• howrar@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    4 months ago

    Anything that you would call a “god”.

    If I give an ostensive definition, I would say it includes the beings like the Abrahamic god, or Olympian gods, and exclude humans, animals, bacteria, the planet we live on, and objects we handle in our day to day lives. I’ll tentatively draw the line at any being that is not bound to the laws of physics as we understand them today.

    • PolandIsAStateOfMind@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      Why exclude humans, animals and bacteria? How about Sun? Jesus Christ? God-King Jayavarman II? A cat? Very small spirit of tiny stream? A holy stone (stone is not a human, nor animal or bacteria, a lot of stones were worshipped in various forms and meanings in history)? A tree chewed by pilgrims? Invisible Hand of the Market?

      Incredibly arbitrary definition again constructed to wriggle your way from any concrete statement.

      • theilleist@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        If we had the technological power, would humans run simulations of universes with Planck length precision? Obviously yes. So extrapolating from our one and only example of intelligent life (us), it seems like intelligent life enjoys stimulating universes. If our reality were the result of that kind of project, and the engineers lived outside the laws of physics, I would call them higher beings. And they could be as hands-off or as interventionist as they pleased.

        • PolandIsAStateOfMind@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          4 months ago

          Sure that’s a valid defintion, albeit a super specific one and it directly exclude all (or almost all) known forms of religion on Earth.

          • theilleist@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            4 months ago

            Run command: “Fiat Lux”

            Warning: it will take 7 days to complete operation. Continue?

            “This had better be good.”

            “Fuck it, I’m tired of waiting, I’ll come back on the 8th day.”

            “Oh, this IS good.”

            “What are these stupid apes doing? Fine, I’ll educate them myself.”

            Instantiate avatar: “Jesus_Nazareth”

            Which part is directly excluded?

            • PolandIsAStateOfMind@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              4 months ago

              The one where there is not only zero proof of anything of it being real, but also zero (or nearly zero) religious people actually beliving that.

              • theilleist@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                4 months ago

                And if we were talking about whether it were real, or whether people believed it in those specific terms, you’d have a point. But since we’re talking about your assertion that major earth religions are “directly excluded” by that definition of “higher beings,” i still fail to see the exclusion.

      • howrar@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        4 months ago

        I don’t think OP is asking about the existence of humans, or animals, or any other physical entity. If they were, you can trivially say that you exist, and therefore god exists. That’s unless you want to go into ontology and question what it means to “exist”, which I’m pretty sure also isn’t what OP intended.

        • PolandIsAStateOfMind@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          4 months ago

          I didn’t asked about OP, i asked YOU to define it and you are weaseling out of it continously, you cannot even answer why did you exclude humans, animals and bacteria from your definition, while humans and animals have been historically worshipped in many cases.

          • howrar@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            4 months ago

            I’m trying to help OP reach an answer to their question, therefore the definitions I’m working with are the same as that of OP. What I personally believe should be categorized as a “higher being” is irrelevant because if it’s different from OP’s definition, it won’t help them reach their desired answer.