If extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, then how is it that a single word which represents such an extraordinary claim has the ability to survive for such a long time without extraordinary evidence to support it’s implications? Simple, never clearly define the word to begin with, and allow it’s hosts to adapt it’s definition to the environment. Allow it’s authors to change the definition and characteristics of the word at their will. Allow it to be redefined over and over again so that it can conveniently attempt to avoid old and new contradicting evidence. Permit people to redefine it at any time to meet their own personal needs. I present to you, the independently experienced personal “god.”
It’s evasiveness is legendary, it’s definition is elusive, it’s meaning is adaptable, it is intangible to all except to the one who provokes the thought. It is the impalpable, definition shifting, meme replicating, evasive “god“ expression.
It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to ponder about and be skeptical of as to why it is that people who declare to have such a close relationship to god and even go so far as to claim that they “know” god, why they are so reluctant to provide even a moderately clear and coherent description of god. The obvious answer is that they really don’t have the close relationship to god that they claim they do, and of course how can they, since god is just a concept, a meme that they have acquired and modified to accommodate their own personal usage of. To give a clear definition of god would be to reveal that god is their own personally modified concept riddled with traits that they have applied to it to fulfill their own personal needs. Any knowing of “god” would be in the same sense as knowing all the traits that they themselves have assigned to their imaginary friend. Of course they would know this, they imagined it. Revealing that would expose that god is their own custom creation. It is because of this that they must avoid defining the concept of god clearly. This allows them maneuverability with their creation so that they can add and remove attributes on the fly, correct once applied characteristics that have been proven to be nonsensical, contradictory, and unnecessary at the current time to comfort their needs, and improve traits that will best meet their needs now and support and strengthen the concept’s survival for future self support.
The person hosting the god concept assigns their imaginary friend the appropriate skills, powers, and characteristics depending on what their current needs, desires, gaps, and requirements are at that specific time. So depending on the state a person is in at any moment in time, their imaginary friend will be assigned a complimenting set of fulfilling traits to support and meet that persons specific requirements for comfort at that time. Each person’s god idea is slightly to incredibly different yet often reflects a more “complete” reflection of themselves. The concept is them with all of their holes filled, intertwined with the characteristics of how they imagine a supernatural consciousness would be.
Make a skeptical or critical remark about god to one of these individuals, and they more often then not, become defensive. However, they are not defending their god concept, they are defending themselves. Because their god construct is them, to criticize and be skeptical of god is to be skeptical of them. Because they are both one and the same. God is an embodiment of them. I think the word should be discarded all together, it is overly and improperly misused, thrown about as easy as the word “love” now is, is inconsistent in substance, and does nothing but represents mans selfish attachment to comfort. Evade that.