If someone thinks that there are gods or unicorns, and I don't believe it - if they want to persuade me, the burden of proof is on them. Until then, I view it as "unproven" and BS.

That's as I suspected, and accepting that working definition of god, I would have to agree with you. I call this form of god (or God) the "sky daddy". However, I also believe it's a mistake to only accept or examine this narrow, and IMO, most absurd definition. Equating God with nature for instance is an ancient notion, beyond just Spinoza, that I have more respect for, and there are many other descriptions of and ideas around the idea of God, that I find very interesting at the least, and that do not indicate a "supernatural being" (some even contradicting that notion), but refer rather to a way of looking at the underlying principles of existence itself or "the universe" if you will, and particularly the causal principle.

Furthermore, I don't find definitions of God that require faith or belief to be particularly useful, for the very reason that you mention: any kind of god like that would require evidence. But even so, I would personally reject the attribution of "god" to any individual, no matter how wise or powerful, and even if there were irrefutable evidence, and even if that being were standing before my face having descended from the heavens before me in plain sight. It's not a sound critical thinking practice to believe in something based on "faith", nor would I ever worship, nor surrender my individual self-sovereignty to, any other individual being, again no matter how wise or powerful, and I think you would agree with me there.

So what is a meaningful way to define and view God? Is there one?

First off, I'm not interested in just making a definition up. I'm interested in trying to find the most rational way to approach the idea of God as the primal causal force, and ferreting out what value I can in the myriad ways it has been described and referred to as such, and to separate or distill a valuable and meaningful definition from the irrational and superstitious, rather than take the easy road and just dismiss the entire concept in a huff of ridicule and derision.

I start with the fact that we observe the physical universe as a series of cause-effect reactions. Cause precedes effect. So to me, the examination of the idea of God is really an examination into the nuances and mystery that is the primal causal force of existence. What is it? What is its true nature? What can we determine about it? How can we deepen our experience of it? These are the meaningful questions to me. Am I making an assumption that this force even exists? Perhaps, but at the very least it seems to me the most reasonable assumption in an attempt to find clarity and meaning considering what I observe and experience, and for me, coming to greater understanding of the fundamental root cause of the universe is a pressing curiosity. Beyond what I can know for certain, I want to at least entertain and examine the possibilities in full.

A while back, I was able to refine and articulate my present understanding and definition that I have settled on, that's meaningful to me, and that I didn't just make up willy-nilly, but instead sought for a rational way to view God as the "source creator", or source creative principle of existence, as this is the most common thread I found in the definition for God historically, and the one that my curiosity burns for. For this I turned to chat-gpt, and guided it to the definition I was after using a serious of questions and critiques to its first attempts to answer the basic question "What is God?" Here is the conversation, with the final definition at the end:

Me: Define "God"

ChatGPT said:
The term "God" is often used to refer to a supreme being or deity that is believed to have created and governs the universe or is considered as the ultimate reality and source of meaning and purpose in life. The concept of God varies across different cultures, religions, and philosophical traditions, and can take on various forms, such as a personal God who intervenes in human affairs, an impersonal force or energy that underlies all existence, or a philosophical idea or principle that embodies certain values and ideals. The attributes and characteristics attributed to God also vary widely, ranging from omniscience, omnipotence, and omnibenevolence to transcendence, immanence, and ineffability.


Me: A "supreme being" or "deity" is a circular definition. In point of fact, what is the actual definition?

ChatGPT said:
You are correct that my initial definition of God as a "supreme being or deity" could be seen as a circular definition. To provide a more precise definition, we could say that God is a concept or entity that is believed by many people to possess attributes such as omnipotence, omniscience, and omnibenevolence, and is often considered to be the creator and sustainer of the universe or the ultimate source of moral and spiritual guidance.

However, it is worth noting that different religious and philosophical traditions have different conceptions of God, and some may not necessarily use the term "supreme being" or "deity" to describe their idea of the divine. For example, in certain forms of pantheism or non-theistic religions, the divine is understood as an impersonal force or energy that permeates all things, rather than as a distinct being with a personality and will.


Me: Is there any way for you to provide a point of fact definition, without referencing what people happen to believe?

ChatGPT said:
As an AI language model, my knowledge and understanding are derived from the vast amount of text and data available on the internet and other sources, which are produced by people and reflect their beliefs and perspectives. Therefore, any definition of God that I provide would inevitably be influenced by the various religious, philosophical, and cultural traditions that have shaped human ideas about the divine.

That being said, we could offer a more neutral or general definition of God as a hypothetical entity or concept that is posited to explain or account for certain phenomena or aspects of reality that are beyond the scope of empirical observation or scientific explanation. This definition would not necessarily depend on any particular religious or philosophical worldview, but rather on the idea that some people throughout history have sought to understand the nature and purpose of existence by appealing to the concept of a transcendent or supernatural reality. However, it is worth noting that this definition would still be somewhat limited and may not capture the full range of meanings and connotations associated with the term "God" in various cultural and historical contexts.

Me: I am looking for a definition in the same way that we might define an apple, that is independent of beliefs and varying world-views, also I request a definition that is not a hypothetical. I am requesting the most logical, fact based, empirical definition that could possibly be made, that is independent of beliefs or hypothetical theories.

ChatGPT said:
In that case, I can provide a definition of God that is based solely on its etymology and linguistic roots, without reference to any religious or philosophical concepts or beliefs.

The English word "God" is derived from the Old English word "god," which in turn is believed to have been derived from the Proto-Germanic word "gudan," meaning "invoked one." The Proto-Germanic term is itself thought to be derived from the Proto-Indo-European root "gheu-" or "gwen-," which means "to invoke or pour a libation."

From a linguistic perspective, then, God can be defined simply as an entity or concept that is invoked or addressed in some way, either through prayer, worship, or other forms of ritual or symbolic communication. This definition does not imply any specific attributes or qualities that may be associated with the concept of God in different cultural or religious contexts, but rather focuses on the communicative and relational aspect of the term.


Me: Let's assume that definition may be faulty, illogical that a personage is attributed to be the prime cause of existence, and instead formulate a definition that is not based on "entity", not necessarily conforming to historical or modern conceptions, but one that is coherent and empirically accurate in what it is stating.

ChatGPT said:
In that case, a possible definition of God that is not based on the concept of an entity or personage could be:

God is a symbol or metaphor that represents the highest ideals, values, and aspirations of human beings, such as love, justice, compassion, creativity, and wisdom. As such, God does not refer to any specific being or entity, but rather to the transcendent and immanent qualities and potentials that we strive to embody and cultivate in ourselves and in the world.

This definition does not assume the existence of a supernatural or metaphysical reality beyond empirical observation or scientific explanation, but rather acknowledges the psychological and cultural significance of the concept of God as a symbol or archetype that has played a central role in human history and culture. By understanding God as a symbol of human ideals and potentials, we can appreciate the diversity and complexity of human experiences and perspectives, while also recognizing our common humanity and shared values.

Me: It is also not satisfying that the definition be reduced to a symbol or metaphor, considering it is the actual fundamental causal force of existence we are referring to.

ChatGPT said:
I understand your concern about reducing the definition of God to a mere symbol or metaphor, and I agree that this may not fully capture the depth and complexity of the concept of God as it is understood by many people.

If we aim to provide a definition of God that is not based on any particular religious or philosophical tradition, and that is empirically accurate and logically coherent, we may need to consider different perspectives and theories about the nature and origins of the universe.

One possible definition of God, then, could be:

God is the fundamental creative and causal principle that underlies the universe and all its phenomena, and that gives rise to the laws and patterns of nature that we observe and study through scientific inquiry.

This definition does not presuppose any specific attributes or qualities that may be associated with the concept of God in different cultural or religious contexts, but rather identifies God as the ultimate source of order and intelligibility in the cosmos. This definition is compatible with scientific inquiry and does not rely on any supernatural or metaphysical assumptions, but rather acknowledges the mystery and wonder of existence itself.

It's a judgment call. Ultimately we must decide where to draw the line, for me, it's somewhere between a child molester and a flag-pole hanger on, and I'm not sure I could nail down a precise criteria to apply in every instance. I haven't shunned my family for being voters, so maybe I err a little on the tolerant side. I like to think someone has to be pretty damn bad for me to shun them entirely.

If I am 90% in agreement with Y and 95% in agreement with X, and 5% in agreement with A - how ought I organize my associations?

And some more.

I wish I could reply to the original

This is some text.

And some more.

You should be able to hit the "quote" or "reply" button on the original, maybe you just didn't see it?