Life after death?

[Jenny A]

What is God?

Depends on which believer you ask.

I don't believe in a supernatural being of any sort gods included.

[Purplundy]

But how can you not believe in something if we don't really know what it is?

[Whateverist]

That brings up another good question for you, Purplundy. I can't see any use for a category called 'the supernatural', can you? I pretty much think of whatever exists as natural. If Thor exists, then He will be a natural phenomenon even if we don't entirely understand the how of it. (Presumably He does or it just doesn't matter.)

So naturally I think if any gods -your own included- exist, they will turn out to be entirely natural. Just like the first time a stone age culture experiences a mirror or a lighter, the experience is baffling. If they had a category equivalent to 'supernatural', they'd probably assign them to it. Eventually they would come to see them for the commonplace objects they are. Now we might never come to understand the how of a god but if such exist, I say they're still natural the same as everything else that exists. What say you?

[Jenny A]

But how can you not believe in something if we don't really know what it is?

If you define god as some variant of a supernatural being who created the universe that's plenty for me to go on. I don't believe it.

If you have some other definition, and you have some evidence for it's existence as you've defined it, I'll be happy to consider it.

[Wyrd of Gawd]

What is God?

"God" was simply the title given to the series of Assyrian & Babylonian Emperors who ruled the Middle East for centuries. God died when the last Babylonian Emperor died with the collapse of the Babylonian Empire. That's why no one has seen hide or hair of him since. "God" is like referring to the various USA Presidents as "POTUS" instead of by their names.

[Purplundy]

That brings up another good question for you, Purplundy. I can't see any use for a category called 'the supernatural', can you? I pretty much think of whatever exists as natural.

Not really. The argument for the existence of God as well as biblical events like the Resurrection is not that these things are supposed to occur in nature, but that they were made to happen by something outside of nature.
If a God created the world, he would transcend it and not be subject to any of the laws of nature, because he would have written them.

---

If you define god as some variant of a supernatural being who created the universe that's plenty for me to go on. I don't believe it.

If you have some other definition, and you have some evidence for it's existence as you've defined it, I'll be happy to consider it.

Personally, when talking about God, I don't tend to lean on the "How else did we get here?" part because it really has no effect on anybody.
I'd say that God is like a resource. That when you hear the phrase "God is good," it means that good is God. That when people are good, when life is good, God is there. Religion (and non-religion) are a collection of theories on how to tap that resource.

[LostLocke]

That brings up another good question for you, Purplundy. I can't see any use for a category called 'the supernatural', can you? I pretty much think of whatever exists as natural.

Not really. The argument for the existence of God as well as biblical events like the Resurrection is not that these things are supposed to occur in nature, but that they were made to happen by something outside of nature.
If a God created the world, he would transcend it and not be subject to any of the laws of nature, because he would have written them.

Kind of like when a programmer writes a very complex simulation code.
He 'transcends' that code and all its laws and regulations, because he created it himself. But the programmer still isn't 'supernatural' in any way.

The fact is that if the 'beings' inside this sim were able to discover us, they may not fully ever understand us, but they would learn we not supernatural, we are still a part of their nature even while we exist 'outside' it.

[The Grand Nudger]

I guess I just don't find the idea of creation impressive enough to awe me into buying the rest. I can imagine a being still subject to the laws of nature and nevertheless capable of "creating the world".

[Purplundy]

Kind of like when a programmer writes a very complex simulation code.
He 'transcends' that code and all its laws and regulations, because he created it himself. But the programmer still isn't 'supernatural' in any way.

You're misusing the analogy. The programmer may be part of nature, but he is not part of the program, because he created it.

[ignoramus]

I think that that's a fundamental reason for selling religion.
All religious gods need to be all empowering, creators of everything, moralistic, demanding, etc
If they can't appeal to the heart strings, they don't have a sale ...full stop...

How many people would pray or worship a highly skilled technician who won't interfere with the prime directive! None! why! because if we can't sell it to you to invest in, then we cannot control you.
Sorry but that's why all gods are man made. A true, all encompassing being capable of creating universes, etc, is not really going to be all that interested in all the "he said/she said" bullshit going on in the minds of humans ... if that's the case ... fuck, can he micromanage or what!