Comment by ryandv
1 day ago
> semantic drift and inaccurate (or even lacking) definitions for the word "god," which is probably better understood in modern English as "mind" or "mental construct" or "the abstract" (as contrasted with the "concrete" or physical body a la Descartes, in a similar fashion to the distinction between the rarefied air of mathematical models, and the hard reality of physical law). [0]
Right. We have that thoughts exist only if identities exist; identities exist only if gods exist; and that gods are made out of the same mind-stuff as mathematics, thought, and abstraction.
In fact it sounds like your position is tantamount to saying that gods exist if and only if identities exist, which was to be demonstrated.
One wonders why one regards such viewpoints as "secular" (or even, scientific!) when they still bear the hallmarks of what was once regarded as "spiritual" or metaphysical thought.
If you want to define "god" as a definition for abstract concepts, I can't stop you, although I doubt many would agree.
The difference is that things like mathematics and identities are useful.
> If you want to define "god" as a definition for abstract concepts, I can't stop you, although I doubt many would agree.
This is extremely ignorant. God has been likened to an intellect since the days of the Neoplatonists and Aristotle himself as a "nous" or universal mind. Cosmological arguments necessitating the existence of this god as a "first cause" to avoid fallacies of infinite regress ended up rooting much of medieval theology and mainstream religious scholarship.
> The difference is that things like mathematics and identities are useful.
Civilizations have centered around the mental and social construct of gods since the era of Mesopotamian god-kings that built and organized society.