Happy Atheist Forum

This came up in another thread, and I didn't want the discussion to be buried inside some larger conversation.  My nod of the head goes out to the person I was conversing with, as it was he who triggered all this in the head I am nodding.

When I talk of God, I always have in mind my minimalist definition, "that which, not of nature, is nature's author."  I personally don't see the point of using the word God for anything that doesn't fit my minimalist definition.  But the point may be visible to others.  Out of curiosity, then, I'll ask two basic questions with follow-up questions:

1. Are there any theists on this message board whose God hypothesis could be satisfied by an entity who was natural, or who wasn't nature's author?  If so, then, in either case, how would you conceptualize such an entity, which you would be willing to call God?

2. Are there any agnostics on this message board who could tolerate, for sake of argument, a God hypothesis that could be satisfied by an entity who was natural, or who wasn't nature's author?  If so, then, in either case, are you able to conceptualize an example of such an entity, that you would be willing, for sake of argument, to allow someone else to call God?

I don't pose any questions to atheists, as I know in advance you reject any concept of God that anyone would offer, whether it fit my minimalist definition, didn't fit it, or somehow sidestepped it.

Quote from: "Inevitable Droid"2. Are there any agnostics on this message board who could tolerate, for sake of argument, a God hypothesis that could be satisfied by an entity who was natural, or who wasn't nature's author?  If so, then, in either case, are you able to conceptualize an example of such an entity, that you would be willing, for sake of argument, to allow someone else to call God?

I've had this discussion with atheists elsewhere.  What a believer calls "God" could conceivably be a creature of immense power or creative capacity, an alien race which initiated the genome separation of our species, mistakenly ascribed magic goodies by believers due to our current inability to grasp the physics it may use, its thought-patterns, and so on.

Not that all that makes such a critter "God", but if believers want to call it "God" I'm cool, so long as they don't force me to do so, and so long as they don't try to forbid to scientists its investigation.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"What a believer calls "God" could conceivably be a creature of immense power or creative capacity, an alien race which initiated the genome separation of our species, mistakenly ascribed magic goodies by believers due to our current inability to grasp the physics it may use, its thought-patterns, and so on.

A definition like that would certainly permit a testable God hypothesis, outlandish as it might be.  But why so generous?  A definition like that would make it reasonable for humanity to consider itself God if/when we terraform Mars.  We'd be God to the Martians, at least in our own minds.  What end does such semantic flexibility serve?

If we give the name God to Von Daniken's Ancient Astronauts, we open the door to worshipping them.  Is that desirable?  If we give ourselves the name God after terraforming Mars, we open the door for us to demand worship from the Martians.  Is that desirable?

Quote from: "Inevitable Droid"When I talk of God, I always have in mind my minimalist definition, "that which, not of nature, is nature's author."  

That which is not of nature is un natural...supernatural...supranatural.

Quote from: "Inevitable Droid"But why so generous?

Because the word "god" is already pretty meaningless. I really don't care what they do with it, or how they define it, so long as they don't push it on me or other dissentients.

Quote from: "Inevitable Droid"If we give the name God to Von Daniken's Ancient Astronauts, we open the door to worshipping them.  Is that desirable?  If we give ourselves the name God after terraforming Mars, we open the door for us to demand worship from the Martians.  Is that desirable?

I didn't think those doors were closed. Isn't it already up to every person to choose to worship or not worship anything, regardless of whether it fits any definition of a god?

Quote from: "elliebean"I didn't think those doors were closed. Isn't it already up to every person to choose to worship or not worship anything, regardless of whether it fits any definition of a god?

Certainly.  I just tend to be a bit of an activist when it comes to discouraging theism of any stripe.  The only good God is a dead God, etc.

Quote from: "Inevitable Droid"1. Are there any theists on this message board whose God hypothesis could be satisfied by an entity who was natural, or who wasn't nature's author?  If so, then, in either case, how would you conceptualize such an entity, which you would be willing to call God?

If God was natural we would see Him, in my opinion at least. But He took natural form in human flesh (Jesus Christ).

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"Because the word "god" is already pretty meaningless.

I've heard that said by others, but I don't see why it's said.  Take, for example, my own definition.  God is "that which, not of nature, is nature's author."  Those words have meaning and render an intelligible concept to think about.  I don't reject that concept because it's meaningless, but because it's impervious to empirical inquiry.  I reject anything that's impervious to empirical inquiry, except fiction, which admits implicitly at the outset that it isn't factual, and morality, so long as morality admits at the outset that it is grounded in psyche, and more limitedly, in feeling and/or appetite.

QuoteI really don't care what they do with it, or how they define it, so long as they don't push it on me or other dissentients.

But they will, they always do, so it seems desirable to me to always, without exception, cut them off at the knees.  You of course are free to unburden yourself of such a mandate.  As for me, I am perpetually wary of any and all theism, regardless how conceptualized, for it's the nature of theism to aspire to hegemony, as it's the nature of God, however conceptualized, to be intrinsically hegemonic, at least morally, often physically, at least allegedly and as conceptualized.  If Von Daniken's Ancient Astronauts are God, then they have the right to claim worship and obedience, at least in the mind of anyone who calls them God, because that's how the human mind works.  And the horrible danger is, Von Daniken's Ancient Astronauts might actually exist, unlikely as that may be as assessed by science today, and if they exist, they won't be "not of nature," but will be very much "of nature," a God we can see, hear, smell, taste, and touch, the secret longing of those inclined to theism, a nascent idol so irresistibly seductive that it would drag millions if not billions to their knees, and once on their knees, these sheep will arise, become wolves, and take up the sword, for that is what theists do.