Perhaps what the OP is trying to get at is the notion that the deity is composed of midichlorians?
Even though I love metaphor, I think simile prolly works better here for reasons that many have cited. Hence I’d lean toward your option B.
That’s it!! The midichlorian count is off the charts for the deity.
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?
Good question. My objective was to simply start a conversation based on an idea I’d read about in one of Neale Donald Walsch’s books—the idea that God and Life could be synonymous. Though I’ve grown up RC, I’ve found the traditional God-concept lacking. Maybe God should be a verb moreso than a noun; an action as opposed to a thing, which fits with what you just stated about Life. I don’t think the God concept is binary, one which you must accept or reject. I think the meaning of God evolves as we evolve. I don’t like to get too hooked up on semantics. Just thinking out loud really, and enjoying the feedback while I’m at it.
So we could say, “Oh, go god yourself”.
Okay, so in your eyes, god isn’t life. It’s something else. What is it?
I dunno. I think perhaps it’s that life force that gives rise to life, which may well be Life itself. I don’t profess to be the expert here. I’m just asking some questions. So far I haven’t really heard from anyone, past or present, that totally knows how to answer the question. So I will keep looking.
Until you get an answer you agree with? “I think perhaps it’s that life force that gives rise to life, which may well be Life itself.” The trouble with using personal definitions for words and phrases is that you cease communicating with others in any meaningful way.
Okay. And around and around we go again: what qualities does “god” have? Can you define “god” for me? Option A) or option B), we run into the exact same problem! Because, fundamentally, what you are describing really isn’t “god” in any classical sense, and calling it “god” doesn’t convey any real information. Is it conscious? Do you worship it? Does it share anything in common with what people generally understand as “god”? If not, you’re really just confusing people.
Let me propose a solution to your quandry. You’re looking for the qualities of something that doesn’t exist, and are trying to fit various things into this label without good reason. Why? Maybe there is no such thing as “god”. Maybe the whole point of the label is the baggage that any rational person would leave behind.
I can’t say whether or not this is an intentional effort on your part but it’s very much like the efforts of countless pseudo-science peddlers like Deepak Chopra to hide God behind working scientific theories and popular hypotheses. It’s an effort to put God out of reach of scientific explanation, in order to then be able to blame science for not having an explanation for this new extra-super-caladocious prime mover. It sounds meaningful to those who don’t understand scientific methods and who are easily convinced that since science doesn’t have an answer or explanation for this manufactured sophist argument, therefore science can’t prove it’s not true, thus proving it TRUE. When in fact, it’s just a trite gotcha; it’s - worth repeating - deepity. But by all means, keep looking. And don’t forget to check behind the sofa.
ETA: heh, ninja’d by DR.
Maybe. Or maybe there’s more to God and more to Life than the way they’re traditionally defined. For me it’s more of a hunch at present, and it’s fine with me if you don’t agree. Like I said before, Neale Donald Walsch’s writing resonates with me, which is where the idea came from. I don’t think of God as a person, haven’t for a long time. More of a life-force to be honest.
Perhaps. Your body alleviates exponential opportunities.
Thanks for explaining this a bit, but it seems like the tired argument that you understand the scientific method and we don’t therefore you can’t know. Then accuse us of a tactic that requires us to know what you just claimed we don’t know. It is a illogical statement that leads to a false conclusion.
What we have here is 2 of the ‘greatest’ questions of all times, and a conjecture. What is God, What is Life and are they the same. Relating this then dismissing it based on the scientific method and it’s understanding does not prove anything, it is a attempt to dismiss the premise without consideration. In this the scientific method is really irrelevant as there is currently no answer provided by it, yet the questions and I’d say even the conjecture is ancient in their nature (therefore countering your claim that this was intentionally just placed outside the reach of science). The workings of it is explored in the field of philosophy, spirituality and if you must religion. As such it is not ‘proof’ that is the goal, it is understanding of how that applies to the world as we see it from those standpoints.
What can be said of scientific advancements is that they an be used to relate concepts, ideas, to help communicate thoughts better. It is also my believe that science is pattern based, and those patterns repeat across fields for a reason, and that allows concepts to be conveyed. As such, with my former statement, all science is scripture, and to quote the bible, “All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,…” which pretty much describes science, the scientific method in a universe under God.
There is no such thing as a “life force.” That is meaningless mumbo-jumbo gibberish.
Okay, then define those words.
Oh… Wait…
Look. When we talk about god, we’re generally not doing something like looking at an object and saying, “We need a word for this object”. We’re starting with a concept. “God” is less like “rock” or “stick” and more like “two” or “peace”. Can you point to something and call it “peace”, or point to something and call it “two”, and have that make any sense if those concepts are not already defined? Not really.
So what you’re saying here is kinda word salad. It literally makes no sense. “Maybe there’s more to <this thing that only exists as a concept we define> in order to examine than the way they’re defined”. That’s nonsense. Without a definition or an object to attribute a label to, the word means nothing. You cannot explore the definition of an object that doesn’t actually exist or which we have no information about. You might as well argue about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin for all the good it does.
What qualities does “god” have? Can you define “god” for me?
There’s two options here.
Option A: “god” is equivalent to “life-force”. In that case, there’s no reason to use the word god. It achieves literally nothing that just saying “life-force” doesn’t, except attaching a lot of unnecessary baggage to the term.
Option B: “god” is similar to “life-force” but has some notable differences. In this case, there’s no reason to use the word “life-force”, beyond saying “it’s sorta like a life-force, but…”. It’s just confusing to call god “life-force” when god clearly isn’t life-force, but rather something that means something that is either somewhat or entirely different.
Why do you insist on using the term “god” to describe something that has virtually nothing in common with the way most people use the term? What does that accomplish?
From some earlier postings:
God is a Rotary Engine: This I would consider idol worship, worshiping a non-living thing that has no ability to help.
God is Skiing: This I would consider Religion, It’s expressing an aspect of ‘really living’ but only for some people, it ‘saves’ those who really live this way (read the word ‘live’ here as ‘really come alive’, not in a biologic sense but in that one finds life is really worth living sense - which I believe puts the OP’s conjecture into perspective). As a religion it also tends to force itself onto others who can’t ‘live’ this way (use the same definition of ‘live’ as above here), it is closed minded because some have found God, the assumption is that is the only way to do it. It is missing that ‘really living’ is God, and that comes in many forms for each person. This ridged believe, called religion, could cause wars. This is the break between religion and God IMHO. But if one were open to the good aspects of religious teachings, seeing that yes these people have found God, they are living life, one can accept that, but see how skiing is not the universal answer, but just part of a bigger picture.
I can see relations of life=God, but first lets define life, and see if I can answer some questions that have been raised.
I think to make this connection we can not talk about biological life, but ‘living’. We see people often in zombie life states. Those working at jobs that take the life from them. We also see people doing what they love, and prospering. It is that type of life that I can see equates to God. It is also what urges life on, as opposed to just a sexual drive or a biologically programmed asexual reproduction. We also know that depression can suck the life out of people, but the goal is to really ‘live’. It is that form of life and living which I can equate to God.
The Jewish people in their scriptures equate the word worship and work. While modern translations usually chose one or the other, I believe it is both, when we do what we are made to do, what our heart sings about, it is where we have the most life, and are closest to our ‘god selves’. It is worship of life to do the work one has the heart to do. It is also the worship of God, because that definition of life is God.
Since we are capable of this form of life, yet not everyone achieves it, we are capable of being our god self. Therefore God is in us to the degree that life is in us.
In some earlier posting it was put forth that the universe existed before life. Some of Buddha’s teachings are that consciences and sensory perception is needed for the universe (or anything) to exist. Therefore life is needed, and this live created the universe, which is one definition of God (creator of the universe). Again life is God.
Jesus states I am the life, and that does go into life eternal, but also is the life for this world and who we are. Really doing what we are meant to do, which we see the fantastic adventures of the apostles, Much more ‘life’ then fishing or tax collecting.