I'm not sure how to answer your main question: It seems to me that to say that a statement is offensive is to say that people tend to be offended by it, and so I don't have a clear sense of how a statement could be "inherently offensive" if by that you mean assessed with no reference to individuals' dispositions to judge it offensive. A related question may be whether, as an empirical matter of fact, there are some statements that exist some statements are held to be defensive by an overhwelming majority of a given population in many contexts. Probably so, but even then I imagine that are few or no statement that offend all individuals in all communicative contexts. For example (and hopefully not to offend readers by this usage of the word), many statements using the word 'cunt' are extremely offensive and yet there are some usages of that word that many find empowering -- I have in mind, in particular, the popular monologue about "reclaiming 'cunt'" that has been included for many years in Eve...

It is true that many types of things are repond in systematically recognizable and conistent ways to changes in their environment: including people, other animals, other types of organisms like plants, other living things like cells, and indeed non-living things like thermometers. Philosophers have paid some attention to ways that things like these are sensitive to their environment. To consider the final example, on one epistemological line it is right to say that thermometers represent the temperature because they are sensitive in this manner to changes in temperature. I don't think this position is tantamount to saying that thermometers think, but I'll leave it to partisans of that perspective to say more. One idea that rings true to me comes from the great 20th Century American philosoher Wilfrid Sellars, who drew a distinction between being "senstitive" to one's environment and being "aware" of it. In particular, it seems right to me to conclude that sensitivity plants and cells and...

With a term like 'God' there is no single meaning that you must use, soyour own intellectual and perhaps religious interests should guide you on this.Depending on your exact interests, you may or may not find yourself ininteresting conversation with others! For example, using the word in the way you describe won't allow you tocontribute much to conversations about how many religions have conceived of thedivine, so if you are interested in doing that this probably isn't a promisingway to proceed. If you want to contribute to conversations about the origin of the universe,there's probably no harm in using the term 'God' you do in your example,although this may appear idiosyncratic to other cosmologists and so may not bethe best word choice. Finally, if you are interested in spirituality more generally, perhaps youcan flesh out the idea of the divine in the manner you suggest and reach someinteresting conclusions. This sort of exploration may turn out to be a usefulalternative to, on the one hand...