways, and while we don’t have a perfectly clear picture of how things work (I find the “bayesian brain” hypothesis to be very compelling, but I lack the expertise to really judge), there’s really no need to invoke anything supernatural. It’s interesting. But once you insert a supernatural element, all you’ve done is make the same mistake people have made since time immemorial when they heard thunder in the sky and thought “god is angry” - inserting a supernatural stopgap which doesn’t explain anything, teaches us nothing, and leaves us less well-equipped to find the _real_ answer. And I _resent_ that. > > Except these just-so stories do more than simply comfort. When you learn from religion, you’re often learning things that aren’t true. That are nonsensical. That actively impede our understanding of reality. That teach grossly immoral lessons. Even the very basic, innocuous religious belief of meeting your loved ones in the afterlife teaches us that we don’t need to care as much about the one _real_ life we know we have. > > I’m firmly of the belief that there’s no such thing as a harmless lie when you’re lying to yourself, because it’s epistemological poison. It teaches you how to think _wrong_. And leads to muddled, confused beliefs. > > Okay, this might be a stupid question. > > If you want to change these definitions, why not just make new labels? > > Here’s a radical suggestion: if you want to create new definitions for words, and are frustrated when people get confused by conflating your new definitions with the old definitions, just make up new words instead. What you insist on calling “god” can be called “bregg” and what you insist on calling “life” can be “clube”. These are completely new, unique labels in the english language. They have no baggage attached. Nobody is going to get confused, because the only meaning these words have is the meaning you explicitly attach to them through your definition. > > Try it! Go back through this thread, and whenever you’re talking about “bregg” or “clube”, mentally replace the word, and see if what you’re saying makes any sense whatsoever. > > If it does, congratulations! You’re talking about discrete concepts that make some coherent sense and have some relation to reality. Keep using those terms to reduce confusion, and to keep language nerds like me from shouting obscenities at you. > > If it doesn’t, congratulations! This entire discussion has been a _huge_ waste of time but we can at least save ourselves the next ten interminable tedious pages of this thread. Keep using those terms anyways, to help make that more clear to others. > > See, this is _exactly_ the kind of confusion I’m talking about! By _your_ definition of “Gods”, humans have been inventing “Gods” for maybe a couple centuries. By the classical definition, it’s completely irrelevant question, because throughout history, almost all “gods” have been, in one form or another, larger-than-life anthropomorphizations of nature created to attach meaning and significance to a world that lacks both. Think back to ancient times - the gods of the mesopotamians, the egyptians, or any other ancient civilization - and you’ll find that their gods, traditionally, embodied aspects of nature. The sun god, who carries the burning chariot across the skies. The thunder god, who doles out his vengeance. The god of death. And so on and so forth. From there it’s not exactly a huge conceptual leap to get to one god who can just do everything. > > Now, if you instead say, “So why do you think humans invented breggs?” the answer becomes obvious - it’s a fairly new invention; new-age woo from people who grew up believing in traditional gods, understand that the classical interpretation of “god” doesn’t make any sense, but still have emotional attachment to the idea, and so want to salvage it _somehow_. > > These “gods” have approximately fuck-all to do with what you’re talking about. This is why I’m so bothered by the shifts in definition - because the _entire point_ seems to be this confusion! > > Rationality is not simply “examining problems rationally”. It’s “examining problems rationally _from within the framework of the human brain_”. It’s dealing with the fact that we, as humans, aren’t beings of cold logic, and trying to reach rational conclusions despite the numerous significant biases we have. We get emotional, sure. It rarely actually helps us to take those emotions and run with them - if my father is dying, and some shady witch doctor offers me a miracle cure for a thousand bucks, my emotional side is going to want to cut them a check right away, regardless of how stupid that actually is. (It would behoove me to _not_ do that.) You have responded with a great deal to contemplate, not the least of which is whether Bregg is just another word for Clube. I will respond in greater detail once I’ve had a chance to absorb it. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2018, 4:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-and-life/813192/398 "2018-05-08T16:31:35Z")
> [@Biffster](#): > > I think I’d say both interpretations work, but I think daily experiences comes closest to what I imagine when I think about the word Life. Or the word God. Or the word Love, but let’s not make it any more confusing than it already is. I’d like to second (third? Fifth? Tenth?) the notion that you really, really, _really_ need to decide what you mean by the words “Life” and “God”. As you clearly realize, the meanings of those words are quite literally central to your position and this discussion. If calling them Bregg and Clube helps you separate your definitions from the standard baggage that comes from the words being prepackaged with other definitions, then that would be a good tactic to employ. Because you are _seriously_ stumbling over baggage here. You seem unsure whether bregg is a sentient entity or not - which would seem to be pretty fundamental! ---
**Author:** ![QuickSilver](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quicksilver/32/7832_2.png) [@QuickSilver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/QuickSilver)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2018, 5:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-and-life/813192/399 "2018-05-08T17:04:30Z")
> [@Biffster](#): > > Ah contraire, mon ami. I’m not going to read anything TODAY, but it’s on my to do list. I have a feeling you won’t be reading Neale Donald Walsch though. Perhaps you could link to an excerpt from one of the books you recommend. I’m certainly not going to buy a book that’s been recommended by someone who doesn’t like what I’ve shared unless I find it very intriguing, just as I’m sure you wouldn’t. A link is a good start. If I’m honest, I’ve read all I need to read from Mr. Walsch. I simply do not subscribe to New Age ideas because I’ve find them to be without merit. But it that does not turn you off from my suggested reading, then I suggest you start with [Robert Wright’s blog](http://robertwright.com/about/). I think you’ll find his interest in human development and insights on religion and faith to be well thought out. [He refers to himself as a Secular Humanist](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Wright_(journalist))and doesn’t entirely exclude the possibility of a grander purpose, though he does not believe in creationism or intelligent design. I think his reasoning is far more cogent and coherent than what you’ve presented from NDW and your own beliefs. To whatever extent your ideas overlap with his, you may find his views interesting and enlightening. Or not. Entirely up to you. ---
**Author:** ![DavidwithanR](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3bc359/32.png) [@DavidwithanR](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DavidwithanR)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2018, 6:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-and-life/813192/400 "2018-05-08T18:00:36Z")
> [@Biffster](#): > > I think I’d say both interpretations work, but I think daily experiences comes closest to what I imagine when I think about the word Life. Or the word God. Or the word Love, but let’s not make it any more confusing than it already is. I really life discussing things that interest me. I’ve done it all my life. The topics of life and life are some of my favourites. However, one-sidedly listening to someone explain how he has lifed life his whole life, and that he believes life and life and life all mean the same thing - I mean, life, life gets tiring sometimes… Oh well. Don’t forget that life lifes you - in fact, life IS life. Also keep in mind that you can’t legitimately life others unless you life yourself first. And whatever you do, don’t turn to a god of crime. Your godded ones would be lonely and blue for the rest of their gods if you received a god sentence and spent the rest of your god in prison. What kind of a god would that be? Well, I hope in the future I hear you are off on some tropical island loving the good love. Maybe even that you’ve fallen in life. Or you may just go swimming for the rest of your love, watch reruns of This Is Your God and The God Boat, and read Love magazine. 😃 [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-and-life/813192.md?page=19) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-and-life/813192.md?page=21)