I think the Dalai Lama would also.

"Technically impossible"

I'm pretty sure the DL got the last laugh there.

I completely agree, I mean the really really big stuff though. Another way to put it: Can't God defy laws of physics? Can't we prove something can't be done and God can just do it anyways? Science can't touch God if he created the universe in such a way.

Its the same as evolution, how can we say God didn't invent our past that we dig up. Finding bones that proves evolution doesn't even mean those events actually happened. I'll go with the assumption that these things happened but I won't agree that they disprove God in any way whatsoever.

But I don't believe in God.

I thought "spirituality" was considered a woo word...

Can we get an official list, from one of the more seasoned posters on here, of woo words? perhaps another of semi-woo?

for me I would say:

woo (unacceptable): mystical, supernatural, etc

semi-woo (acceptable): god, spiritual, etc

Sure. You can invoke magic wherever you like. But you're approaching it backwards. The question is, what reason is there to think that a god does defy the laws of physics? Or put another way...

What is the difference between a god that does not manifest in reality and a god that does not exist?

I like 'transcendent' and 'beatific' as metaphysical-naturalist alternatives to 'mystical' & 'spiritual'. Dawkins and Hitchens use 'numinous' quite a bit but, if anything, that word is more directly religious than the common alternatives.

I would say there is a qualitative difference in the way the DL uses some words, e.g. spirituality, and the way others use them.

The limiting of speech because some one doesn't have a discerning intelligence is borderline criminal.

I mean really, acceptable and unacceptable words? People can't be serious about this idea.

Lol, easy there tiger, did you read the OP? The question isn't about banning words based on intelligence. OP is asking why it's a problem to use the word "God" when his definition of "God" is completely and utterly different to almost everyone elses.

Everyone can do whatever they want, but it's going to be misleading for me to say "I believe in god" if what I mean is "..and I think god is the natural world", or to say "I'm a very spiritual person" when what I mean is "I cry at the end of Of Mice And Men".

Couldn't this be said for just about all language?

Why is the spiritual lexicon being singled out?

Absolutely.

Because it's a post in RGT?

I'm not sure I understood this but a god that does not necessarily manifest in reality is not a god that can't manifest in reality.

I think if I understand you my response is a god that doesn't manifest fits into a reality in which he possible can. But a god that doesn't exist doesn't fit into a reality in which he can manifest.

So your example may not change the application of our rules in reality but it leads to an assumption that we can use science to explain the whole. Science is a part of the whole and therefore can never explain the whole, its a limited process from the beginning.

Fair enough, so I stand by what I said. Why should certain words not be used?

There is a duty for the speaker to be clear, but a listener also has a responsibility for their own understanding, no?

True. But then what benefit comes from positing such a god?

You're not familiar with Occam's Razor, are you?

Well there are prob other things to discuss about cutting out the possibility but I think simply pointing out that its against the scientific method to suggest that since something is not likely to happen or hasn't that it can't or won't.

Maybe if its not likely to infinity there's and
argument but science hasn't shown that, its just the scientists view.

I thought I was trying to lift a previous assumption, and therefore picking less assumptious explanation.

I don't like occam's razor, it doesn't mean the choice with the least assumptions is correct, just the best guess....or do I not understand it?

Also it doesn't mean we can choose an answer...or use it to narrow our set of answers.

Because it causes unnecessary confusion. However, I will repeat that I don't think anyone here is talking about banning words. How you can paint this discussion as "borderline criminal" is totally beyond me. You sound hysterical.


Sure, the listener share some of the responsibility for making sure he/she understands the other person, but willfully using words in a confusing way should be discouraged. Note that OP is defending his use of these words as a tactic for changing someone's worldview by giving the impression of common ground. I don't think the OP means any harm by this, but I consider this somewhat dishonest.