Well played, Sir or Ma'am! The best answer I've seen!
I just heard a fascinating line on TV, so good I wish I'd written it myself, and I think it could well belong on this thread:
"That which we're not, we're taught to fear --"
I have yet to hear a theist define what “GOD” means to them. Their definition always ends up being so full of contradictions as to be rendered meaningless. If you ask a Theist to describe their god to you they have to stop to think about it as most only have some vague notion of a “spirit in the sky”. Then they will use words like omnipotent or omniscient which leaves the door wide open to introduce topics like the Problem of Evil or the Hiddenness of God.
Of course the chances of getting a Theist to understand the self-contradictory nature of their definition of god are slim as they will trump any logic used by playing the faith card and announcing that they have a personal relationship with god and his only son Jesus who died for my sins too so that labels or a scientific definition are not required thank you very much. If I did not deny god in my heart I would not need to define him as his daily presence in my life would be more than enough proof – or so I was told earlier today……..lol
I feel the same way about mayonnaise - I don't need to know what's in it, as its "presence in my life" and on my sandwiches, is all the information I need!
God is a word used to describe many things. In itself it cannot be wrong (as a word) no more than unicorn can be wrong. It can be not true however this depends on its definition. If you are referring to a anthropomorphic deity then it is highly improbable and utterly impossible if you plan to attach to it the various stories the bible, quran and other scriptures attribute to him.
However, Einstein frequently mentioned god in his discourses. Never as the anthropomorphic super-being. He used the word god to define the universe, the part we can see and that which we cant, the rules that we know it operates upon but more importantly those which we do not. That definition would sound right to me. The mystery that the word god has inherent would be suited to describe everything in a scientific sense.
'God' the variable term that names a vector in cognitive(associative) space that points to a non-existant 'object'.This 'object' has many asserted characteristics, but fails to satisfy all or most existence tests.
That definition needs to be revised to cover a "theistic" deity. What needs to change is the "which" to a "who."
But you use the word "govern" which implies a "governor." A governor isn't an abstraction but an active being. I don't think a "form" can govern. If so, how?
Rick Perry is a governor, of sorts, and he has a form, of sorts - if he didn't have, that's when I'd really be concerned --
Sometimes I worry about you - but not often.
Chris Christie has a form, too. In my meanderations (meandering considerations).
He also has a suit with the word, "GOODYEAR" printed across it.
What do you mean? He'd be hovering over Atlantic City right now enforcing his mandatory evacuation, except that due to the wind, he's safely tied down in a hangar, according to CNN.