[Aekos]

who most Abrahamic-inclined people here worship is false. Think about it...a supernatural force that answers to/listens to what you have to say, cares about what happens on Earth, etc. God is much greater than that. At the beginning, everything was God, and God was everything. Then we (and the rest of the material world) had a break from God, and that's why we're here. The god of Abraham is a mere illusion meant to deceive and lead us astray from the path to reuniting with God. Even if he (Abraham's god) does exist as an entity it's by accident and he's certainly not the highest force because everything ascribed to him is so below God. His main purpose is to keep us from achieving enlightenment.

[Dr House]

The god...

Is dead.

[Wolfman]

Bertrand Russell is dead.
God has the last laugh.

[Nattering Nabob]

I'm curious to know then, Aekos, which god you think is not false...

Tell us about the true god...

[Aekos]

The true God is not describable. He's always been there and always will. The god of Abrahamic religion was created, accidentally.

[QatzelOk]

God is nature.

The God texts were all attempts to understand the basics of living within our natural limitations.

But these attempts ultimately failed because the texts became reified into SuperTexts that could kill entire continents. Nature as often killed as a result of a misunderstanding of the ancient texts. The harm these texts became greater than the good.

Please, throw Abrahamic god down a well.

[ninurta]

Satan defeated Jehovah, everyone get out your wine glasses, time to celebrate!!!!

On a more serious note, everyone believes in something different. That is just how it is and will always be, history has proven that. Even with scientific facts, some just choose not to believe in them. Its just the way it is. As for god, that is worse, as more people will disagree on the topic of god than there will be people who can agree. Though I don't like the man's past, there is a man who has said something I really agree with, Dalai Lama, "not everyone can be buddhist, we can't all believe the same things", and he was right.

[Potemkin]

who most Abrahamic-inclined people here worship is false. Think about it...a supernatural force that answers to/listens to what you have to say, cares about what happens on Earth, etc. God is much greater than that. At the beginning, everything was God, and God was everything. Then we (and the rest of the material world) had a break from God, and that's why we're here. The god of Abraham is a mere illusion meant to deceive and lead us astray from the path to reuniting with God. Even if he (Abraham's god) does exist as an entity it's by accident and he's certainly not the highest force because everything ascribed to him is so below God. His main purpose is to keep us from achieving enlightenment.

Don't tell me, you've become a Gnostic?

[Jackal]

The supreme being referred to as "God" is indeed real (along with souls and the afterlife) yet the God created by the Abrahamic religions, or any religion for that matter, is false and only used to control others. The Supreme Architect of the universe, life, and the afterlife does not directly interfere with our daily lives. He lets nature take its course.

[Aekos]

Don't tell me, you've become a Gnostic?

Yes. You haven't been enlightened?

[Suska]

God is word gasped in awe or it means nothing at all

[Oxymoron]

Aekos is much wise.

[Potemkin]

Yes. You haven't been enlightened?

Christianity = bullshit; Gnosticism = bullshit ^2

God is word gasped in awe or it means nothing at all

It means nothing at all.

[ninurta]

It means nothing at all.

You mean there are words people use everyday with absolutely no meaning?

[Potemkin]

Indeed there are. An example would be the use of the word 'talented' to refer to Britney Spears.

Seriously though, there are plenty of signifiers which have no corresponding signified. The signifier 'unicorn', for example, has no existing signified. The signifier 'God' also has no existing signified.

[Suska]

'

God' also has no existing signified.

The discussion of what the term God means would probably be more productive if everyone who thought they knew what it meant would suddenly inexplicably decide to think about it with an open mind. I admit thats highly unlikely, but is not being a wiseass too much to ask?

If you think of the matter of what God is with a materialistic mind its only natural you doubt such a thing exists, but its an inappropriate way to go about it. If a person says the word "God" in a moment of turmoil or passion, like a gasp of awe, with no intention of codifying the matter into a metaphysics, intending no socio-religious or ritual implication, they have said it meaningfully. As soon as they reflect, "where does such feelings come from?" its not weird for them to say 'God', meaning only that feeling or "Whatever it is that moves me is amazing". What would be weird is for someone to tell them then either, "That feeling you had that moved you so does not exist" or "That feeling you had is a big person somewhere else that is watching you." Whats certain is only that feeling and the noise that escaped as a result.

[Potemkin]

Whats certain is only that feeling and the noise that escaped as a result.

Indeed. In technical terms, the word 'God' is then a phatic utterance. What it 'signifies' is the presence of a certain emotion in the mind of the speaker at a certain moment, and nothing else. It still does not (necessarily) have a corresponding signified.

[Suska]

the word 'God' is then a phatic utterance

The dictionary suggests a phatic utterance is a form of speech with a motive of sharing a feeling. My understanding is that its more or less involuntary and since its not intended it cannot be intended for anything. But I do like the term phatic. I wonder if there's some other technical term that fits my explanation better. The corresponding signified in this case would be the feeling that inspired the utterance. It is in attempting to explore the implications, for instance conscience that we derive ideas like morality and heaven.

[Potemkin]

The corresponding signified in this case would be the feeling that inspired the utterance. It is in attempting to explore the implications, for instance conscience that we derive ideas like morality and heaven.

Indeed, but this would belong to psychology rather than theology.

[galactus]

The true God is not describable. He's always been there and always will.

Out of philosophical curiosity, is there an interpretation of these sentences that do not make them contradicting? The second sentence seems to be a description.