a reply to: Pachomius
Now, honest intelligent productive thinking on the said issue must start with working together to concur on the concept of God. What do you dear
colleagues here say?
I don't think that it is possible for us to come up with a working definition of God.
The word itself, in the singular, implies monotheism.
The trouble with monotheism is it only leaves a very few options: Yes, No, I don't know.
Then the matter that one character is required to be a do all sort of being:
1) He must be the creator of all that exists, visible and invisible.
2) He must be still alive, even though matter, energy, anti-matter, and all that stuff may have come to be through the extreme self sacrifice of
3) He must be so obsessed with my individual personhood, down to whether I can resist drugs or alcohol, ... well you get the picture.
Well that is interesting. Another option besides the three already listed would be a sort of pantheism, by which the exploded God lives in the motions
and interactions of the particles, that would include all creatures great and small, even us.
4) He must have some means or mechanism for my personal, eternal, self aware continued existence even though He may have died for any life to be. In
which case, insisting on personal immortality would be the epitome of non Godliness.
As a semi-literate heathen my working definition is:
Those that existed long before I did.
They will exist long after me.
Without them I could not live even briefly.
They are many and they work and interact together.
edit on 25-6-2020 by pthena because: (no reason given)
edit on 25-6-2020 by pthena because: added some stuff