That’s right - not in the minds of typical theists and atheists. Curiously, atheists all too often take their definition of “God” from the theists, the only difference being that the atheists don’t believe the theist God exists. Actual realists would more likely take their definition of God from biology, anthropology, psychology, and history.

@skado Yes I think that is really the only place to take a definition of god from just as the definition of Dracula comes from Bram Stokers novel but they are both still fictional.

@Moravian
Stoker didn’t invent vampires, nor did any other individual. Vampires, much like gods, arose in the collective unconscious of H. sapiens, and have been a part of human folklore since before the invention of writing. That doesn’t mean they were about nothing. Mythology is symbolic. It symbolizes real issues that humans grapple with.

Just like I would never allow a believer in vampires to provide my understanding of vampires, I would never depend on a religious literalist for my understanding of gods. Human psychology is much more complex than that.

@skado Vampires originated in Eastern Europe but probably evolved from some earlier mythalogical creature.
I was first exposed to vampires when I watched an x rated movie (minimum age 16) at the age of 14 in the local fleapit but even then I was quite aware that it was pure mythology and vampires did not exist.
I was first exposed to the god/jesus myth at the age of 5 when I first attended sunday school and as I was conditioned to believe what adults told me I accepted it as fact.
It was only when older that I did some research i discovered that it was mythalogical too.
So I still take issue with your original statement . Gods and reality may behave in the same way in the theists world but certainly not in an atheist world.
Theists believe that praying can affect reality. Atheists do not so they are quite different unless you mean that theists prayers and incantations have absolutely no effect on reality which I believe to be the case

@Moravian
Glad to see we are in agreement!

Haha, this time YOUR reply "nailed it" and yes it means the same here in America. Though I think the statement is that God and reality "behave" the same way, meaning (I suppose) that the outcome is the same, however we don't pray to reality, so it's the user's expectations that is different. Still, I will stick to reality.

You nailed it.

@Fernapple is "nailed it" an unfortunate if not inadvertent reference to Horus?

Tell your friend yes, it does all of that, while simultaneously elevating reality, including the entirety of mundanity and all the frail conceits of humankind, to the status of the divine.

Your stuff is pretty cute too.

@waitingforgodo Sorry no. I am perhaps guilty of using a local usage on an international forum. I do not know if you know the perhaps British English expression "nailed it", which means, got it exactly correct.

@skado then I'm in compleat concordance with your enjoyment and concomitant belief.

@Fernapple sweet Jesus it was an attempted amusing digression to that other god of Horus.

Love your classical history posts.

This bears out my observation that neither camp has noticed yet.

Ask any monotheist - there's only one God. He doesn't belong to anybody. We belong to him. People will envision "Him" differently, but there remains only one reality. There aren't different realities. There are different perceptions of reality. If everyone's reality were different, science wouldn't work.

You assume incorrectly. This is Spinoza's God. This is the one Supreme Being. Whether we anthropomorphize that being or not. All of reality can be conceptualized as the one supreme being. It's not my supreme being or your supreme being but philosophy's supreme being.

ps. what on earth are points good for? would you like mine? I'd happily give them to you if I could.

@skado well, I don't accept the premise of your argument, and as far as I know philosophy has never agreed on or asserted one supreme being. Individual philosophers might assert all kinds of things.

@David1955
Thanks for letting me know.

@skado ummmm, what? Which philosphy, exactly?

@AnneWimsey
[plato.stanford.edu]

@skado But Spinosa's god includes the reaching of morallity through reason and the study of reality, you have said that you don't believe in that, therefore you can not believe in Spinosa's god.

It's not about proving anything. It's just a philosophical perspective, but one that is informed by history, science, theology, and culture. Anything that anyone attributes to God, like a volcano erupting, others might attribute to physics, but the volcano erupts just the same.

@skado, proof is critical to most people. Many will never believe until some proof is provided. The likelihood of god having anything to do with anything happening is not provable. If a volcano erupts, science can explain why. To claim god had something to do with it lacks credibility. When it comes to god and claims, proof is a must or gods involvement is not logical or provable. Once again, those who claim god had something to do with anything never have proof. The more obvious reason is often discounted or not acknowledged.

@ecowellness
Everything you have said depends for its veracity on one particular definition of “God” out of many time-honored definitions. And curiously, that one particular definition has been supplied to you by theists.

And incidentally, most people DO experience God. If you don’t, you are in the minority. Some 80% of the H.sapiens population are religious.

But when it comes to explanations of natural phenomena, the theist won’t be satisfied by the scientific explanation, just as the scientist won’t be satisfied by the theological explanation, but my post is not about explanations. It’s about the result. Both the theist and the scientist will agree that the volcano erupted. But neither will notice that the result was the same regardless of the differing explanations.

@skado, do you have any facts to support the claim most experience god and saying it depends suggests you are uncertain. Where did you get 80%? Time honored definitions are not proof. And using the word "definition" is an overstretch since there is zero proof god exists. Some have a theory god exists. What is the theological explanation of a volcano? There is a difference between a belief that has zero proof and science that often has a credible theory or substantial proof. Wishful thinking is not equal to science that usually has logic and thought behind it. Saying god exists is not a valid explanation. The volcano is real. Its existence does not hint a god exists nor that god decided it s a volcano. Scientists can explain the volcano studying it, using history and logic. Religious people have little else to explain it unless they imagine god had something to do with it. Imagination is not a valid explanation for god.

@skado "A god? - probably about 70–85% of the world's population. The answer's fuzzy, at best. The Christian God? - about 30% of the world's population."

@ecowellness

Looks like you’re looking at the same statistics I am. Somewhere in the neighborhood of 80%. Nothing that I am claiming is specific to any one religion.

For anyone to form an opinion on whether a god exists or not they have to have some idea of what the word god refers to. That’s all I mean by “definition”. We don’t have to know whether unicorns exist in order to define the word unicorn. It’s in the dictionary.

Reality.

@skado your gods name is reality? Can you prove it is real?

@xenoview
It's not really "my" God. It's my perception of God. It's my concept of God. But not mine alone. It has a tradition as old as any other. Generally referred to as Pantheism, though my particular pantheism may not be precisely identical to other pantheisms, I think it would be at home in that ballpark.

So yes, with an eye for history, anthropology, biology, and culture, it appears to me that, whether they were consciously aware of what they were doing or not, when early, or even current humans make reference to God or gods, it appears to me that they are just anthropomorphizing reality. That's not a crime. Neither is it "wrong". It's figurative speech. We all use figurative speech every day. It doesn't seem to cause problems in most other applications.

Can I prove reality is real? It's not about proving anything. Can anybody prove reality is real? That's just linguistic nonsense. The definition of reality is whatever is real. The two words are of the same root. You can't question one without questioning both.

I'm just going by the dictionary. It says God is the supreme being. Looks to me like reality is the supreme being. So I'm happy to call reality God. Or reality. Or nature. or the universe, etc.

@skado "Perception IS NOT reality. Perception is perception, those things that formed our minds, thoughts and experiences in our lives, form perceptions of others. Our unique experiences absolutely impact the perception we have of others."

@skado the Oxford dictionary says according to Christians god is the supreme being. The dictionary does not say god is the supreme being.
"God noun

1. (in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.
2. (in certain other religions) a superhuman being or spirit worshiped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity.
   "a moon god"

@skado here is Websters definition. Perhaps it changes when the dictionary is updated. "God : the supreme or ultimate reality: such as. : the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped (as in Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and Hinduism) as creator and ruler of the universe."

@skado word salad. you have no proof your god is real.

@xenoview
That’s right. Neither you nor I have proof reality is real. It is just assumed to be axiomatically true, just as belief in anything ultimately rests upon some premise that is taken to be self-evidently true.

@skado If you can't prove a god is real, then why do you worship or believe in one?

@xenoview
If you can’t prove reality is real, then why do you believe in it?

@skado We are having a back and forth about god and reality. I'm a real person, my GF is real. Are you a real person or an AI?

@xenoview
Do you believe reality is real?

@skado You have avoided answering my questions. Yes I believe reality is real. I lack evidence that any god is real.

@xenoview
Can you prove reality is real?

@skado Yes, I see reality all around me. I interact with reality. Can you prove your god is real? If not, then why do you worship it?

@xenoview
I don’t believe in any gods you don’t believe in. You understand what a metaphor is, right?

@skado You hide behind metaphors, and make claims about god you can't prove.

@xenoview
I’m not hiding anything. Do you know what a metaphor is?

I have not noticed that reality is different for different people. I have noticed that different people perceive reality differently, which is as it should be. But the reality they perceive is the same. If reality was different for different people, science wouldn't work. In fact, the whole point of science is to bypass all those individual biases and to find the objective reality behind them.

@skado an example of reality is different, is your version that god exists and mine that we don't know god exists. To imply god exists without any proof suggests you have a different view of reality. You bend the concept of reality to fit your thinking. For something to exist, it has to be understood as it exists. I consider if god exists, there has to be proof. Reality is usually something most generally agree on. We agree volcanoes exist. We have no clue god exists. To say god is a reality is incorrect without proof. To me reality is not imagination, concepts, wishful thinking, rumors, folk lore, stories, beliefs, faith or fairy tales. I've been told by many that god exists because they have faith god exists. Faith is not reality to me nor is it evidence god exists. If god exists in your mind, it is a false reality.

@skado here is the definition of reality. It does not support your concept. It uses words like: the real world, real life, actuality, materiality, existence, truth, physical existence, substantiality, substance. Based on this, it is difficult to imagine god is reality. Based on the definition, god is not reality. The opposite of reality is fantasy. Without proof, we could suggest those who believe in god may be in a fantasy world.
"re·al·i·ty
noun

1. the world or the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them.
   "he refuses to face reality"
   Similar:
   the real world
   real life
   actuality
   truth
   physical existence
   corporeality
   substantiality
   materiality
   Opposite: fantasy
2. the state or quality of having existence or substance.

@ecowellness
With all due respect… you are addressing your arguments to me, but they are not about claims I have made or ideas I believe.
You seem to be making lots of assumptions about my belief, and then flooding the post with responses to things I haven’t said.

We may have to back up and start off on a better footing. I most likely don’t believe in any god you don’t believe in. And this post isn’t about a belief or disbelief in any god.

It’s simply a musing about how neither atheists nor theists have apparently noticed that whether they believe in god or physics, the events in the universe are the same.
That is all.

And if god did behave in exactly the same way, why would anyone want one, why not just call it "reality" and be done with it.

@Fernapple skado just needs to clarify what he means by his post, hence my question. It is a little obscure.

@Ryo1 Religions thrive on obscurity, it is called the god of the gaps, and if there is no gap to hand to hide your god in, then you just use a little obscurity to create one. It is a cheap trick that would be gurus use all the time, and in some circles they get away with it.

Because whatever happens, happens. Some will call it God’s will. Some will use other words like fate or happenstance, or causal physics, but for the most part, they all agree it happened. Atheists see a bolt of lightening and call it the discharge of electrical potential in the atmosphere. Theists see the same bolt and call it an act of God. But the tree that the lightening bolt struck is acknowledged by both sides to be split in two. God and reality arrived at the same result. All else is explanatory afterthought.
We could remark that God did it or the laws of physics did it or the Flying Spaghetti Monster did it, but we all agree it was done.
I assume a few individuals on all sides have noticed this. You might be one. But in the general culture, neither atheists nor theists, as a demographic have assimilated that awareness and its implications. The resistance to the idea in this post is prima facie evidence of that.

@skado Whatever happens happens, and that is a fact/reality. Now I see what you mean. I still think that there is a difference between saying 'It happened because God made it happen.' and saying 'It happened because... scientific explanation.' The former does not further our understanding while the latter does.

@Ryo1
You're not wrong. There is a difference. But that difference is only as important as we choose to make it. People are free to further their understanding or not. But I can try to help keep interpersonal misunderstandings to a minimum if I can find a scientific corollary to their traditional metaphors. It appears to me, those metaphors aren't "wrong", just outdated. Reality does exist. But the word, God, has become a part of our common culture. Like describing engine strength in "horse power". No need to get in a fight with somebody about whether there are any actual horses under the hood. We know what they mean.

@Ryo1 and sometimes, shit just happens...like the lightening strike that melted electronics in both mine & my neighbor's house a month+ ago......missing the myriad of our neighbors' 75-100' tall oaks towering over our suburban lots and striking an flat open space about 30' wide between our 2 tiny houses.....basically defying everything we have been told about how lightening behaves.....

@AnneWimsey Yes, and it certainly wasn't God's doing.

@skado A catalyst that brings two sides (the theist and atheist worlds) together, or to be more friendly to each other, at least - is that what you desire to be?

@Ryo1
I like peace better than war, but I don’t feel that any compromise of rationality is necessary or desirable in order to facilitate peace. In fact, I believe the better acquainted with objective reality we all become, the better peace will be served.

I have felt my whole adult life that religious literalists were resistant to objective reality. What I didn’t realize until I joined this site is that, by and large, atheists are equally resistant. Trying to understand why is what motivates me.

@skado I hear you. Emotions don't help especially when discussing difficult subjects. Resistance from both sides is sometimes apprent including on this site and the like, which are dominated by Americans and their rather black-and-white views; I believe that American society suffers from polarisaion.
If you are in the UK, you could be friends with someone for years without knowing if they are a theist or an atheist. Religion (or non-religion) is no longer one's identity in British society.

@Ryo1
Yes, as a nation, we are currently polarized to an absurd extent. Individuals vary.

@skado Individuals vary, and reality also varies from person to person. That is why I think there is a flaw to the premise that god and reality behave exactly the same way...
Anyway, it looks like you are involved in multiple conversations with others right now, and it's nearly midnight in England. I'll carry on pondering your post and your comments in bed. Lol

@Ryo1
It doesn’t appear to me that reality varies from person to person. What does vary is each person’s perception of reality. If reality actually presented a different face to different people, the scientific method would not work.

For a lengthy explanation of why I think god and reality behave the same, check out my response to hankster that begins: “My impression…”.

Using both popular and scientific definitions, reality is not nothing. At least not at the time of this writing.

@skado But if god has characteristics that differ from the concept of nothing, then those differing characteristics can be used to prove that god and nothing are not the same - meaning that god can be proven to exist (to not be nothing).

No attempt to prove the existence of god has been made that passes rigorous examination - therefore god possesses many (if not all) of the characteristics of nothing, and no characteristic has so far been demonstrated that differentiates him from nothing.

@ToakReon
You say: "...reality and Esmeralda behave in exactly the same way too."
You say: "...there is nothing about her that shows her to be different from the concept of 'nothing'..."
Do you equate reality with nothing?
Does "nothing" behave exactly the way reality does?

@skado Of course not, but vacuums exist. 'Nothing' is a valid concept within reality.

There's a whole load of 'nothing' around in our real world, and people sometimes give that nothing silly and meaningless names such as Esmeralda and god.

However, because those concepts are nothing, they also do nothing and achieve nothing - which is true for both Esmeralda and god.

@ToakReon
A housefly is a valid concept “within” reality, but that does not justify a statement that a housefly and reality are the same thing. Something within “X” does not equal “X”.

When I ask if you equate reality with nothing, you say “Of course not.” But you have stated that Esmeralda is nothing, and that reality and Esmeralda behave in exactly the same way. Did you mean to say that something within reality and Esmeralda behave in exactly the same way?

@skado What I'm saying is that Esmeralda - who is nothing - is in every way as real as god is - who is also nothing.

You, however, seem to be arguing that god is everything, even though he bears all the characteristics of nothing.

@ToakReon
Well it just depends on one’s definition of “God” doesn’t it? You have assumed the religious literalist’s definition of God to be the correct one. I don’t find religious literalist thinking to be reliable enough to let them define God for me. Other ideas of God have existed as long as humans have existed. Why did you choose THAT one?

@skado I don't agree a housefly is a concept. It is a thing.

@skado Because if you try to debate about the 'reality' of god without having a definition of god, then you are debating the reality of an undefined concept - rendering any debate and any attempted conclusion no more than a waste of time and breath.

@ToakReon
I agree. But my question wasn’t why did you choose a definition. It was why did you choose that particular definition over all the others available? If you choose a definition that is consistent with known reality to start with, no debate about its viability is necessary.

@skado If you choose the definition 'I define god as real' then all your original post said was 'reality is real'. You may as well have said 'a dog is a dog' or 'the number 2 is a number'.

@ToakReon
It’s almost that. But metaphor doesn’t say a dog is a dog. Metaphor says Trump is a dog. And obviously Trump is not a dog - he is a human. But he is a human who behaves in ways we expect dogs to behave.

Metaphor is a means of describing by comparison. Reality behaves very much like we might expect a God to behave. It is all-powerful. It is the source from which we came into existence. It provides for our needs. It punishes us when we try to circumvent its laws. It was here before us and will be here after we are gone. It is eternal while we are temporal, and so on.

All my post is saying is… I wonder when or if religious literalists will ever notice the similarities. Sometimes we get so caught up in our own metaphors that we start to believe they are literal.

@skado Yet if reality is real, what purpose is 'real god'? That 'role' is already occupied by reality.

You might as well say 'any random, invented concept is another known concept'.

@ToakReon
I don’t think I’ve said anything about “real god”.
Do you understand what metaphor is, and why we use it?

@skado Oh I fully understand metaphores - what I don't understand is your purpose in trying to propose god as one.

@ToakReon
It’s what makes the most sense to me. It’s what makes all the craziness make perfect sense. I can’t think of a better explanation that has a basis in reason and known verifiable fact.

@skado No. What 'makes the most sense' is to accept that belief in god is not based on fact, and dismiss it as fairytale. Rationalising god makes no more sense that rationalising Esmeralda.

@ToakReon
Do you dismiss all art as useless? Do you not see figurative language as useful? Or is it that you feel it is dangerous to accept that god may be metaphor because it might embolden those who take god to be literal?

@skado I love art, and poetry, and song - but pointlessly declaring god a metaphore of reality serves no valid purpose, including artistic purpose.

@ToakReon
Do you feel you know all possible valid purposes? Or are you saying you just don’t see a possible valid purpose?

@skado I am making an assessment of an artistic claim, just as anyone and everyone is entitled to do.

@ToakReon

So... a matter of personal taste?

@skado A matter of personal assessment of value and purpose - I look at this metaphore, and see no value in it and no purpose for it.

It is a pointless statement.

@ToakReon

Do you see value or purpose in any metaphor?

@skado Oh yes - in many.

@ToakReon
By what criteria is the purpose of an individual metaphor rightly assessed? It seems to me the purpose of all metaphors is the same - to characterize a less familiar or more abstract thing by comparing it to a more familiar or more concrete thing. Are you saying this one doesn't do that, or... something else?

@skado I'm saying that attempting to 'characterize' something that is undefined, and about which there is no valid evidence, by comparing it to something real is a pointless excersize because you are, in effect, saying 'I am going to try and characterize fiction, by declaring that fiction to have the same qualities as reality, even though that fiction is not real'.

There is no difference between god and Esmeralda. None whatever. Both are figments of human imagination. Both have no evidence of their existence. Both share every characteristic of nothing, and both have no characteristic that can be used to separate them from nothing.

There is no metaphore that can meaningfully apply to god that does not, in exactly the same way, apply to Esmeralda. By reverse argument, if the metaphore is not valid and purposeful for Esmeralda, then neither can it be for god.

@ToakReon
OK, I think I see where some of the misunderstanding is coming from. I'm not saying reality is a metaphor for God. I'm saying God is a metaphor for reality. In some sense, all words are metaphors, because they are all maps, and the map is never the territory. But, relative to our discussion, the reason I say God and reality behave the same, is because God is just a metaphor for reality.

No metaphor is real. It points to something real by way of comparison.

@skado But what is the purpose of your 'god is a metaphore for reality' statement? And how can any such statement not apply equally to Esmeralda?

So why say 'god is a metaphore for reality' but not say 'Esmeralda is a metaphore for reality'? And 'Bugs Bunny is a metaphore for reality'? And 'the Lock Ness monster is a metaphore for reality'?

The concept of god is no more 'real', no more 'significant', no more 'worthy' than any of those other fictions.

@ToakReon
Because God - an all-powerful, super-intelligent humanoid person was a fitting comparison to the creative forces of the cosmos. An overconfident smart-ass rabbit wasn't.

If a friend betrays me, I might call them a rat or a dog, because those might be understood as fitting metaphors. If I called the person a giraffe, no one would understand what I meant. In reality, that person is 100% equally NOT a rat or a dog OR a giraffe. But some animals' reputations have earned them the dubious honor of being used as negative metaphors. Others have been used in a positive or more noble comparison, like a lion or a dove.

For a metaphor to be useful it must be generally recognizable by most people. If I call Clapton God, most people would understand the reference. If I call Clapton Esmeralda... WUT?

@skado But that's where we differ. For you god is an 'all-powerful, super intelligent humanoid person' - for me he is nothing of the sort. For me he is a cartoon, like bugs bunny. He is a figment of the imagination, like Esmeralda. He is a myth, like the Loch Ness monster.

And he is nothing else. Absolutely NOTHING else.

Nothing about god makes him any different to Esmeralda - except the absurd, mass belief of the delluded. God is nothing. There is no evidence for him being anything other than nothing - and nothing cannot be a valid metaphore for reality.

Yes, I understand what you're trying to say - but for me, my perception of the alsolute irrelevance of god renders his comparason to the very relevant existence of reality completely untenable, and making that comparason grants the concept of god a status and a 'recognition' that the adult version of Santa Clause simply does not have or deserve.

@ToakReon
I don’t think you do understand what I’m saying. You are still speaking as if you think I believe God is a physical person. I don’t. No metaphor is literally what it claims to be. It is a comparison, as if it were that thing.

For me, god is not literally an all-powerful, super intelligent humanoid person. But that is how the myth has him. That is how the mythology describes him. I don’t think Bugs Bunny is a literal rabbit, but that is how the story describes him. The story is fiction. He and God are cartoons, as you say, but cartoons are not nothing. They are stories. They are metaphors.

In the story, God is an all-powerful, super intelligent humanoid person, is he not?

@skado And in the STORY Bugs Bunny is a speaking, wise-cracking, bipedal rabbit.

Why is the story of god any more meaningful than the story of Bugs Bunny? Only because delluded people claim it so.

There is no difference between god and Esmeralda/Bugs Bunny/the Loch Ness monster. None. They all have exactly the same level of 'meaning'. They all have exactly the same level of 'value as a metaphore for reality'.

And for all 4, that level of value is zero.

@ToakReon
Are you saying that no literature ever written has any more depth or symbolic usefulness than the story of Bugs Bunny?

@skado No indeed.

There is much literature more meaningful than Bugs Bunny. Libraries are full of it. However nothing has beenwritten about GOD that is more significant than Bugs Bunny.

The bible is not just a fairytale, but one of very little literary merit.

@ToakReon
Is that why it sold more copies than any book ever written?

@skado No - that's caused my mass indoctrination of children, as indicated by the fact that very few christians who buy the bible actually read it.

The bible is not bought for it's literary merit.

@ToakReon
What is your favorite literature that is more meaningful than Bugs Bunny? Or just any literature that you find to be a seriously positive contribution to human culture.

@skado Oh many - 'classics' such as 'Pride and Prejudice', plays like 'Under Milk Wood', and many, many others. Well written stuff, that actually expresses meaning about society, rather than just a badly written fairytale filled with mysogyny, bigotry and nonsense like the bible.

@ToakReon
What do you like about works like that? What do they do for you? What makes them valuable to society?

@skado Insight. Perception. And the fact that when you actually read them it's a pleasure instead of a chore.

@ToakReon
You understand, a novel is usually written by a single individual, whose talent, ingenuity, and insights are solely responsible for its content and craftsmanship. A mythology, on the other hand is a collection of writings and/or folkways that are often generated by multiple individuals across multiple generations. They are not created for the same reasons or by the same methods. Reading a novel is like visiting a well preserved Frank Lloyd Wright house, whereas reading ancient mythology is more like sifting through the ruins of an ancient settlement with a brush and a trowel - it isn't there to entertain or please you - it is an artifact to be painstakingly studied for insights into their culture and into human nature.

Do you feel all ancient mythologies are devoid of value, or just the Christian mythology?

@skado Ancient mythologies are excellent for giving insights to the people who wrote them, the society, etc.

But your metaphore wasn't about ancient societies - you didn't say THEY were a metaphore for reality - you said GOD was.

So you take a myth, you choose one 'character' from that myth (admittedly the major one) - and somehow, you draw the conclusion that this character from a myth is a metaphore for reality.

This is no difference from taking Norse mythology, selecting the goddess Freya, and declaring her a 'metaphore for reality'. Or Zeus. And in the cases of Freya and Zeus, there might be a better case - they are, to be honest, far more 'real' than the christian version of god.

@ToakReon
That's correct. I'm not saying ancient societies were a metaphor for reality. I'm saying any monotheistic god is a metaphor for the entirety of reality. It doesn't matter what local name is given to that god. If it is a monotheistic god, it is a metaphor for the combined actions and forces of the cosmos. That is the role a monotheistic god plays in all cultures. Other characters in those mythologies play other roles. I use the Christian examples because I am most familiar with them, but it is the same for all monotheistic religions. And before monotheistic religions, the various gods were metaphors for the various forces and influences that people were subject to.

@skado Well, I'll have to disagree with you. I see nothing in the concept of a god that serves any purpose, or has any validity, as a metaphore for reality.

I guess we'll have to differ on that point.

@ToakReon
I am thoroughly convinced that you don't see it.

@ToakReon
...and that you are probably not interested in seeing it.

@ToakReon
All of which is fine. I appreciate the discussion.

@skado Ultimately we are mutually covinced of similar things. But yes, I too appreciate the discussion.

“Not at all” they won’t notice, or “Not at all” they don’t behave the same?

@skado neither behave, there is no presence, no will, they don't get the chance.they need an existence of intent to behave or misbehave. reality simply occurs.

@hankster
According to what?

These three dictionaries explicitly include the actions of inanimate things. One even mentions that it is accepted use in scientific contexts.

@skado my use of 'behave' here is unrelated to any nice or proper or rude or such activites character, only the actions of behavior without motive.

@hankster
Why do all three of my dictionary examples use illustrations that include actions without motive?

@skado lolol. a rock falling down a hole.

@hankster
Apparently.
According to at least three dictionaries.

@skado where does reality exhibit purpose? or function? it provides an opportunity for existence and the result by way of its presence, not its preference.

@hankster
I haven't made any claims about purpose or preference. The universe does appear to me to function. It's not static. it provides an opportunity for existence and the result by way of not only its presence, but also by its particular nature. What we call the laws of physics produce every movement that happens.

@skado the universe is dead. it is an unfinished event. it is in an ongoing condition of "next". reality displays no intention. what potentials could exist that do not already? perhaps reality could have intention in another universe?

@hankster
No intention is required. Evolution is a brilliant example of how living creatures can come into existence, due only to the nature of nature - with absolutely no forethought. But come into existence they did.

@skado glad you mentioned laws of physics produces every movement and creatures coming to exist due to nature.

@skado i think again you have depleted my bucket of what ifs and maybes, or filled it. are you wondering, positing that god is reality or just a part? how could godly lack intent?

@hankster
My impression, just looking at the smattering of history, biology, that I have been exposed to, is that early H.sapiens were intelligent enough to conceptualize cause and effect. They could detect patterns in nature, but were not advanced enough at that point to have conceived of the scientific method.

So they did what any of us would do under those circumstances and assumed that what applied in human experience applied in the greater cosmos.

If I wake up and find breakfast waiting for me on the table, I can be confident some person made that breakfast.

Likewise, if I woke up twenty thousand years ago and observed a complex arrangement of animals, plants, mountains, and rivers all functioning in observable patterns, the most natural assumption to make (at that time) would be that some very intelligent being or beings made it. By the time monotheism came along, it had all been attributed to a single being.

So it appears to me that the sequence of events went like this. Humans observed nature. Humans assumed an intelligent creator. Humans created various names for that creator. Humans assumed various responsibilities toward that creator and expected certain rewards for meeting those responsibilities. Humans designed and performed various rituals and practices based on these assumptions. Humans then did what humans always do and went about filling in all the missing details of this worldview with local color and decorations, and then institutionalized all of it in their respective cultures. Before you know it these assumptions and symbols had become quite detailed and concretized in the minds of the populace, and now the concept of a monotheistic god was nearly universal in all human populations, even though the different cultures envisioned it differently.

But where did this all start? Going back to the first step… humans observed nature.

What were their eyes looking at when their minds were assuming a creator?

Their eyes were looking at nature. At what almost all of us today call reality. The qualities they assumed that reality to possess have been modified as we learn more about nature, and particularly so in the last 500 years or so, but what we have always been looking at is nature. It is reality that we are, consciously or unconsciously referring to when we say “God”.

The qualities we assume that reality to possess will continue to evolve as we learn more about its nature, but it has always been reality that we are looking at. All of reality.

We understandably assumed it must have intent in order to create things as marvelous as living creatures, but Darwin showed us it wasn’t necessary. We are still learning.

@skado i see a childkind who is learning what it feels like to shoot a songbird with a bb gun, or will shortly. a mankind sentencing itself to the insanity created when it discovers a void in its understanding of the world. hurry up with the god putty, and fancy calculators.

"God is just the name we give to our own excessive ego and narcissism."

Concise and perfect

I'm on board with the invention of god idea, but not so much with the ego and narcissism idea. There are so many brianwashed and closed minded believers, I'm thinking they are believers for different reasons, not so much ego and narcissism.

@ecowellness Yes I am talking only about the god inventers and sellers, not the buyers. Though to a degree all are buyers and sellers, for even the believers follow for narcissistic reasons, such as the belief that death should be feared, because "I " matter.