Anyone here a Category 7?

[vulcanlogician]

It's -that- usage that helps to make a universe seem more godlike.  How would the "it exists" usage achieve that work?  

Gods are all grouped together as gods for their similarities.  The universe is not like them..and there's two bits of nonsense going on when we resort to a semantic god better described as the universe, full stop.  It excludes -all- of those other gods as gods..as they're nothing like the universe.  If the meaning of the term "god" is best expressed as "the universe"...what should we call all of those other newly un-goded gods?

If nature has no other qualities beyond being nature then nature is not God.

Jor: What about nature that is self-caused? That it an important aspect of Spinoza's God... being the cause of itself. I can see all day why people reject a supernatural God. Supernatural claims are usually (if not always) bullshit! But a natural God? I think if there really was a God, he'd be natural!

Question to both of you: What are your opinions on ignosticism? Like pantheism, I really like ignosticism, and I totally see where ignostics are coming from. From an ignostic view, all god concepts lack an adequate definition. But if ignostics are right about this, then from their perspective, calling the all God can make total sense because the word "God" lacks any defining characteristics in the first place.

(I mean that's one way around the "Why call it God?" conundrum.)