God types

[Upchurch]

In the agnostics??? (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=334916#post334916) thread, ReasonableDoubt posted a great article, Atheism, Agnosticism, Noncognitivism (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theodore_drange/definition.html).

In it, Drange outlines several definitions of the word "God":
To illustrate these distinctions, consider the following four responses to a request for a definition of the term "God":

God1 = the universe itself (all that exists). [Or, alternatively, God1 = love.]

God2 = the powerful being who created the universe.

God3 = the omnipotent creator of the universe whose highest goal regarding humans is that they believe that he has a son who died for them so that they might obtain salvation.

God4 = ? (No definition is possible; the word is indefinable.)
I thought this was a fascinating idea and was wondering if this wouldn't be useful on this board (with some adaptation). So that, when we're referring to "God", we can be more specific by referring to "God2" or "God3".

The only change I would recommend is that instead of the above definition of God3, it should instead be:

God3 = the omnipotent creator of the universe who let's it's presence be known through the use of prophets and/or sacred texts.

This, I think, would divorce it from being strictly a Christian type God and allow for most mainstream religions.

Whaddya think? Helpful? Not helpful? Other types that need to be included?

You have left out the one definition of God which is common to all religious systems - i.e. the mystical/Panentheist definition that Beingness is God. God is everything, and IN everything.

http://www.panentheism.com/

[Franko]

You have left out the one definition of God which is common to all religious systems - i.e. the mystical/Panentheist definition that Beingness is God. God is everything, and IN everything.

What's the difference between that and God1?

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant
You have left out the one definition of God which is common to all religious systems - i.e. the mystical/Panentheist definition that Beingness is God. God is everything, and IN everything.

http://www.panentheism.com/

I believe that God1 (God is the universe) would work for "God is everything, and IN everything." Unless there is a subtle difference that I'm not picking up on?

edited to add:
Each type of religion doesn't need it's own God type. for instance, I'd say there would be a Christian God3 and a Jewish God3, etc. There might be a Panentheism God1.

Originally posted by Upchurch


I believe that God1 (God is the universe) would work for "God is everything, and IN everything." Unless there is a subtle difference that I'm not picking up on?

Pantheism :

The belief that God is the Universe.

Panentheism :

The belief that the Universe is a manifestation of God, but that God is also directly present within all parts of it. The WHOLE is within each part.

Pantheism vs Panentheism (http://websyte.com/alan/pan.htm)

The difference is enormous. Pantheism reduces God to something no different to "The Universe". It is almost atheistic. It certainly isn't mystical. Panentheism is a modern term for the root belief common to all of mysticism - it can be either theistic (gnostic) or agnostic (Buddhism/Taoism). Panentheism is represented in every major religion on Earth. Pantheism is not.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant


The difference is enormous.
While I understand the differences that you've outlined, I'm not sure it's "enormous" enough to deserve it's own type. For example, there is an enourmous difference between Christian God3 and Muslim God3, but both still fit the God3 definition.

I understand that your saying Panentheism says that the universe is mearely a part of what God is, so maybe Panentheism fits under a God2 or God3 definition? Your comment that "Panentheism is represented in every major religion on Earth" suggests a God3 designation, doesn't it?

In the form of the definitions above, how would you create a definition for a God type that would fit Panentheism that isn't just for Panentheism. After all, we could define a sepreate God type for each and every religion, but that's not very useful.

Upchurch :

{QUOTE]
While I understand the differences that you've outlined, I'm not sure it's "enormous" enough to deserve it's own type. For example, there is an enourmous difference between Christian God3 and Muslim God3, but both still fit the God3 definition.
[/QUOTE]

Erm.....in the last half hour you've already said it's a "very subtle difference" between "The Universe we observe is consciousness" and "The Universe we observe is matter, and matter is derived from consciousness", even though this "very subtle difference" is the difference between Idealism and Materialism. Now you are claiming that the Pantheist definition of God as the Universe, and the Panentheist definition of God as the root of personal consciousness (as well as the Universe) is also not a big enough difference to be worthy of note. Huh? The difference is enormous. Pantheism does not recognise the cosmic significance of consciousness. Panentheism is based upon the belief that consciousness is a DIRECT manifestation of God.


I understand that your saying Panentheism says that the universe is mearely a part of what God is, so maybe Panentheism fits under a God2 or God3 definition? Your comment that "Panentheism is represented in every major religion on Earth" suggests a God3 designation, doesn't it?


What???? :eek:

That line of reasoning boils down to :

Some Christians are Panentheists (the gnostics).
Therefore Panentheists recognise Jesus Christ as the son of God.

Are you having a bad day, Upchurch? :rolleyes:

God3 only applies to Christians.
God2, as you have stated it, applies to non-mystical theists.

None of your definitions of God apply to Panentheists/Mystics.





In the form of the definitions above, how would you create a definition for a God type that would fit Panentheism that isn't just for Panentheism. After all, we could define a sepreate God type for each and every religion, but that's not very useful.

Can't edit the above post...


In the form of the definitions above, how would you create a definition for a God type that would fit Panentheism that isn't just for Panentheism. After all, we could define a sepreate God type for each and every religion, but that's not very useful.


Panentheism isn't a religion. It is a religious philosophy represented in every religion there has ever been. If you dig about in religious history you will find that, almost without exception, ALL religions were founded by panentheistic mystics, and ALL religions retain a panentheistic branch.

Taoism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Jainism are all explicitly Panentheistic religions.

Gnostic Christianity, Sufism (Islam) and Qabbalistic Judaism are all panentheistic branches of thestic religions.

You appear to be trying to exclude the one and only definition of God which is common to all religion systems. :)

[Franko]

Panentheism is based upon the belief that consciousness is a DIRECT manifestation of God.

ALL religions (except A-Theism) claim that consciousness is a DIRECT manifestation of God.

So you are claiming that all religions are Panentheistic?

I wonder if the Pope would agree?

Originally posted by Franko


ALL religions (except A-Theism) claim that consciousness is a DIRECT manifestation of God.

So you are claiming that all religions are Panentheistic?

I wonder if the Pope would agree?

I suspect that in private the Pope knows that. But the unwashed hordes aren't allowed to believe that. We are talking about an organisation that

a) defined 'the Bible' 300 years after the event and persecuted the original movement (the Gnostics) as heretics after throwing out all the gnostic/panentheistic gospels.

then 1200 years later

b) desperately tried to prevent the publication of an English translation because it didn't want the congregation to actually be able to read their own religious text.

So I'm not sure I care what the Pope would say.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant

Are you having a bad day, Upchurch? :rolleyes:
I didn't think so, but the day is still young

God3 only applies to Christians.
No, please look again. I specifically modified the definition of God3 from the original author's version to a more generalized form.

To restate:

God1 = the universe itself (all that exists). [Or, alternatively, God1 = love.]

God2 = the powerful being who created the universe.

God3 = the omnipotent creator of the universe who let's it's presence be known through the use of prophets and/or sacred texts.

God4 = ? (No definition is possible; the word is indefinable.)Note that Christian references to "sons" and "salvation" were removed.

God2, as you have stated it, applies to non-mystical theists.

None of your definitions of God apply to Panentheists/Mystics.
I didn't think mystics were excluded, but not being one, maybe I missing something important. How would you define a God type(s) that would include Panentheists and/or Mystics?

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant

Panentheism isn't a religion.

[snip]

You appear to be trying to exclude the one and only definition of God which is common to all religion systems. :)
Okay, fine. Help me then to include it. I'm struggling to fix it here and you're only telling me where I'm wrong.

Upchurch


I didn't think mystics were excluded, but not being one, maybe I missing something important. How would you define a God type(s) that would include Panentheists and/or Mystics?


Perrenial Philosophy (http://www.mythosandlogos.com/perennial.html)


The term "Perennial Philosophy" was coined by Leibniz, but popularized by Aldous Huxley, according to whom it pertains to a primary concern "with the one, divine Reality substantial to the manifold world of things and lives and minds. But the nature of this one Reality is such that it cannot be directly or immediately apprehended except by those who have chosen to fulfill certain conditions, making themselves loving, pure in heart, and poor in spirit." In the spirit of Aldous Huxley, this page explores Eastern and Western traditions of mysticism and religion.

1. This phenomenal world of matter and individual consciousness is only a partial reality and is the manifestation of a Divine Ground in which all partial realities have their being.

2. It is of the nature of man that not only can he have knowledge of this Divine Ground by inference, but also he can realize it by direct intuition, superior to discursive reason, in which the knower is in some way united with the known.

3. The nature of man is not a single but a dual one. He has not one but two selves, the phenomenal ego, of which he is chiefly conscious and which he tends to regard as his true self, and a non-phenomenal, eternal self, an inner man, the spirit, the spark of divinity within him, which is his true self. It is possible for a man, if he so desires and is prepared to make the necessary effort, to identify himself with his true self and so with the Divine Ground, which is of the same or like nature.

4. It is the chief end of man's earthly existence to discover and identify himself with his true self. By doing so, he will come to an intuitive knowledge of the Divine Ground and so apprehend Truth as it really is, and not as to our limited human perceptions it appears to be. Not only that, he will enter into a state of being which has been given different names, eternal life, salvation, enlightenment, etc.


This is quite a detailed description of Panentheism/mysticism but it would be recognised by Taoists, Buddhists, Hindus, Gnostic Christians, Sufis, Qabbalists, as well as most New-Agers as a fundamentally accuracte description of their conception of what God is.

What is missing from your descriptions is the understanding that the root of human consciousness - the TRUE self either IS God, or can acheive DIRECT Unity with God, provided the individual is prepared to make the sacrifices required.

[ReasonableDoubt]

Originally posted by Upchurch

While I understand the differences that you've outlined, I'm not sure it's "enormous" enough to deserve it's own type. I tend to disagree. I view panentheism much the same way as I do all theistic constructs. Pantheism I dismiss as superfluous.

[Upchurch]

Okay, I seem to not be communicating very well. I want to know how you want me to word the God type definitions to include Panentheism/Mysticism.

How about this:

God1 = the universe itself (all that exists). [Or, alternatively, God1 = love.]

God2 = the powerful being who created the universe.

God3 = the omnipotent creator of the universe who lets it's presence be known through the use of prophets and/or sacred texts.

God4 = the universe itself (all that exists) that lets it's true presence/nature be known through introspection and/or self-discipline of the individual.

God5 = ? (No definition is possible; the word is indefinable.)
Does that work?

God4 = the universe itself (all that exists) that lets it's true presence/nature be known through introspection and/or self-discipline of the individual.


God4 = the universe itself (all that exists), and that totality is present in each of the parts. God4 lets it's true presence/nature be known through introspection and/or self-discipline of the individual, and the individual can achieve Unity with God4.

God1 = the universe itself (all that exists). [Or, alternatively, God1 = love.]

= Pantheism.

God2 = the powerful being who created the universe.

= Deism.

God3 = the omnipotent creator of the universe who lets it's presence be known through the use of prophets and/or sacred texts.

= Theism.

God4 = the universe itself (all that exists), and that totality is present in each of the parts. God4 lets it's true presence/nature be known through introspection and/or self-discipline of the individual, and the individual can achieve Unity with God4.

= Panentheism.

[Franko]

so what exactly is the difference between God1 and God4 UCE?

The only real difference I see is that God4 is a more wordy version of God1.

[Upchurch]

A little wordsmithing for consistancy's sake and to restate in whole:

God1 = the universe itself (all that exists). [Or, alternatively, God1 = love.]

God2 = the powerful being who created the universe.

God3 = the omnipotent creator of the universe who lets it's presence be known through the use of prophets and/or sacred texts.

God4 = the universe itself (all that exists) where the totality is present in each of the parts which lets it's true presence/nature be known through introspection and/or self-discipline of the individual, wherein the individual can achieve Unity.

God5 = ? (No definition is possible; the word is indefinable.)
Sorry for the wordsmithing but I'm, in part, a technical writer and I believe in consistancy.

On an aside: UE, what is meant by "Unity"? If the individual, who is a part of the universe, is part of God4 and God4 is a part of that individual, isn't "unity with" (or "connection to") God4 already implied and redundent?

Anyone else see anything that should be added to the above definitions?

[Franko]

God1 = the universe itself (all that exists). [Or, alternatively, God1 = love.]

= Pantheism.


God4 = the universe itself (all that exists), and that totality is present in each of the parts. God4 lets it's true presence/nature be known through introspection and/or self-discipline of the individual, and the individual can achieve Unity with God4.

= Panentheism.

God1 = the universe itself (all that exists) = God4 = the universe itself (all that exists)

[God4] and that totality is present in each of the parts = (all that exists)

[God4] lets it's true presence/nature be known through introspection and/or self-discipline of the individual, and the individual can achieve Unity with God4.

Why isn’t this statement also True for God1???

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Franko
so what exactly is the difference between God1 and God4 UCE?

The only real difference I see is that God4 is a more wordy version of God1.
Ye gods (no pun intended), I agree with Franko.

Each of the definitions were left intentionally a little vague so that there was some wiggle room to fit with specific concepts of God. While no two religions are exactly alike, we're trying to come up with broad based categories that will fit most, if not all, diffinitions of the word "God". While "the universe itself" may not encompase the full richness of Panentheism or how knowledge of it is imparted to the individual, it is, in a broad sense, accurate. is it not?

[Dragonrock]

Originally posted by Upchurch

Ye gods (no pun intended), I agree with Franko.

Each of the definitions were left intentionally a little vague so that there was some wiggle room to fit with specific concepts of God. While no two religions are exactly alike, we're trying to come up with broad based categories that will fit most, if not all, diffinitions of the word "God". While "the universe itself" may not encompase the full richness of Panentheism or how knowledge of it is imparted to the individual, it is, in a broad sense, accurate. is it not?

The more types you add, the less likely posters are to use it. 4 is included in 1, it's not exact, but it's not supposed to be. 1 encompasses the general idea of omnipresence that includes 4 and also suggests that the universe itself could be god. While 4 seems to be overly specific by saying that god is not everything, he just is in everything. It's a distinction without any real difference. Perhaps a slight rewording of 1 would allow us to do away with 4.

[Upchurch]

How about this. I included the new God4 because the God3 definition had extra stuff on how knowledge was imparted. What if we took out all reference to knowledge and just focus on the definition of God specificially?


God1 = the universe itself (all that exists). [Or, alternatively, God1 = love.]

God2 = the powerful being who created the universe.

God3 = the omnipotent creator of the universe.

God4 = ? (No definition is possible; the word is indefinable.)

edited to add:
Just to clarify, I'm defining "omnipotent" as the literal definition of "all powerful", despite my personal belief that "all powerful" is logically impossible. Regardless of what I think some people believe in Gods who are all powerful and my intentention here is to define, not judge.

[Dragonrock]

God1 = the universe itself (all that exists). [Or, alternatively, God1 = love.]

God2 = the powerful being who created the universe.

God3 = the omnipotent creator of the universe.

God4 = ? (No definition is possible; the word is indefinable.)


The only change I'd make would be to add that 3 is active within the universe, he didn't just kick it off and let it go.

Originally posted by Franko
so what exactly is the difference between God1 and God4 UCE?

The only real difference I see is that God4 is a more wordy version of God1.

God1 is seperate from man.

God4 is present in man.

[Franko]

God1 = the universe itself (all that exists).

Elephant:
God1 is seperate from man.

Not according to Upchurch’s definition!

I exist, I am part of the “universe” that makes me part of ALL THAT EXIST, that doesn’t imply God is separate at all.

Originally posted by Dragonrock


The more types you add, the less likely posters are to use it. 4 is included in 1, it's not exact, but it's not supposed to be. 1 encompasses the general idea of omnipresence that includes 4 and also suggests that the universe itself could be god. While 4 seems to be overly specific by saying that god is not everything, he just is in everything. It's a distinction without any real difference. Perhaps a slight rewording of 1 would allow us to do away with 4.

Cannot be done. That is precisely what the founders of the Catholic church tried to do in 315AD. Christianity in its post-Nicean form was specifically God1 and made God4 belief the ultimate heresy punishable by death. Trying to modify God1 to include God4 will infuriate most God1 believers. Trying to get God4 adherents to accept God1 definition would be attempting to get them to abandon their most fundamental belief. God1 Theism has a long history of trying to suppress God4 Panthentheism. God4 Panentheism recognises God1 Theism as a simplistic/metaphorical version for God4, which on its own is essentially wrong.

Originally posted by Franko
God1 = the universe itself (all that exists).



Not according to Upchurch’s definition!

I exist, I am part of the “universe” that makes me part of ALL THAT EXIST, that doesn’t imply God is separate at all.

I don't know whether you are being deliberately stupid, or you genuinely can't understand this. Being "part of" all that exists is not the same as being all that exists. Please don't repeat this again, it's boring. :(

[metacristi]

Upchurch

I thought this was a fascinating idea and was wondering if this wouldn't be useful on this board (with some adaptation). So that, when we're referring to "God", we can be more specific by referring to "God2" or "God3".


The proposed scheme is too simplistic.After all there is a virtually infinite number of attributes that can be assigned to a God,a single extra attribute could change entirely the meaning of the term 'God'.For example one might believe in a creator of the universe that is all good:this is neither God2 nor God3.Also some might believe in an omnipotent,omniscient,all good type of God without believing the Bible as being true:this is not God3 clearly.

In fact there is no need to define and label all types of possible God(s) in order to have a decent discussion,clearly this is impossible in practice.One of the basic principles of logical discourse request from the proponent of a topic of discussion to define very well the terms used in their considerations.
If,and this happens very often in practice,someone has still doubts about the meaning of some words,she must ask for clarifications before expressing their opinion.


As regarding the classification of theists,atheists,agnostics from the discussions I've had previously I've remarked that Drange's classification is not seen very well in some atheist resources (forums of discussion) being not identical with the usual clasification,especially because of this phrase:


An atheist is someone who allows that the sentence [Godx exists] expresses a proposition and who classifies the proposition as false or probably false.


Clearly classifying the sentence 'God exist' as probably false means that atheists have a clear position,by assigning a 'subjective' probability to God's existence-a 'belief',in contradiction with the claim of many 'weak' atheists or agnostic atheists that they have no opinion they only 'lacking belief'.
In my opinion the so called 'lack of belief' is only an 'invention' of atheists seeking to escape from the label 'believer'.
Disbelief in God with the additional 'I will believe when I will have sufficient evidence' is the real 'weak' atheism in my opinion.
When one considers that she does not have sufficient reason (objective or subjective) to make the decision to believe/disbelieve,no opinion regarding belief/disbelief therefore,he IS a 'weak' agnostic not an atheist!

Virtually there is no real clear difference (regarding the 'no opinion' problem,but not only-in the case of the so called agnostic atheism) between 'weak' agnositicism and 'weak' atheism (or agnostic atheism) whose proponents claim only 'lack of belief',apart of this last sentence.It's clear that both 'lack of belief' 'weak' atheism and agnostic atheism are subsets of 'weak' agnosticism.The whole trick used by some to still call themselves 'atheists' is based entirely on the logical assimetry between 'lacking belief' and 'lacking disbelief'.Not a persuasive argument,in my opinion of course.


'Weak' agnosticism-'I suspend judgement regarding disbelief/belief until I will have sufficient reason to believe/disbelieve'.
Weak agnostics DO NOT sustain that God cannot be known [forever] but only that today we have no sufficient reason to believe/disbelieve.'Sufficient reason' to believe/disbelieve does not mean necessarily 'objective' (scientific) knowledge but only enough evidence that can be interpreted (subjectively varying from person to person-there is no unique,rigid standard) as supporting belief/disbelief.

[Franko]

Elephant:
I don't know whether you are being deliberately stupid, or you genuinely can't understand this. Being "part of" all that exists is not the same as being all that exists.

Sounds like nothing more than creative semantics on your part.

Please don't repeat this again, it's boring.

... and once again your only answer seems to be just take my word for it, because I am unable to explain myself logically.

[whitefork]

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant


Cannot be done. That is precisely what the founders of the Catholic church tried to do in 315AD. Christianity in its post-Nicean form was specifically God1 and made God4 belief the ultimate heresy punishable by death. Trying to modify God1 to include God4 will infuriate most God1 believers. Trying to get God4 adherents to accept God1 definition would be attempting to get them to abandon their most fundamental belief. God1 Theism has a long history of trying to suppress God4 Panthentheism. God4 Panentheism recognises God1 Theism as a simplistic/metaphorical version for God4, which on its own is essentially wrong.
As they say "you can look it up". The Elephant clearly knows his heresies

[CWL]

No he doesn't. What a silly proposition. Everybody knows that he chisels for hand - take the Ten Commandments for instance.

[Soubrette]

I'm with Geoff on this one - in fact one of the posters here (I can't remember which one) had pantheist atheist as part of their profile....or was it atheist pantheist?

:)

Sou

[ReasonableDoubt]

Originally posted by metacristi
As regarding the classification of theists,atheists,agnostics from the discussions I've had previously I've remarked that Drange's classification is not seen very well in some atheist resources ... A daunting argument! :D

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant

Cannot be done. That is precisely what the founders of the Catholic church tried to do in 315AD. Christianity in its post-Nicean form was specifically God1 and made God4 belief the ultimate heresy punishable by death. Trying to modify God1 to include God4 will infuriate most God1 believers. Trying to get God4 adherents to accept God1 definition would be attempting to get them to abandon their most fundamental belief. God1 Theism has a long history of trying to suppress God4 Panthentheism. God4 Panentheism recognises God1 Theism as a simplistic/metaphorical version for God4, which on its own is essentially wrong.


Well then, I guess I better start coming up with definitions for God37 (Southern Babtist Christian God) through God458 (New Revised Southern Babtist Christian God), because those new New Revised Southern Babtist Christians will be infuriated that I've lumped them in with the Southern Babtist Christians since there is a world of difference in between the two.


**deep breath**

UE, you are subdividing a major category of "The universe and God are the same thing". On the one hand, you have "All that is the Universe is God". On the other, "The Universe is only an aspect of God and God is in all parts of the universe". I appologise for lumping you together with a group you don't like. I've also lumped western Christians in with middle-eastern Muslims and they aren't very friendly to each other either.

I'm not saying that Panentheists are exactly like Pantheists. I'm saying that the form of their Gods are similar, much in the same way that dogs and humans are similar in form (e.g. both are mammels). In this case, both believe that God and the Universe are one and the same rather than God being seperate a sepreate entity from the universe (e.g. God sitting up and heaven looking down on his creation) You have to start somewhere and I was taking the long view.

I'm not saying that Panentheists are exactly like Pantheists. I'm saying that the form of their Gods are similar, much in the same way that dogs and humans are similar in form (e.g. both are mammels).


As whitefork said - look it up. In terms of the history of religion and philosophy trying to lump panentheism in with theism or pantheism just doesn't work. I am not suggesting 400 categories. I am suggesting 4 instead of 3. It is a better place to start.

I felt it neccessary to press this point precisely because Panentheism is the only position that encompasses all known religions. As such it would seem rather backwards to ignore it or try to categorise it as one of the others. It seems like you are trying to hide the one and only system which is has the potential to represent all groups.

But it's your system...

:)

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant


As whitefork said - look it up. In terms of the history of religion and philosophy trying to lump panentheism in with theism or pantheism just doesn't work. I am not suggesting 400 categories. I am suggesting 4 instead of 3. It is a better place to start.
Alright, if they couldn't do it 1700 years ago, I guess we can't do it now. It seems like a small detail to me, but what do I know?

God1 = the universe itself (all that exists). [Or, alternatively, God1 = love.]

God2 = the powerful being who created the universe.

God3 = the omnipotent creator of the universe.

God4 = the universe itself (all that exists) and present in all parts of the universe.

God5 = ? (No definition is possible; the word is indefinable.)

Anything else?

[ReasonableDoubt]

Originally posted by Upchurch
Anything else? Sure - ad naseum. Where, for example, shall we place Anum and Enlil, Su and Tefnut, Kronos and Rhea, Izanagi and Izanami, and all the other Gods of the various Pantheons? It is little more than thoughtless bias to presume that monotheism is somehow more "reasonable".

[Upchurch]

God(s)1 = the universe itself (all that exists). [Or, alternatively, God(s)1 = love.]

God(s)2 = the powerful being who created the universe.

God(s)3 = the omnipotent creator of the universe.

God(s)4 = the universe itself (all that exists) and present in all parts of the universe.

God(s)5 = ? (No definition is possible; the word is indefinable.)

[Aoidoi]

Er... yeah? What about all those fun polytheistic religions? They don't really seem to fit into any the of the given categories... for instance the Greeks didn't believe the gods created the world (at least, not the gods they worshipped).

[Upchurch]

God(s)1 = the universe itself (all that exists). [Or, alternatively, God(s)1 = love.]

God(s)2 = the powerful being who created the universe.

God(s)3 = the omnipotent creator of the universe.

God(s)4 = the universe itself (all that exists) and present in all parts of the universe.

God(s)5 = The powerful being who is currently in charge of the universe or an aspect of it.

God(s)6 = ? (No definition is possible; the word is indefinable.)

[ReasonableDoubt]

The list is clearly broken. On what planet is 1b an equivalent yet alternate construct of 1a?

[Upchurch]

God(s)1 = the universe itself (all that exists).

God(s)2 = the powerful being who created the universe.

God(s)3 = the omnipotent creator of the universe.

God(s)4 = the universe itself (all that exists) and present in all parts of the universe.

God(s)5 = The powerful being who is currently in charge of the universe or an aspect of it.

God(s)6 = ? (No definition is possible; the word is indefinable.)

edited to add:
You know, I never quite got that one myself, but I left it in.

[ReasonableDoubt]

Holy **** - if my house is part of the Universe, my wife qualifies as God(s)5. :(

[UserGoogol]

Yeah, it might be wise to replace "Powerful Being" with "Supernatural Being" or something similar.

[ReasonableDoubt]

Parenthetically, there is omnipotent and omnipotent. Some simple minded critters employ the term to mean able to do anythingwhile others (e.g., Thomas Aquinas) mean able to do anything possiblethereby avoiding the rock paradox, etc.

[Upchurch]

God(s)1 = the universe itself (all that exists).

God(s)2 = the supernatural being who created the universe.

God(s)3 = the omnipotent creator of the universe.

God(s)4 = the universe itself (all that exists) and present in all parts of the universe.

God(s)5 = The supernatural being who is currently in charge of the universe or an aspect of it.

God(s)6 = ? (No definition is possible; the word is indefinable.)

Aside on "omnipotent": "able to do anything possible" for who? Am I omnipotent because I can do anything possible for me to do? Care to expand on that definition a tad?

[c4ts]

Doublegod: A god that is both an omnipotent creator and an intangible idea, one at a time wherever either one of them would apply (since ideas don't create things).

Jeckyll/Hyde: A god that is nice to a select group of brainwashed individuals and condemns the rest to the worst tortures imaginable.

E Pluribus Deus: A god that is simultaneously many gods.

Pharaoh: A living or dead human being who is also a god.

Puppeteer: A god that does not allow for free will.

Sadist: A Jeckyll/Hyde Puppeteer.

Symbiote: A god that hands out cool powers to worshippers or true believers.

Parasite: A god that does not hand out cool powers to worshippers or true believers.

*******: A god whose moral standards are too high for mortals who don't do a certain silly or unrelated thing.

[ReasonableDoubt]

Originally posted by Upchurch
Care to expand on that definition a tad? Don't get snitty with me, young man. Register your complaint wth Thomas Aquinas.

By the way, why are you doing this? Also, will you be limiting your list to God(s) to the exclusion of, say, the Daoine Sidhe (Faerie Kingdom)?

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by ReasonableDoubt
Don't get snitty with me, young man.
Well, I guess us simple minded critters tend to get snitty whatever when called "simple minded critters".
Register your complaint wth Thomas Aquinas.
Appeal to authority. I've read the man. There are a number of things I don't agree with him on, but he isn't around and you are the one advocating his definition. If you aren't going to defend why we should use it rather than the one given, or even elaborate what it means, then withdraw the comment and appologise. Or at the very least, learn a few manners.

At least when I issue light hearted sarcasm, I label it as such so that hopefully no one takes it personally.
By the way, why are you doing this?
The same reason I do most things. I found the idea interesting and, perhaps, useful. I find that if one is able to organize things in a logical manner, they become easier to understand. This paticular method I envision being similar to biological taxonomy
Also, will you be limiting your list to God(s) to the exclusion of, say, the Daoine Sidhe (Faerie Kingdom)? I have no intention of excluding any variation of God. That is why I asked for help in expanding the list to account for anything I might have missed.


So, do you think an online MUD is widely considered to be a "God"? How would you incorporate it into the list?

Originally posted by Upchurch
G
God(s)4 = the universe itself (all that exists) and present in all parts of the universe.


God(s)4 = the universe itself (all that exists) and present in its totality in all parts of the universe.

[Upchurch]

God(s)1 = the universe itself (all that exists).

God(s)2 = the supernatural being who created the universe.

God(s)3 = the omnipotent creator of the universe.

God(s)4 = the universe itself (all that exists) and present in its totality in all parts of the universe.

God(s)5 = The supernatural being who is currently in charge of the universe or an aspect of it.

God(s)6 = ? (No definition is possible; the word is indefinable.)

[ReasonableDoubt]

Originally posted by Upchurch
Appeal to authority. I've read the man. There are a number of things I don't agree with him on, but he isn't around and you are the one advocating his definition. Appeal to authority? What a joke! Do you have any sense whatsoever what those words mean? How the hell can there be an "apeal to authority" when I'm not arguing for or against a position? I'm simply noting that he had one, i.e., that he constrianed omnipotence to the logically possible. I could care less whether you agree with him or not. :rolleyes:

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by ReasonableDoubt
Do you have any sense whatsoever what those words mean?
Yep.
How the hell can there be an "apeal to authority" when I'm not arguing for or against a position?
You expressed a position contrary to the one given as a premise while expressing the opinion that anyone who put forth the said premise was a "simple minded critter".


How DID I ever mistake that for arguing against a position? See, my mistake was assuming that you didn't consider yourself a simple minded critter.


My appologies. :rolleyes:
I'm simply noting that he had one, i.e., that he constrianed omnipotence to the logically possible.
Noted and irrelevent to the discussion at hand. But thank you.

[stamenflicker]

UE is correct in that panentheism should be slated on its own, and most likely first.

Pantheism says man contains only a part of God.
Panentheism says man contains the whole being.

The parts are no less than the sum of the whole. Most all your other categories fall into this kind of arrangement, including the divine son bit.

Flick

[Upchurch]

Okay, I conceeded this nearly a whole page ago despite the fact that I personally think it's splitting hairs and RD's personal attacks. You win. Get over it.

[MRC_Hans]

God types??? I thought he hewed stone tablets :confused:


OK, OK, somebody hadda do it .....

Hans

[Franko]

UE is correct in that panentheism should be slated on its own, and most likely first.

Pantheism says man contains only a part of God.
Panentheism says man contains the whole being.

I thought ...

Solipsism says that man contains the whole being.

[CWL]

Originally posted by MRC_Hans
God types??? I thought he hewed stone tablets :confused:


OK, OK, somebody hadda do it .....

Hans

Yes, but twice?!? I already did (on page 1 (http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=14011&perpage=40&pagenumber=1)). Ha, beat you to it... are you Southern Scandinavians loosing your edge these days? Oh well, guess they don't make Danes like Tycho Brahe any more. ;)

[whitefork]

FunkyCWL, did they bury Tycho's gold nose with him, or did someone take it when he died?

[CWL]

Originally posted by whitefork
FunkyCWL, did they bury Tycho's gold nose with him, or did someone take it when he died?

Funny you should ask. I recently visited his grave in Prague, but I forget to check for the nose, sorry.