• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Design a God Experiment

My Hypothesis Is:

  • That God Does Exist

    Votes: 7 38.9%
  • That God Does Not Exist

    Votes: 2 11.1%
  • That God Cannot Be Proven or Disproven

    Votes: 4 22.2%
  • (I'm not sure what experiment would even prove this)

    Votes: 5 27.8%

  • Total voters
    18

Samantha Rinne

Resident Genderfluid Writer/Artist
The fundamental issue is the hypothesis. None of your options are complete hypotheses, they need more details describing the proposed nature and characteristics of the god being discussed since it is the effects of those characteristics which would be tested.

This has happened with some specifically defined characteristics of various proposed gods. Some people have proposed a god created the universe 6000 years ago, a hypothesis which can be assessed and investigated. In the past, people proposed gods (or similar supernatural beings) were responsible for things like lightning, the motion of the sun or disease and those things have since been studied and had alternative causes discovered.

One of the major issues with a scientific study of gods is that the proponents often refuse accept a fixed definition in scientific terms to be pinned down. When a logical challenge is presented to an establish definition, it is often dismissed with "magical thinking", asserting that a god is not subject the physical laws or shifting to an abstract definitions like the "God is love" we've seen here.

Personally, I'm not convinced the hypothesis has to be that in depth. You could probably amend the basic assertion to "God exists, as proven by divine events (what people call coincidences, miracles, and unexplained events)."

The real problem of this is establishing how to create a control, and ummm how to get divine events to happen on command (good luck with that!)

Probably your experiment could involve some means of drawing coincidences, but you'd probably have immediate problems as the control group that was supposed to not have anything weird happen probably would have a few people get weird stuff hapoen, and the other group might have limited sucess at getting these "divine events". In other words, the experiment would fall apart because the control and the experimental group would keep switching.
 

osgart

Nothing my eye, Something for sure
The only way I see God existing is if this is a fallen, inadequate existence, and people are in need of repentance or transformation.

The existence of virtues; I can list about 100 words of good character, might indicate that a Supreme being exists.

Prove that an unconditioned reality that is independent, self sufficient for its own existence does exist and is necessary and not contingent in any way.

God is perpetual, brilliant and eternal. Our universe is finite, temporal, and a void of darkness.

Prove that everyone always gets what they deserve, and that the perfect will of virtues is being done on Earth.

Then God exists.
 

Left Coast

This Is Water
Staff member
Premium Member
Ummmm, pretty sure yeah. In order to convince a scientist (a real scientist, guys) they would insist upon a laboratory setting. You would be unable to do this sort of thing in a lab because it's too weird.

Scientists believe things they haven't personally studied in a lab. Yes, obviously there is a formal scientific process if we're talking about an academic study, but all beliefs don't have to go through that process to be reasonable. Depends on the belief. So let's see.

I met a girl in about 2011, when I was working for her parents doing yardwork. Well, that's not correct. I mysteriously failed at yardwork, because the machine burnt out, and they kinda blamed me (even though in the background I saw the husband revving the hell out of the weedwhacker). So I apologized, and even though I was still fired (they were convinced I wasn't up for managing the place while they were gone), I expressed interest in meeting this daughter of theirs, so after apologizing, they gave me her number. So I call this number, and it doesn't work. It's weird though, it doesn't work to call her. I try texting her, and it works. She gives me a number to call, I call her there. But she calls me back on the original number! In any case, I attend the party, and then after meeting her, because she's leaving town, I keep in touch mostly by text. Weeks later, I injure my head (and you have permission to mark every event parst this as due to brain damage, but I did take notes) while adjusting a hammock and it snaps apart and whacks me. I can't seem to stop bleeding and my folks aren't able to be reached, so I texted her. She was a help in need so I start texting her alot more. Despite supposedly having a job in home nursing, she seems to be available not only at any time but at the weirdest times (like I talk to her at 4am, and this is cool with her). Eventually, at the middle of a vacation, that she seens strangely ignorant of her own job, that she is super-available for me, and that she lives sketchily close to the capital convinces me that she's probably a spy (oh yeah, that and her phone doing the screwy one-way calling). I tell her this, and suddenly the girl who seemed available all the time won't contact me at all. I text her back and basically say "whatever, it's okay" and apologize. She says she's not but that I'm welcome to believe that if I want. So I go and test this theory. By making manual copies of most of the previous and current text messages. This is after, of course, concluding that everyone is out to get me since my client at gardening work suddenly seems to be saying alot of sketchy trigger phrases, and I freak out and leave home for awhile. This is after of course, despite running off and tossing my original phone, my parents not only find me an apartment but get me a new phone. This is after during the trip by car, discovering when waking in a rest stop during a blizzard as it freezes to a temperature that the in side of the car mists that someone apparently used the inside of the car to smear the words "Call." I move to a nearby town, I stay in touch with this girl, testing whether she in fact is a spy and writing down everything to later analyze. I get about two jobs in this town, meeting another girl. Same mannerisms, similar inability to call her directly, same intense eyes. I meet a few other girls in the next few years, but I'm struck with how it feels like I'm meeting the same girl in different guises with just the slightest amount of their backstory changed. Anyway, stuff happens and by this point, I'm writing down everything everyone texts me, and kinda neurotic. At one point, after being turned down by the second girl, I arrange a date with the first one for coffee. Apparently, the coffee place is barricaded foe some strange Saturday festival, and a bunch of people in town are in on this prank. By the time I find a parking space, and walk towards the place (which turns out to have closed by this point), she changes her mind and we're about to cancel, but somehow it switches to her meeting me for dinner at a Chinese restaurant. I start thinking about the logistics of blocking off this place, and having a small crowd of people involved in a strange parade. At church (which I've started going because increasingly, my life is stressful and even this theory is starting not to make sense because of things like spatial problems of someone being in multiple locations or being very different body types, many many people involved, and I'm starting to conclude that the idea that this girl being a disguise artist/spy actually makes less sense than some sort of supernatural being able to do this, like a fox spirit) they talk about during the sermon about how many people in searching the truth of things go down false paths and become insane. I gradually taper off the recording every little smidgeon, and just start writing down coincidences. These too begin to stack up, and I eventually realize that something religious (such as having met Jesus) makes far more sense than an omnipresent spy who arranges large festivals simply to troll me. While it certainly is possible that this is the work of a demon or fox spirit or whatever besides God, one thing I could be sure of from these copious notes is that the more I looked at this an analysed it, the less things made sense under a strictly secular assumption that she was some kind of agent. No, the weirder notion actually squared better with things like meeting her in one place, and meeting other people in places quite far away. Even if I were to triangulate their position as someone living nearby (the only way this would work), they would somehow have to not only quickly change but instantly do so, and make it to a location ahead of me, while being extremes from the direction I traveled. Maybe I could buy some super-secret road getting them there hours early, but this also includes changing while driving. Even with a team, some of this stuff was strange. And then there was an anime club where I watched a hollow Titan (Attack on Titan), and three days later the priest talks about the object of our fear seeming big and scary but that God will teach us that it's actually hollow. Stuff like this, and if I checked over my notes, I could go on and on.

Thanks for sharing. I didn't read anything that seemed miraculous or warranting a belief that any of these girls are "spirits" though. These are basically coincidences, or other events that you seem to be reading quite a bit into. If you know on some level that your reasoning wouldn't convince an outside person looking in on the situation, it's a pretty good indication that your analysis is biased, and therefore shouldn't convince you, either.
 

HonestJoe

Well-Known Member
Personally, I'm not convinced the hypothesis has to be that in depth. You could probably amend the basic assertion to "God exists, as proven by divine events (what people call coincidences, miracles, and unexplained events)."
"Wizards exist as proven my magical events (what people call coincidences, miracles, and unexplained events)".

A hypothesis needs to be specific in relation to what it is hypothesising. A hypothesis for the existence of a specific God would need to define that God in an identifiable and testable manner.

The real problem of this is establishing how to create a control, and ummm how to get divine events to happen on command (good luck with that!)
Again, that's why you have to define them. The proof of how lightning happens wasn't only established by waiting for a storm and observing it, causes were hypothesised and elements of them simulated and tested in controlled environments. Establishing how the component parts of a complex hypothesis makes it easier (or even possible) to assess the hypothesis as a whole.
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
God is seen as a personage. The Bible, when it's not waxing poetic, speaks of god as an actual, conscious entity, and this is how your average Joe thinks of him.

It's a personification of the spirit with which (rather than whom) brings our our body and mind alive. Jews don't even describe it. I can't remember if they see god as a person or not.

The bible doesn't explain the nature of the entity apart from its characteristics. I assume writers of the bible aren't like people today. Christians don't see/hear an actual entity but at least they know insofar that it isn't a casper in the sky doing things. (JW, I'm not quite sure. They make it more literal than most christians I speak with).

The Church sees god as a mystery. Without the bible, the experience of god is something that can't be explained. In protestant terms, without the bible, their "experiences" can't be trusted. They need to test the spirit true. Which means, their experiences (or the spirit of god) has no name, person, or thing but a wholeness or "being awake". Born again. The bible helps describe their experience per culture but that doesn't define their experience. It's still a "feeling" but, like people years ago, in order to understand that feeling, people need tangible things to interpret what they experience and feel. They need a legend to their view of life after they have experienced something so grand and life changing, no other earthly thing can provide.

When you make something like that a person, it can have a relationship with you. People did this back then writing the bible-personifying Mystery to make sense of the world-and we still do it today.

When I think entity and being, I think casper friendly ghost. I haven't heard god defined that way. When I practice in the Church, apart from christ, god was a total mystery.
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
In Abrahamic religion's god is often something you worship, but in many other religions it's more something you propitiate; an entity with the power to harm you if you annoy it.

What is an entity that can do that? All christians I've met (instead of most or some) don't define an entity as someone that is actually present. It always have some sort of mystic thing involved. One can experience god through prayer, meditation, and devotion. It's usually not when you're eating cereal or talking to your boyfriend.

I looked up propitiate (not familiar with the term). It says win the favor of something that pleases them. That sounds like worship and, by definition, god is a thing, idea, person (so have you) that is worthy of one's worship and devotion. How/when/why depends on the culture.
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
Some theologins may conceive of him in the abstract, but the common people don't, and the Bible doesn't.

I think Jews also see it as abstract (referring to the Torah), if I'm not mistaken. Christians can't describe it without jesus. Most abrahamics can't describe god itself. Just the authors perception (and mythological outlook) if what he does and says.

I'd agree with theologians and some other abrahamics who don't try to define god. Christians from what I gather are the only ones I am familiar with that tries to put a literal name (action, and speech) to a face. If god is greater than all people and can only be experienced by those who "have faith", it's not a person. If someone came to you out of the blue, you wouldn't need faith to recognize he is there as a person. However, if you want to experience the holy spirit, be born again, and experience love of christ, this "presence of god" works differently. We can only describe it by action because of what we feel it does to us (we-general sense of the term rather than myself included); that's what we're most familiar with. But not a lot of people try to humanize god. Sounds more like a christian thing (maybe pagan/greek?) to tell you honestly.
 

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
In response to this comment.

Theology is Falsifiable, thus, - Scientific.

So this handy 5th grade or so tutorial tells you how science experiments work.

https://explorable.com/conduct-science-experiments

1. You need to do testing (preferably repeated, by several other scientists after yourself)
2. You need to use the scientific method.
3. You need a hypothesis, either that God exists/does not exist/cannot be proved either way.
4. You need to set up an experiment which will entail trying to "observe" something that is not readily observed.
5. You need a control and something different from the control to be experimented on.
6. Then you need to get results and form a conclusion.

So how would you go about this? What would your experiment be like, what would your controls be, etc?

I'm asking, because while I can generally prove to myself to sufficient degree, I'm not actually sure the falsifiability thing the poster in the other thread is as easy as they think. Would this be a biological experiment? A psychological one? A psychics or astronomy experiment? Or something else?

Or like me, would you conclude that you can't even think of any experiment?

#3 above. Read the Bible and choose a hypothesis, for example, "Tithe and your basic needs will always be met"
#5 above. Atheists
#6 above. God takes care of finances for decades, with no logical reason--to get more money, I give away more money, this is inexplicable via mere math or the study of finances

DONE.
 

McBell

mantra-chanting henotheistic snake handler
#3 above. Read the Bible and choose a hypothesis, for example, "Tithe and your basic needs will always be met"
#5 above. Atheists
#6 above. God takes care of finances for decades, with no logical reason--to get more money, I give away more money, this is inexplicable via mere math or the study of finances

DONE.
not even close.
 

izzy88

Active Member
Again, the word "God" means much more than just a cause you're devoted to or would die for. Causes aren't people.

It's exactly as Unveiled Artist said: the term 'god' simply means 'that which is worshipped'. It is not a proper noun, it's a common noun; it describes a class of things, not one individual thing.

Your god is whatever you worship, whatever you hold on the highest regard. Different people have different 'gods' because they have different ideals. Again, when you see the term 'god', simply replace it in your mind with 'that which is worshipped' and you will have a much easier time understanding religious conversations.You even did it once yourself, here...

Virtually all theists conceive of their God as a conscious being, a person.

"Their god" literally just means "what they worship."

This is a semantic issue, but it's really important that you get on the right page with it if you're going to have coherent and productive conversations about religion.

You've been adding on all kinds of characteristics of individual, specific gods and claiming that these characteristics are necessarily implied in the very term 'god', and that's both wrong and problematic. It's like if you have a vehicle that's a blue pickup truck, and so you try to claim that all vehicles must be blue and be pickup trucks, and anything that isn't a blue pickup truck isn't a vehicle. Then somebody drives up in a red sedan and tells you that their car is a vehicle, too, and you tell them it isn't because it's not a blue pickup truck. You're confusing/equating an individual instantiation with the general principal. Is your blue truck a vehicle? Yes, but it is not the definition of 'vehicle'.

Is this personal, supernatural being you've referred to a god (meaning something that certain people worship)? Yes, but it is not the definition of 'god'.


The god described in the Bible - according to the tradition of the Church which Jesus Christ started, which has an unbroken line of succession back to Christ himself, which is responsible for canonizing the books in the Bible - that god is existence itself. It is not A being, it IS being. It's like a force that is holding all of existence in existence at every moment.

The stories in scripture contain heavily poetic, allegorical, metaphorical language. They do so because this is the only way we can possibly discuss this "thing" in a coherent way. This "thing" was given the name YHWH, which means in Hebrew "I am who am", because this is what Moses was told by the spirit in the burning bush. YHWH was sending Moses on a mission, and Moses asked the spirit who he should say sent him, what his name was, and the spirit replied "I am who am", hence the name YHWH. Understand, this is a story meant to convey theological truth, it is not necessarily historically literalistic.

Also interesting to note is that YHWH was intended not to be spoken, because the ancient Jews didn't want people confusing the name itself with what the name is pointing to. It's like the ancient Eastern saying: do not confuse the finger pointing at the Moon with the Moon itself. What is being described in the Bible is actually indescribable; scripture is just our best attempt to make the incomprehensible somewhat comprehensible, but so many people have come to confuse the finger pointing at the Moon with the Moon itself, and they've taken all the poetic, allegorical, metaphorical language literally, which has lead to lots of confusion and misunderstanding.
 

GoodbyeDave

Well-Known Member
Firstly, science doesn't necessarily involve experiments. Some things are based on deduction, like the Big Bang theory. What experiment would be relevant to that?

Secondly, science is not the only form of knowledge. If I make a statement about the policies of Henry VIII, what branch of science could test it?

Thirdly, you can only experiment on things you can control. That would hardly include a god.
 

Tambourine

Well-Known Member
If you are trying to prove something to yourself that you already believe anyway, then what is the utility of a scientific inquiry?

I'm also having problems with the setup. How do you define a God, and what explanatory power does it have with regards of the phenomena you want to explain with your God hypothesis? The utility of scientific hypotheses, I would argue, lies in their power to explain existing empirical phenomena, and their ability to be further verified or falsified to some extent. But that is what I feel lacking in this current setup.
 

Nakosis

Non-Binary Physicalist
Premium Member
1. God does exist
2. God is love (1 John 4:7-21)
3. Love exists
4. God does exist.

1. God does exist
2. God is an experience
3. 1 John 4:16 and Psalm 16:11 (Experience of love and fullness and joy)
4. Love, fullness, and joy exists
5. God exists

God is not a deity like Zues. He's always spoken of an experience. He is anthropomorphize "spirit of life" in which one who "submits" (I guess) to service and love etc, one gains the fullness, joy, and love which people define as god.

Scientifically, it's psychological, physiological, context, etc. It's not beakers and math or anything like that. Books, practices, idols, etc help one understand the nature of god(s) but to put god under a microscope is defeating the purpose in what most spirit-ual faiths propose of its followers.

You can translate god as energy, if one likes. We are all brought alive from birth 'till death in a form of energy. We feed off of it and the whole nineyards. Our experiences with god is how we interpret that energy (however we call it). Also, personal events, synchronicity, mystical feelings, visions, and dreams etc confirm "god/experiences" and as such, one has a personal relationship with it (for an interesting way to say it).

The only way I can think otherwise is if believers of all spirit-ual religions explain their personal experiences with god. If god is unique and exist, like fingerprints, the experiences must have some distinctness from one person and another. Since we are all human, god is the eye of the beholder. I'm not sure why people don't like explaining mystical experiences. They're not less important if its explained.

Anyway. I think god is looked at in the wrong way by people who want to prove god by science. If believers can explain god from 1. their own personal experiences 2. in their words, maybe there should be some uniqueness that shows one god over another. So far, I haven't seen it. Maybe I'm too human, I don't know.

It depends on how you define God and the attributes you give to God.

For example I could choose to see a rock as God. Whose attribute is that God is cable of protecting me from bad people if I throw God at them. I could also say my rock is all-knowing but has no mouth so is incapable of answering questions.

I might be able to prove the first part but wouldn't be able to prove the second.
 

Left Coast

This Is Water
Staff member
Premium Member
It's exactly as Unveiled Artist said: the term 'god' simply means 'that which is worshipped'. It is not a proper noun, it's a common noun; it describes a class of things, not one individual thing.

How do I "worship" a thing that isn't a person?

Your god is whatever you worship, whatever you hold on the highest regard. Different people have different 'gods' because they have different ideals. Again, when you see the term 'god', simply replace it in your mind with 'that which is worshipped' and you will have a much easier time understanding religious conversations.You even did it once yourself, here...

"Their god" literally just means "what they worship."

This is a semantic issue, but it's really important that you get on the right page with it if you're going to have coherent and productive conversations about religion.

Thank you for the advice. If I may give some back, if we want to have productive conversations then we should really stop redefining terms. "God," although the beliefs about her are certainly diverse, has a particular meaning to the vast majority of English-speaking theists. We can speak metaphorically about other things as "gods," but if we want conversations to be productive, we really need to avoid sneaking in religious terms and equivocating about them as though they're equivalent to non-religious ones. God doesn't just mean "love," or just mean, "joy," to virtually any English speaker who says they believe in God, including the people who quote 1 John (maybe especially those people). So if we want the conversation to be productive, let's be clear about what "God" actually is that theists think is out there.

You've been adding on all kinds of characteristics of individual, specific gods and claiming that these characteristics are necessarily implied in the very term 'god', and that's both wrong and problematic.

I would argue the characteristics I've "added" are incredibly common and widespread in theistic English-speaking circles.

It's like if you have a vehicle that's a blue pickup truck, and so you try to claim that all vehicles must be blue and be pickup trucks, and anything that isn't a blue pickup truck isn't a vehicle. Then somebody drives up in a red sedan and tells you that their car is a vehicle, too, and you tell them it isn't because it's not a blue pickup truck. You're confusing/equating an individual instantiation with the general principal. Is your blue truck a vehicle? Yes, but it is not the definition of 'vehicle'.

No. It's more like someone coming up to you and saying their cat is a vehicle because it..."gets carried away." And you're standing there going...huh? o_O

The god described in the Bible - according to the tradition of the Church which Jesus Christ started, which has an unbroken line of succession back to Christ himself, which is responsible for canonizing the books in the Bible - that god is existence itself. It is not A being, it IS being. It's like a force that is holding all of existence in existence at every moment.

Yes, I have some passing familiarity with the concept.

But this force is conceived of as conscious and personal. Surely you don't think the Christian God is accurately described as merely a "force" like gravity or electromagnetism?

The stories in scripture contain heavily poetic, allegorical, metaphorical language. They do so because this is the only way we can possibly discuss this "thing" in a coherent way. This "thing" was given the name YHWH, which means in Hebrew "I am who am", because this is what Moses was told by the spirit in the burning bush. YHWH was sending Moses on a mission, and Moses asked the spirit who he should say sent him, what his name was, and the spirit replied "I am who am", hence the name YHWH. Understand, this is a story meant to convey theological truth, it is not necessarily historically literalistic.

Also interesting to note is that YHWH was intended not to be spoken, because the ancient Jews didn't want people confusing the name itself with what the name is pointing to. It's like the ancient Eastern saying: do not confuse the finger pointing at the Moon with the Moon itself. What is being described in the Bible is actually indescribable; scripture is just our best attempt to make the incomprehensible somewhat comprehensible, but so many people have come to confuse the finger pointing at the Moon with the Moon itself, and they've taken all the poetic, allegorical, metaphorical language literally, which has lead to lots of confusion and misunderstanding.

I can understand using poetic or metaphorical language to describe something that's difficult to conceive or explain. But the bottom line is, this Being, this "thing," is understood as conscious and personal.
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
It depends on how you define God and the attributes you give to God.

For example I could choose to see a rock as God. Whose attribute is that God is cable of protecting me from bad people if I throw God at them. I could also say my rock is all-knowing but has no mouth so is incapable of answering questions.

I might be able to prove the first part but wouldn't be able to prove the second.

The god christians define is love, grace, etc. It's a personified feeling of fulfillment and awareness in order to interact with it. Since it has no name, the only way to make it personal is to, well, name it. Describe it based on their understanding and feelings they have associated with it.

Same as love. Each person defines love (the human type) differently and have different criteria for the definition of it. We don't personify it as in religions, but the context is there nonetheless.

It does depend on the definition, but from what I've experienced and observed, it's more about how god makes them feel. I've asked if god is an entity like casper. A ghost. They say no as if I was ridiculous. Maybe we're still living back in B.C. where we need to use B.C. words to describe a current experience. We don't even know what they felt back them but I'm sure it wasn't actual ghost. That would be very interesting unless we became blind to ghost after awhile.

Who knows.
 

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
I think Jews also see it as abstract (referring to the Torah), if I'm not mistaken. Christians can't describe it without jesus. Most abrahamics can't describe god itself. Just the authors perception (and mythological outlook) if what he does and says.
The OT posits an even more personified god than the new. It clearly depicts him as a powerful, judgemental person.
 

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
What is an entity that can do that? All christians I've met (instead of most or some) don't define an entity as someone that is actually present. It always have some sort of mystic thing involved. One can experience god through prayer, meditation, and devotion. It's usually not when you're eating cereal or talking to your boyfriend.

I looked up propitiate (not familiar with the term). It says win the favor of something that pleases them. That sounds like worship and, by definition, god is a thing, idea, person (so have you) that is worthy of one's worship and devotion. How/when/why depends on the culture.
Gods are scary and powerful, and aren't necessarily particularly interested in human affairs, but they can harm you if you annoy them, so it's best not to; and to flatter them.
Big Gods Came After the Rise of Civilizations, Not Before, Finds Study Using Huge Historical Database - The Conversation - Pocket
 

izzy88

Active Member
But the bottom line is, this Being, this "thing," is understood as conscious and personal.

Yes, THIS Being, THIS "thing", meaning what's being described in scripture, is conscious and personal.

But those are characteristics of *that specific god* - they are not contained in the definition of the term 'god'.

I'm not changing the definition of the word; it's you who's doing so. You're trying to change the definition based on your own experience of its use; but that's not how words work.

When you refer to someone's god, you're simply referring to whatever it is that they worship. Nothing else is implicit except that it is what they worship, no other characteristics are necessarily implied by the term 'god'.

Many people worship money, many others worship pleasure, and many others worship power. These are their highest ideals, their gods, and they are not conscious or personal.
 

Left Coast

This Is Water
Staff member
Premium Member
Yes, THIS Being, THIS "thing", meaning what's being described in scripture, is conscious and personal.

But those are characteristics of *that specific god* - they are not contained in the definition of the term 'god'.

I'm not changing the definition of the word; it's you who's doing so. You're trying to change the definition based on your own experience of its use; but that's not how words work.

Lol, yes, that's literally how words work. We define them based on how they are used by the people who speak the language. The vast, vast majority of English speakers conceive of God as a person. It's the rule, not the exception.

When you refer to someone's god, you're simply referring to whatever it is that they worship. Nothing else is implicit except that it is what they worship, no other characteristics are necessarily implied by the term 'god'.

Many people worship money, many others worship pleasure, and many others worship power. These are their highest ideals, their gods, and they are not conscious or personal.

Again I ask, how do you "worship" a non-person?
 

izzy88

Active Member
Lol, yes, that's literally how words work. We define them based on how they are used by the people who speak the language. The vast, vast majority of English speakers conceive of God as a person. It's the rule, not the exception.

You continue to equivocate terms. 'God' with a capital 'G' is a proper name for a distinct, individual concept. What you're doing is equating the name 'God' with the term 'god'. God is a god, but there are many other things that are also gods.

Again, this is semantics, and you may think it's an arbitrary distinction, but it's not. You are using a proper noun and a common noun interchangeably; that's clearly not going to lead to a coherent discussion.

Again I ask, how do you "worship" a non-person?

I don't understand why you think this is an issue, and I can only assume that you must not know what the term "worship" actually means, so here:

wor•ship wûr′shĭp


  • n.
    The reverent love and devotion accorded a deity, an idol, or a sacred object
 
Top