Old English god "supreme being, deity; the Christian God; image of a god; godlike person," from Proto-Germanic *guthan (cf. Old Saxon, Old Frisian, Dutch god , Old High German got , German Gott , Old Norse guð , Gothic guþ ), from PIE *ghut- "that which is invoked" (cf. Old Church Slavonic zovo "to call," Sanskrit huta- "invoked," an epithet of Indra), from root *gheu(e)- "to call, invoke."
How do we know that William Law is as intelligent as his namesake was ethical? Because he produces etymologies going all the way back to Proto-Indo-European.
Good only exists in human judgement. Without humans to judge, there is no good. Its purely a human concept.
Assuming then the OP's premise, god would then be short for human judgement for the subset of judgement called good. The boundaries of which are entirely subjective and often selfish. Simplifying, hopefully clarifying, god is a limited subset of vague human judgement.
Which if plugged back into other similar claims from the OP generates equivalencies such as:
a limited subset of human judgement (good) is the singularity of a black hole
a limited subset of human judgement (good) is the Higgs Boson
a limited subset of human judgement (good) is nature which includes all inimical forms of nature toxic to man and his judgement.
Those are all contradictory claims. Nonsense koans that resonate with the OPs subjective inner mystery.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/11/2019 10:42AM by dogblogger.
Man made God from creative superstition and then perfected their creation to be a muli-purpose product used for justification, control, and revenge all wrapped up in a faux-benevolent package with a heavenly bow.
You can choose whichever brand of God you prefer, but they all do the same job--making their creators superior to others in their own eyes.
Nature destroys more than it creates, see the seond law of thermodynamics. And again this definition of good is imposed and judged by man, an observer. Lacking an observer of human or similar character, there can be no good. Good is a value judgement imposed, not naturally occurring.
The only "good" nature net produces is entropy, the heat death of the universe.
In pre-Enlightenment cosmology, God was the essence of everything. Kind of like the Tao. Good, God, what’s the difference?
I see English as a mystical language. It embodies metaphysical concepts seemingly by accident, but perhaps by design. The ideas lost since Stonehenge seeped into the language anyway. Maybe being dead isn’t the show stopper it seems.
It seems to be so important to some to maintain the concept of god that they are willing to accept any definition at all out of desperation. They just have to have a god whether is an ornery old white man, a cat, a jackal, thunder, nature, the universe, goodness, or Captain America's butt. They just have to have one.
Good luck, but it's only fair to warn you that Rudy Giuliani plans to travel to the Ukraine to meet with someone who apparently has serious dirt on you.