gleeful reply

wow - a response to my ramblings!

i disagree with the definition of god. you say, god creates reality and meaning, this particular part of my brain creates reality and meaning, therefore my brain is god, QED.
a cat has claws; a wolf has claws, therefore a cat is a wolf.

the point i'm trying to make about god is one of redefinition. cats and wolves both have claws, and i'm not looking at them. i'm suggesting that i can call both cats and wolves predators, and whether you're looking for a wolf or a cat, i'm going to say you're looking for a predator.

it's a fairly safe assumption that there is no "god" in a universal reality, but when we seek the creator and controller of our universe in a theological sense we are seeking the "meaning producer", the thing behind everything we experience, see, hear, extrapolate, infer.

when i say that that part of your brain is god, it's not my god, it's yours. if you believe in a universal god, then you're talking about a reality of facts that doesn't leave much room for one. remember, "universal" means testable - scientific, if you like. that which exists with or without your being around to appreciate it. when science finds a real god that consciously made everything, let me know.

because we cannot differentiate between the universal and the personal, for each individual *god* performs all the functions and *god* really exists and really exists for everyone else as well. the concept of "everyone else" is itself an internal, personal one.
if you believe in a personal god, the god of *your* reality, you won't find anything that comes before the mechanism in your head that produces meaning. if god comes *after* that mechanism, then you've created your god, making *you* god, but through that mechanism. it's all very circular :)

as i said, i'm always happy to have holes pointed out - the biggest problem with all of the above and everything else i've written is communicating it, because communication is personal...