What's the best definition of God that you guys can come up with or find?
I came up with this one:
"God: a literary device (used mostly in fantasy) to bypass the laws of physics and nature in order to speed up the writing process."
Modern Example: Eru from "The Silmarillion" by JRR Tolkien.
The traditional example you all know.
A term created by man to subdue the unknown.
I like it.
God: Everything we don't know.
My first post here - hope you like it. This is something I came up with a while ago but this it the first time I've shared it
God is Dog Backwards
Dog: Man's best friend.
God: Definitely not your friend.
Dog: Makes messes in your backyard but the rest of the world is safe.
God: Your backyard is safe but the rest of the world is a mess.
Dog: Will kill for you.
God: Will kill you.
Dog: Will hump your leg but be a comfort to your kids.
God: Through the priest, will be a comfort to you but will hump your kids.
Dog: Is a protector.
God: Needs protection.
Dog: Will pee on your carpet but your life is fine.
God: Your carpet is fine but will pee on your life.
Dog: Will be a real comfort to you.
God: Is comfortable reeling you in, through the priest.
Dog: Will sniff people's crotches or butts.
God: Will require you to lick his.
Dog: Is punished for what he/she did wrong.
God: Punishes us for what Adam and Eve did wrong.
Dog: Has lots of puppies that live normal lives.
God: Kills his only son.
Dog: Has wants and needs that are obvious.
God: Has conflicting and obscure wants and needs.
Dog: Exists in many breeds each with only one face.
God: Only one, with many faces (religions).
Dog: Is responsible only for his/her own wrongs.
God: Is responsible for creating evil (Satan & in man).
Dog: Will love you.
God: (natural disasters, Inquisition, Holocaust, World Trade Center)
> Dog: Real.
> God: Not.
Phew! Thank goodness for that. For both of that.
This is coming from a person who owes a lot in his life to a handful of dogs, and whom many people tried to convince that he owes everything to some "god".
What is this strange fascination of comparing a dog to God. They are clearly not the same thing at all.
Of course not, one it's imaginary the other one it's real.
"What is this strange fascination of comparing a dog to God. They are clearly not the same thing at all."
The original version I made was designed to imply a mirror-like aspect with the Dog column having opposing remarks in the God column. But I was unable to recreate that in the thread.
If you mean in general, that would be due to the one being the reverse spelling of the other in English.
A product of mankind's fear of death and need for a way to all be wrong together when they cannot find the answers to everything.
Mankind selfishly believes that it is too good to die with the rest of "God's creations" and blame his transgressions on his "creator's" choice to make mankind imperfect because of the free will he gave them. Through prayer and penance (of some kind) "God" will forgive your soul (another selfish man-made trinket) and accept you into the most perfectly happy place a human being could imagine (or is not capable of imagining cuz it's so much more happier than we're capable of imagining as mere human beings..lol) and spend the rest of eternity there with no fear of suddenly ceasing to exist.
Mankind, unlike any other species on this planet, has a special attribute explicitly exclusive to our species. Ignorance. Yes, beloved ignorance. Man through his beloved ignorance has chosen to rebel against science since most of it is beyond our understanding and has chosen to understand the world by basically "making shit up", therefore, we have "God".
That's my definition of "God" in a nutshell.
1. The only being in existence that need no cause to exist.
2. The being in which all evidence points back to.
3. The bearer of transcendent truth.
4. The only truly transcendent being.
How does anything come into existence without a cause?
What is 'transcendent truth'?
Why would there be one, and only one, transcendent being?
a. that which is caused into existence
b. that which exist without cause.
c. that which causes itself into existence.
<c> that which causes itself to exist can't be true because that which is the cause has already to exist before.
<a> that which is caused into existence by an external entity.
<c> that which need no cause to exist; the first cause, is by definition necessary.
That which exist without a cause, eternally exists.
Multiplicity of Gods?
When people use the proposition, all religions are the same, what they are basically stating is that all religions are somehow true. But truth by definition is exclusive. It excludes the false proposition. But exclusivity is apart of all religions. Even the 'inclusives' exclude the 'exclusives'.
Jesus said, I am the truth....no man comes until the Father except through me." That is an exclusive claim on the truth. It excludes everything else. So is Atheism which excludes...
Maurice Whitehurst said (in part) "When people use the proposition, all religions are the same, what they are basically stating is that all religions are somehow true."
This is inaccurate. That is one possibility. The other is that all religions are false. The statement "all religions are the same" is also valid if all of them are false which is my conclusion since I see no evidence for a benevolent god. And I know of no religion that accepts the premise that god is malevolent - such a religion is the only one that might possibly be true from my observations.