Ah, but she’s not eternal. She’s only the yin in the yang, so to speak. Without yang, she cannot produce all that comes to be.
How about "God (Tao) is the term for an emergent probability based on existing conditions. It has no motive, nor intent.
As David Bohm proposed. There are 2 Orders.
The Implicate (unexpressed potential) order and the Explicate (expressed reality pattern) order.
Not being understood isn’t the problem. Projection, and opinions based on projection on other hand illustrate the human condition (ad infinitum). One points it out best one can, but if they are not believed, best to brush the dust off their sandals and keep moving.
As for me being helpful and pointing it out to miriana, I was a little confused when you felt it applied to you as well, and threw it back at me. But I didn’t go through our conversations to see if I needed to somehow do better.
And all I said was that humans are attempting to impose their idea of deity when they insist that’s not allowed. It had nothing to do with understanding or not, just a statement that those who say that attempting to control others with their idea of deity.
Keeping the above mentioned “elegant solution” on the table would be the antidote. Being unable to forget about the baggage long enough to contemplate the “elegant solution” just adds to the pile of baggage.
If that wasn’t clear I don’t know how to convince you. I’m definitely not here to talk about the “biblical God”. I’m talking about Reality-as-it-actually-is to the best of my ability.
Reality is not changed by all the various approximations humans manufacture. Even mine.
And I didn’t go looking for the other examples pf when you put the burden of understanding on others. But, I’m confident they are there.
And how have I said something different? Entirety’s infinitude being the significance of the elegantly evolved theology expressed in the statement “There is Only God”.
So, do you actually not understand the point I’ve been making? I understand miriam even when she draws the line to maintain a dualistic perspective.
So, you deny the biblical god but suggest there is a new paradigm that describes god as a creative agency.
Question; why use the term God which has all that baggage???
Can you describe the properties of this under-discussed agency that will clarify how it all works and why?
I’ve made it clear I don’t. I gave up on this conversation a long time ago. Nothing personal.
I have not denied the biblical god…I understand it to be the finger pointing at the Moon that it is.
Your problem with my use of the term “God” is exactly an example of the baggage I’ve described.
Reality-as-it-actually-is accommodating your beliefs and opinions about it, as it also accommodates my contemplation of the antidote.
Then please, please quit wasting our time.
I am an atheist, I don’t attach any baggage to God. I don’t believe in a God.
I don’t believe in religion. I do not believe in “irreducible complexity”.
It is the exclusivity of religions that attach the baggage and that is why they have been at war with each other since the Gods were at war in the sky.
I believe in Science and the emergence of complex mathematical patterns and potentials from chaos as described in Chaos Theory.
A creator God is a superfluous concept in my world.
See, you just agreed that you do not believe in 3999 gods out of 4000 gods that have ever existed. I don’t believe in just 1 more than you … 
If there is a scientific definition of God, I have not heard it yet.
AFAIK, it cannot be defined and that makes it “wishful thinking”.
I say this without malice.
Are you quite the clown there, oh grand master. 
I believe in physical reality and the Evolution that unfolded upon this here home planet of ours, to produce this amazing world - we are destroying as fast as we can because we people dreamt up a greedy God that was the perfect reflection of our human EGOs incarnate.
It’s we alone who decide what God says.
{That why there are so god damned many of them running around railing against every other god.}
God is our EGO’s dummy, as in a ventriloquist’s vent figure
That conversations is the one that you are having with yourself. Nothing to do with anything that I have said.
But hey, that moment spent pondering the actual roll of zero in the fibbonaci sequence was cool. Not a peep of joy, or credit expressed for a point well made on your part though.
The infinitude represented by that little circle, does not mean that “complexity is reduce” any more than it [complexity] is the ultimate perspective.
In my world, science must acknowledge that it is limited by a reliance on measurement to actually qualify as science.
Yet you seem to be OK, just OK, with me, who is a student of Bishop Spong and Robert M. Price, as well as Acharya S, as well as others at a uni, and is also an atheist. Even I have said, the idea of a god is a human creation, invented and existing in the minds of humans. Many of the stories are similar, only varying by the culture and that’s including the Hebrew and Greek mythology in the Bible. I don’t mind reading the stories as long as they continue to be viewed as stories/literature in a given conversation, but the moment they start to be taken seriously and/or someone start to evangelize, I’m done. This whole time you have been talking to people who have studied religious literature in one way or the other. I, myself, have studied and researched it as literature, philosophy, mythical, cultural, and even psychologically.
It seems to me, the moment anyone displays disbelief in your beliefs you get bent.
It’s literature and beliefs created by humans in an effort to control people. I don’t see why anyone would express joy on any sort of pondering about it, unless they really like the story.
There is baggage with the term. I’d go a step further, there’s baggage any time someone comes to town saying they have answers to the great mysteries or that there is a way to improve yourself if you will just embrace their new terminology or ponder their insight. Friends of mine met a guru like this once, not a religion, not a spiritualist, just a mix of stories and psychology, some of his ideas were good, but years later an actual psychologist found my friends and told them how they had been manipulated.
Whoever invented zero, they didn’t say it had a roll, other than to represent nothing in a mathematical sense. We already knew what nothing was, since we all had experienced having things, and not having them. When someone tells me I need to close my eyes and ponder zero, I might do it, but I’ll have one hand on my wallet.
I’m not accusing you of wanting anything from me, or of having a plan, I’m describing the baggage that comes with the kind of talk you talk. It’s why we have regulations for scientific studies that involve people. It’s why we do background checks on volunteers that are working with children. Suspicion of ulterior motives comes with the terrority for good reason.
I am not familiar with any of the authors that you referenced…only responded enthusiastically to your understanding of the “nameless Tao”. Piecing it together later that you were of the dvaitan persuasion when it came to the “the Tao that can be named”. As a student of Yoga, Tao, Zen, Buddhism and monism in general, I am of the advaitan persuasion but am not tribal about it.
As for ideas of “god” being a human invention…what on earth do you think I mean by constantly referring to ideas about such, inevitably being abstractions (i.e. fingers pointing at the Moon are not the Moon)?
I go to great lengths to remind people that my use of the three letter word “God” is a personal choice, and it references Reality (as-it-actually-is). And, by Reality I mean the a-priori infinitude of unlimited potential and the singularity of Entirety. All phenomena co-arising in interdependent synchronicity.
The political agenda that dominates this forum however seems to prohibit giving a single inch to the implications if the word “God” is used.
In my case Reality being understood in the classical (though predominantly Eastern ) sense indicating spiritual as opposed to intellectual enlightenment. I work both sides of the theist/atheist fence.
Are you saying that you have a specific use for the term God and that your god has qualities that can be applied universally?
Pray tell, what then are those qualities?
No one denies personal use of a God concept. It is when it is advanced as a universal concept and applicable for all, that the questions arise.
Why do you find that surprising, or offensive?
We create words and names for things,
You are calling the whole of creation, the universe, by the name given to, mostly, a personal god and quite often tied to “life” after death.
Our life after death, is in how we touch on other strands, people who’s lives we’ve effected, deeds that ripple through time and stuff like that. As for me, myself, and I, that will be gone, it’s not so bad, I trend to sleep deep and hardly remember experiencing dreams, so now that I’m old, the thought of eternal nothingness, no being any more, isn’t any hurdle or fear, it simply is.
From your writing, I imagine you can relate to that. But then you still cling to this iconic term “God” - I can appreciate that, we’d probably have had splendid conversations decades back, but with time and musing, it became silly for me and I found I had to shed that “God” is everything concept. Why not simply the ALL, or IS-ness. {Not that different from my resentment towards Seth using “hallucination” to describe the mental sensing/processing of the physical reality we are faced with, and that’s in reality giving us constant, up to the moment, feedback.}
Like Lausten says, the term “God” carries too much luggage, probably with a few skeletons in the closet to boot.