Quick Question on the Big G

[packbat]

Surprisingly topical for a Sunday, the following question, reposted from thequestionclub:

Inspired by a thread on IIDB, a two-part question:

1. Do you believe that at least one god is real? (For purposes of this question, interpret the word "real" as per Eliezer Yudkowsky's The Simple Truth.)

2. a. (For those of you who answered "yes" to the above:) Describe this god (or a few of the most important gods, if you ascribe to a more-than-one-god theory) to the best of your ability. If you are unsure, say, "I'm not certain of this, but I believe [...] with X confidence". If you cannot find the words, say, "I don't know if I can express this properly, but it is something like [...]". If you are tempted to say nothing at all, please: say something, however incredibly hedged. I specifically promise not to judge anything you say in any comment I make on this post. Just say what you believe.

b. (For those of you who answered "no" to the above:) Describe the characteristics that something would have to have to be called a god. Does it need to be a person? (Would being a person help?) Does it need to be able to subvert the laws of physics? Does it need to be benevolent?

---

Unlike on the post on thequestionclub (edit: which is here if you are curious), anonymous comments are allowed and unscreened, and I've temporarily disabled IP logging. Feel free to weigh in however you feel comfortable!

Comments

[ceruleanst.livejournal.com]

The emergent memetic phenomena known as "gods", "characters", and "people" exist as a collection of thoughts, motives, and identifiers, distributed through one or more brains and the communication media that connect them. It is useful to think of these consciousnesses as non-discrete sets, like a blurry complicated Venn diagram, as any one can consist of parts or wholes of others. Differentiating which specifically count as "gods" is like deciding how big a rock must be to be called a boulder, or how many grains of sand are needed for a heap. A god has far-reaching influence on the world, and has followers dedicated to strengthening its presence and influence.

The bigger gods can lose their sanity as they break up into too many disparate representations. Hippie Jesus struggles with Hateful Jesus; Kindly Generous Santa battles with Cynical Commercial Santa. This also happens to celebrities; the entity with a celebrity's name is bigger than the person at its center.

Granny Weatherwax said, "I don't go around believing in gods. It gives them airs." This sly semblance of self-contradiction is meant to point out that acknowledging something's existence and believing in it is not necessarily the same thing. To "believe in" a god, or a person, is to be dedicated to its growth and success. Accepting as fact the creation myths associated with them is a whole other kettle of worms.

my answers:

[explodingbat.livejournal.com]

(1) No.
(2.b) If any God/s can provably violate the laws of physics I'd probably be willing to worship it/them, all the while cursing them for distracting us from solving the real problems of the world.

(My personal prejudice is that far too many brilliant minds have been wasted on thinking about philosophy or religion.)