What does the term "god" mean to you?

[LunarMoon]

I differentiate a great deal between “god” and “God”. “God” refers to precisely what it means to the majority of people when it is said by them to me. That is to say, the omnipotent Judeo Christian God of a neutral sexuality. On a personal level, “God” refers to the pantheistic definition. It is the asexual collective of all physical laws and constants throughout the universe, whose consciousness differs a great deal from what, would be discernable as that of either man or beast. No greed, no wrath, no evolutionarily developed self preservational drive as depicted within the Bible.

However, “god”, as specifically asked by the topic title represents something rather subjective but ultimately hinges on the idea of an all powerful being capable of manipulating the laws of nature as it sees fit, even if the manipulation of those laws is wholly based upon scientific principles. An ENFP friend of mine mentioned Dr. Manhattan as representing the archetype of a god. Likewise, an alien being capable of “sufficiently advanced technology” would, by all practical measures, be regarded as a “god” to me.

 

[SecondBest]

God = everything that is not me. But God is also me. So God = everything.

God is everything. Final answer.

 

[Tamske]

God = everything that is not me. But God is also me. So God = everything.
God is everything. Final answer.

Why don't you call that the universe?

You can say "god is love" and "god is the ideal we're striving to be" and "god is everything" but...
to "love", "ideals" and "everything" you don't pray. You don't have to sacrifice a goat. They don't have a will of their own, making you suffer or saving you, depending on... what? Your belief? You wearing mixed fibres?

I would say, call the things as they are. Love is love. It's a powerful thing, true, it is a great motivator... but it's not a god. It's not a willful being you can pray to and listen to or who will punish you (whether by making you ill or throwing you in hell) when you don't listen to his priests.

Ideals are man-made things. It's easy to observe people who are better than you. Some are faster, others are smarter, braver, ethically more sound. I for one will always feel inferior to my sister who's gone to Bolivia to help the poor. I know I'm not able to do that. I won't sacrifice my own sheltered, luxury life to help them. She's a better person. And it's easy to imagine even better persons, ideals to strive to. But it won't help to pray to these ideals and hope for miracles from them.

And the universe... is just a random collection of matter. Matter is awesome stuff and it clunks together in all sorts of awesome things such as stars and meteors and brains. But it won't listen to prayers, either. It will only stir if you touch it.

 

[SecondBest]

Why don't you call that the universe?

You can say "god is love" and "god is the ideal we're striving to be" and "god is everything" but...
to "love", "ideals" and "everything" you don't pray. You don't have to sacrifice a goat. They don't have a will of their own, making you suffer or saving you, depending on... what? Your belief? You wearing mixed fibres?

Who says I don't pray to everything?

 

[Tamske]

Do you expect an answer? Do you think "everything" has a conscience, a will? Do you think "everything" is intelligent?
If yes, then indeed, "everything" is also a god.

 

[SecondBest]

I also think my dog, Alberta, is God. Y'know, just to clarify.

But in all seriousness, the question posed in this thread is asking me how I understand the term "god" and that's basically how I use that word. I see a way in which everything interacts with each other to form a dialogue with me directly. That everything is to me, what I like to refer to as God. I could just as easily replace the word "God" with "peanut butter" and it would make no difference to me.

The way other people use God doesn't generally concern me unless we're in direct dialogue about it and I have some modicum of interest in understanding their perspective. Which is not even the case in this thread, so yeah...

 

[Noon]

Path 1:
God -> religion -> monotheism -> common monotheistic bigotry -> issues that could be solved if it didn't exist, issues that are overblown because it does -> vexation -> instant resistance

Path 2:
God -> spiritualism -> existence beyond physical -> several interesting concepts to entertain -> instant curious engagement

I wrote it like that because it's about what the things contextually associated with the term have to offer. I am ambivalent to it by itself.