(August 5, 2016 at 11:39 am)Jörmungandr Wrote: We know enough about the definition of the word god to intuitively know that such definitions are playing fast and loose. We have to know what something is to know what it is not. It's this kernel of belief about the 'real' meaning of the word which seems to give the lie to benny's ignosticism/agnosticism.
The definition of God depends on the purpose for holding it. If you care about cosmogony, God will be whatever created the Universe. if you care about family, God may be Sky Daddy. If you care about what it means to be human, God might be a kind of archetypal Man. If you're a bad parent, God may be the the threat of hell or an excuse for the rod. If you're me, and you are most interested in mind and the nature of experience, God might be the sum total of a pan-psychic universe. A jealous God idea, like the Christian one, will try to be all these things, with great hilarity to ensue.
But can we find the common element among these? How would we here define God, you and me?
