I also believe that God is everything.
So, you believe in the existence of
everything.
why not just say so, rather than creating these semantic tangles,
where people may think you actually believe in the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient, incomprehensible and transcendent Creator of the Universe....
(hmmm there's a word for that....
OH YEAH, NOW I REMEMBER!-
God.)
Why be so attached to this idea of having faith in the existence of God?
You want to say "Oh yes, I believe in God" when you're talking to someone religious,
or when you want a church wedding,
or when you're cautiously meeting your SO's parents,
or when you want to get your child into a Faith School (desirable in the UK, less violence and vice.... slightly),
or when you're running for election to ****** position,
or when a situation seems impossible to surmount,
or when you don't understand the world,
or when the best brains of humanity don't understand the world.
But then, when someone asks a hard question about the plausibility of the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient, incomprehensible and transcendent Creator of the Universe, you say you believe that God is actually just "everything".
or whatever other lame definition you can come up with, that dodges the original question.
We get to the point where people just name OTHER things, which they believe God IS.
Can you not, srs, just admit to yourself that the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient, incomprehensible and transcendent Creator of the Universe is not actually something you are certain of?
If that is the case, simply admit,
you do not believe in God.
That is not to say that you don't consider it the most likely possibility....
You COULD redefine the word God,
but why bother saying that you believe in God, and that God is all the energy in the Universe,
when "energy in the universe" is already a carefully-defined and thoroughly investigated idea?
You may as well just say,
"I do not believe in God, as The Creator, although I acknowledge the possibility, and have confidence in the probability, of His existence.
I also happen to have faith in the existence of all the energy in the Universe, despite humanity having
nothing like the capacity required, to fathom the nature of, well, anything."
or, when someone asks if you believe in the existence of God,
"Yes, I believe in the existence of [all the energy in the universe/collective spirit of humanity/love/universal consciousness/The Universe]"
I feel a spiritual need to give thanks for my existence,
to demonstrate my appreciation and admiration for the elegance and fascinatingly diverse properties and products of it.
The beauty of it is overwhelming.
I worship The Universe.
You could say,
The Universe is my God.
This would be true....
"my God"
However, I do not believe that
"God is The Universe".
Not least because people might think I were holding such a view,
simply so I can tell myself (or others), 'I believe in God'.
If you take Him by the classical definition,
as
the omnipotent, omniscient, incomprehensible and transcendent Creator of the Universe,
this is clearly not the same thing as "The Universe", itself.
So, rather than having to inform particular people that your belief in God amounts to belief in
"The Universe",
conveniently invalidating any arguments they may have made against the logical probability of His existence,
why not just explain that you are in absolute awe of the beauty of The Universe,
the
entirety of existence being the defining, symbolic concept, which you consider with absolute reverence, which you pay respects to and give thanks for?
That may be LOVE or HUMAN SPIRIT or Yahweh, God of Abraham or WHATEVER,
for next man,
but you really have to admit to yourself, one day,
that old story is too implausible,
God's existence is not certain to you and may even be improbable.
You might like to call mass-energy "God",
certainly a defining conceptual symbol of the miracle of your existence,
but I get the feeling that all the mass-energy in the universe isn't going to send me to heaven or deliver me from my sins.
It just might be able to tell Moses to stone a man to death for picking up sticks of a Sunday, however.
My point is,
I don't doubt the fact that the power (psychological, spiritual or physical; theoretical or actual) of
[all the energy in the universe/collective spirit of humanity/love/universal consciousness/etc]
is incomprehensibly immense and dynamic,
but they, by definition, did not MAGICALLY construct the Universe and Humanity and the ideas of good and evil etc, to subsequently directly demand respect and reverence,
and so, they are not God.
Don't even bother pretending;
use the general definition of God;
admit you cannot be
certain about such a being's existence;
acknowledge that, by extension, you cannot have
faith in the existence of God, as He is described classically;
conclude that it would be counter-productive and intellectually embarrassing, to attempt to insist that you do, in fact, have faith in God,
yet only with the absurd condition that God is defined as any concept, other than those, which define God.
all these other, new, personalized definitions of God are useless.
Accepting that God can mean
anything makes the question, "Do you believe in God?" completely redundant.
It is just an impediment to discussion,
which probably existences in such prevalence,
due to two of its properties:
1. allows people the convenience/comfort of appearing religious (or not), as the situation demands
2. allows people to swing both ways;
they can justify or support any logical ideas with scientific evidence and reasoning,
while still retaining the ability to invalidate any logical argument
against their ideas by pointing out that,
because some generally accepted psychological/physical phenomena
happens to be what they call "God",
their theories are not, in fact, subject to criticism based upon logic and reason.
cheap.
sry long unorganized post.
RCs...
