Define "god"

[Odin2005]

There seems to be many defenitions of "god" out there, so many that it is obvious that the notion of a god is nothing but a a cultural construct, which is one of the reason's why I'm an Atheist.

[charles22]

1. Creator.

Would bet no believer believes anything less.

[ThomCat]

3. That depends.

If you are a believer of a polytheistic religion then you might not agree.

If you are a gnostic christian you might not agree.

But if you are only considering Modern Christians, Jews and Muslims then, yes, I think you are right.

[charles22]

6. There are polytheists in the US?

Where? How many?

[Finder]

15. Pagans, Hindus, etc...at least a million. n/t

[charles22]

18. Wait, pagans believe in God?

[ThomCat]

27. As a general rule, yes.

Not the same God, and usually not just one God, but yes pagans generally believe in God.

[charles22]

30. You know pagans?

Where are they? Organized?

[ThomCat]

34. Actually, I have an aunt and uncle

who were leaders in the US Pagan movement in the 60s and 70s. They know many authors of books on paganism personally. Through them I have some first-hand experience with pagans, and with small pagan organizations.

There are currently pagan groups organized to some extent or another throughout the industrialized world.

[charles22]

39. Interesting, thanks.

[Deep13]

28. They believe in lots of them.

So do Catholics, but they call them "saints" and "angels" to maintain the pretense of monotheism.

[Finder]

61. Gods and /or goddesses for most pagans...

atheist pagans have gotten fed up and just call themselves atheists now.lol

[bananas]

103. What would you consider an atheist pagan?

and what did they get fed up with?

[Finder]

108. The term pagan has many meanings...

http://www.religioustolerance.org/paganism.htm
excerpt:

Seventh meaning: Pagans are Atheists, Agnostics, Humanists, etc:
The term "Pagan" was widely used by Atheists, Agnostics, Humanists, etc. to refer to themselves. The word was also used by others to describe these groups. The usage dropped after the rise of Neopaganism in the middle of the 20th century, and is rarely seen today.

[Deep13]

4. Athena was created by Zeus.

In fact most of the gods of Greek mythology were created by earlier gods and were not creators themselves. Creation, the idea that the universe began at a specific moment in time, is purely a Jewish invention adopted by more recent monotheistic (if Christianity can really be called that) religions.

[ThomCat]

31. Not entirely true.

In ancient some of the roots of the Greek religion they had the Night (a primal goddess) breed with some Primal God (I forget which) to create the universe. They then gave birth to the Titans, who gave birth to the gods.

[Deep13]

35. Are you sure night was not the masculine...

...and earth the feminine? That is the usual pattern. The god of Israel is the prehistoric sky god without the earth goddess. I specualte that their pastural economy de-emphasized the earth goddess, which is mostly associated with agriculture, until she was forgotten.

[ThomCat]

38. Night was definitely the feminine aspect.

Gaia was one of the titans, so she was the daughter of Night and the other primal god.

As I recall, unlike the Jewish and Egyptian models where the universe was created as an orderly place, in the myths I recall Night gave birth to Chaos, and from the chaos the titans emerged. Chaos was the primal universe that the titans and the gods then shaped.

[Finder]

67. It was popular to relate female with the night...

based on female cycles being similar to the moon's.

[Deep13]

70. Ahhhh, the masculine was the day sky or even the sun.

It fertilized planted seeds the way sexual reproduction "fertilizes" the female to pregnancy.

[Odin2005]

92. IIRC Gaia (earth) emerged out of chaos and created Uranus (sky).

Gaia and Uranus are the parents of the Titans, and the Titans are the parents of the Olympians.

[struggle4progress]

114. ... at .. first Chaos came to be, but next .. Earth .. and .. Tartarus in the depth of .. Earth, and

Eros .... From Chaos came .. Erebus and .. Night; .. of Night were born Aether and Day, whom she conceived .. with Erebus. And Earth .. bare .. Heaven ... And she brought forth .. Hills .... She bare also .. Pontus .... But afterwards she lay with Heaven and bare .. Oceanus, Coeus and Crius and Hyperion and Iapetus, Theia and Rhea, Themis and Mnemosyne and .. Phoebe and .. Tethys ....

The Theogony of Hesiod ll. 116ff
http://www.sacred-texts.com/cla/hesiod/theogony.htm

[Deep13]

2. one who is immortal

As far as I can see that is the only thing they all have in common.

[bryant69]

5. what is a god? or what is God?

Hard to answer either way, I guess.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[lisadinoldo]

8. THERE IS NO GOD!

Stop talking about "god." There is no proff of a "god."

[bryant69]

23. Thank you for clearing that up

your strongly worded argument has caused the very concept of God to flee from my mind.

God? That's a funny word.

Bryant

[lisadinoldo]

THERE IS NO GOD!

Stop talking about "god." There is no proff of a "god."

[Deep13]

OP asks us "define 'god'."

God with a big G is a proper name of the the Judeo-Christian god. It is easier to write and say that Jehovah, Tetragrammeron, YHWH, Eloi, I Am or El Shaddai.

[bryant69]

26. OK - that's kind of how I took it as well, but

I didn't want to make any assumptions.

I would say a god is a spiritual being who is given the title of god.

Bryant

[Deep13]

29. Okay, that begs the question.

Define spiritual.

[bryant69]

32. As of or pertaining to the spirtual realm

I.e. where souls and spirits exist - obviously if you are an atheist you have seen no evidence of said plane (presumably, but i could be wrong).

Bryant

[Deep13]

37. What are souls or spirits?

Whatever I may think, those who believe in them must have an idea of what they are.

[bryant69]

45. They are beings which have no measurable existance

but which nonetheless exist.

The soul is the non-physical part of us that is immortal (and yes, animals and other living things may very well have souls).

Spirits fall under a number of headings, including the spirits of departed kin, angels, local spirits, and so on. I don't believe in all of them.

Bryant

[Deep13]

54. There is a distinction in Christianity between...

...spirit (pnuema) and soul (nous). Spirit seems to be the life force which ancient people thought was of supernatural origin. Soul was a more personal somehow. The pictures of faces with wings on New England grave stones were soul effigies intended to be likenesses of the deceased.

Gods of mythology were thought to be real, physical beings that had certain godly powers and were immortal. The Old Testiment also describes Jehovah as a physical being. Note in particular the encounters between Jehovah and Moses on Sinai.

[bryant69]

64. Actually I do believe that God has a physical form as well

But yes the line between spirit and soul and God is fuzzy.

Bryant

[Realityhack]

69. Going back to the OP...

How would YOU define God. In other words it appears that you beleive in a god of some type. What specificaly do you beleive in?

[bryant69]

76. I thought you said that wasn't the question?

But the God I believe isn't short of cash.

Beyond that, he's loving, wise, benevolent, and personally interested in his children.

Bryant

[Realityhack]

79. I did?

If I did I appologize I think that is in fact the interesting question (what does everyone individualy mean when they say 'god').

You say he is 'personally interested in his children' does that also mean you bleive he created mankind? the universe? and that he is an entity in the sense of having thoughts/feelings/being able to interact with others/possesing knowlege?

[bryant69]

85. Yes Yes and Yes

Bryant

[Realityhack]

88. Ok.

that gives me a decent amount of information as to what exactly you mean by God. I don’t personally think that belief in that type of a god is a particularly defendable position as it seems to me that the world would be quite a different place if that where the case and unlike some other definitions of god it is quite prone to an awful lot of rather nasty questions.

[Deep13]

81. God, with a big "G" or not, is a psychological...

...construct inherited from ancient people who had no understanding of how the world works. Heaven was a real place with a real location. The gods were real immortal people and hidden spirits made nature work. No we have relegated these things to a theoretical realm. Heaven exists, yet is not any place. God governs the universe, yet not through any direct means. The more we know of the so-called laws of nature, the more these ideas are pushed into the corner, or else we rebel against reality and pretend are beliefs are more real that reality. In short we created God for our subjective needs and, therefore, God has no independent existence.

There is one actual reality and multiple perceptions of it. Ideas that are close to reality are better than ones that are not. Since there is one reality, experimental observations based on it have an inherent reliability. I may choose to believe that a big rock does not exist, but if I try to walk where it is, it will prove me wrong. Ideas that have no basis in reality are wrong, not just a different opinion. Evolution is very close to reality because it has survived countless experiments designed in part to disprove it. Creationism is false because it makes no predictions about reality that can be observed. Don't really know what to think about string theory since it does not seem to explain anything. In short, no gods, no spirits, no souls, no Yin, no Yang and no Nirvana. None of these things are needed for a comprehesive world-view.

[Realityhack]

55. Yet another question...

Do you mean that they are by deffinition unmeasureable or that we currently have no way to measure them?

What seperates a 'soul' from some other thing which is un-measureable (either deffinition). Asside from title (and who decides the title) how is god diffrent from any other 'soul'.

Which spirits do you believe in?

[bryant69]

78. If we could measure spirits would that, by implication, prove the

existence of God or Gods? I don't believe that God intends to be provable - we are supposed to walk by faith.

I don't know how much of the rest of this to answer - why do you ask?

Bryant

[Realityhack]

82. Well not quite.

Proving the existence of spirits does not prove the existence of god unless they are one and the same thing. IE can one concive of 'spirits' existing without god? Certainly it would be a big peice of evidence but I do not think it proves anything by itself.

As for the other questions I ask simply because I wonder what you mean by the terms you are using. No other particular reason.

[Zhade]

109. You don't know that. Admit it.

Be honest - you don't KNOW these beings exist.

It's one thing to believe they do; it's entirely another to be dishonest enough to say you KNOW they do.

[Odin2005]

94. Give some empirical evidence that this "spritual realm" exists.

If there is no empirical evidence then it is nothing more then a cultural construct.

[lisadinoldo]

9. THERE IS NO GOD!

Stop talking about "god." There is no proff of a "god."

[lisadinoldo]

10. THERE IS NO GOD!

Stop talking about "god." There is no proff of a "god."

[Deep13]

11. No proff at all?

:evilgrin:
Oh, look, the devil.

[cosmik debris]

7. It is like defining Art

Art is whatever the artist says it is.

God is whatever the believer says it is.

[Deep13]

13. And, therefore, is nothing.

Strictly speaking, anything made by humans is art.

[charles22]

14. Not exactly.

Few people say Rembrandt not a great artist: Not always just subjective.

[Deep13]

17. He was no larger than any other artist.

:evilgrin:

You said "great." That means big.:evilgrin:

This whole etherial issue requires us to be mindful of our definitions.

[charles22]

20. not in mood for silliness....sorry.

[Deep13]

24. I'm in the mood for a nap and then a vacation.

As long as we are sharing....

[cosmik debris]

21. Why did you change my argument?

I did not say Rembrandt was not a great artist.

I said that art is whatever the artist says it is. Do you disagree with my argument, or do you have to change it to formulate your criticism?

[charles22]

25. Art is not whatever an artist says.

I am an artist and would never say that. Nor would any professionals I know.

[cosmik debris]

33. So, since you wouldn't say it that means it is not true.

I am glad I have found the final arbiter of what art is.

[charles22]

36. I am saying you provided no evidence for your argument.

And refuting by saying that each individual artist does not set the standards. My example-which you missed-was that Rembrandt is almost universally agreed to be a good painter; not objective, but a consensus is established.

[cosmik debris]

43. you are refuting the inverse of my position

I said Art is whatever the artist says it is. To refute that you need to say that art is something other than what the artist say it is. What would that be?

[charles22]

48. oh, boy.

So you really thought nothing about my Rembrandt example; ok. He painted in a way that most painters and others recognized as not only superior, but establishing standards that others would follow, if not just admire. Things like how the figure is handled; form; use of color; subject matter; underpainting and use of dry brush handling; emotional honesty and impact.....

[cosmik debris]

56. So it did not become art until consensus was reached

What was it before the consensus was reached? chopped liver?

[charles22]

60. You seem to be conflating two concepts.

By your definition, literally everyone in world can say "I am an artist, this is art." Let's say that is so, what is established?

[cosmik debris]

72. What is established?

That pompous assholes don't have the right to tell other people that they are not creating art. Just as pompous assholes don't have the right to tell others what characteristics their god must possess.

[charles22]

80. Rather radical.

Almost makes language impossible: No shared ideas or experiences. I was not arguing that "authorities" say what art is, I was saying there are actually standards that history shows stand up.

[Goblinmonger]

98. This is not a pipe.

This is not a reply.

[cosmik debris]

102. Now that's ART! n/t

[Evoman]

106. As a professional, you may have a better opinion on

what is good art, and what is bad art. But you are not the final arbiter on what is art.

[Dorian Gray]

111. I think art is a complicated thing to define

but there are some parameters, both subjective and objective that can define art. I do believe that the same is true of God. There are objective parameters (defined by particular religions... each one has its own) and there are subjective parameters where each individual has an inclination of what God (or gods) mean to him or her.

But, there are also mistaken assumptions when it comes to both of them, as well.

I may say that a Velvet Elvis is art while an art historian would laugh at my idiocy. The same is true with religion. People scoff at other's definitions of God all the same.

It's an interesting topic, but one in which nobody will ever reach a consensus. Though some random people may claim a White Canvas is art, the majority of the world knows that it's not. Why? Part objective observation and part subjective feeling. It doesn't invoke art in the same way that Michelangelo, Picasso or Vermeer might. And then there are all the in between painters.

[cosmik debris]

112. So let's get into that.

What objective parameters can be used to define god?

And by the way, your appeal to the majority ("Though some random people may claim a White Canvas is art, the majority of the world knows that it's not.")is not a valid argument, do you have a better one?

[Realityhack]

49. Which begs the question...

what does the beleiver beleive god to be?

A universal deffinition of many words may prove impossible. However I think the real question is what does X person mean by God.

[keepCAblue]

12. "dog" spelled backwards. eom

[Deep13]

22. Foow! foow! foow!

I hear my god coming.

[mitchtv]

16. God= The Unity of all Life

does that make me a Pantheist?

[Deep13]

19. No, it makes you a pagan.

Unity in what way. We are all crammed onto the same planet, so I suppose it is unified in place.

[Realityhack]

46. Unfounded assumption...

You appear to be making an assumption that no life exists anywhere except earth. That is clearly unproven and the most logical posision would appear to be agnostisim about the question.

Also 'We' would be a rather strange way of defining 'all life'

[Deep13]

57. I was referring to terrestrial life...

...since that is the only kind we know.

[Realityhack]

62. Figured...

Sorry I guess I am just in the mood to be picky about it. Perhapse it is the topic as I find many 'deffinitions' of god to be abizmaly lacking in clairity. Kindof puts me an a picky mood.

Sorry.

[Deep13]

73. If life is scattered around the cosmos, then that...

...really calls the unity argument into question. We are all interdependent on other life forms and on the Earth itself. Still, if we all died tomorrow, life somewhere in the M31 galaxy would never know or have any real affect.

[Realityhack]

87. I appologize for my ignorance but..

what do you mean by the 'Unity argument'?

[Realityhack]

44. Unfortunately I don't follow.

What is meant by the 'Unity of all Life'.
I do not think that you mean 'The set of all things that are living' as we simply refer to that as 'life'. Nor do I think you mean 'The set of all things that have ever been alive'

So what does 'The unity of all Life' mean?

[mitchtv]

75. that energy which is between the molecules

of the entire universe. that which does not die. that to which we return to upon death of the three dimensional body. Sorry too much LSD in my youth

[Realityhack]

84. Hmmm...

It is becoming apparent that you are using quite different definitions for things than are customarily used.

So if I am following along correctly…

God = The Unity of all Life
The Unity of all Life = that energy which is between the molecules of the entire universe. that which does not die. that to which we return to upon death of the three dimensional body.

I am afraid at this point I don’t even know which terms to ask for a definition of. I recognize that there are words, and that these words are strung together in sentences but you might as well have said that god is the living chocolate of the universe.

Are you saying we exist outside of or independently of our physical body?

[mitchtv]

105. as individuals, I don't know

sorry I can't express myself more clearly. There is life, it seems to extend throughout nature as a force. It is not matter and that part of us does exist after we die with or without an id, we return to the living cosmos. This seems to validate the theory of reincarnation to me, although I don't necessarily subscribe. I am no theologist, sorry if I confuse you.

[Realityhack]

107. No appology necisary

You are tying to comunicate your bleifs and I am simply trying to understand them.

I think I understand what you are getting at. I don't agree as I see no evidence of life as a 'force' or as something beyond matter. Nor do I have any reason to bleive anything survives the death of a living thing.

However, I do now better understand what you where saying earlyer.

[thecrow]

40. god is indefineable

[Realityhack]

52. In what way?

Do you mean there is no universal deffinition of god? Or do you mean that there is some 'god' who by its nature is beyond deffinition?

[ThomCat]

53. That is a very classic Jewish possition.

You cannot describe what God is, only what God is not, because anything you can describe has limits, shape or form of some kind and God is beyond.

It is a traditional belief that God can only be discussed in the Negative sense. God is not this, and he is not that, because he transends anything we can understand.

[Realityhack]

58. Seems a bit problimatic

The thing is that as I understand it the Jewish position is also that they CAN ascribe certain things as being within gods power. God can do x, God said Y, God wants us to do Z. Those are not negitive posistions.

[ThomCat]

74. But those are not definitions or descriptions of God.

Those are just statements of some of the things God has done or can do.

[Realityhack]

86. Not entirely true...

They do ascribe a certain degree of deffinition and boundries to what 'god' 'is'.

Once you say that 'god' said X in the Tora, you have inherently said:
'God' cares in some way about what is going on on earth
'God' whatever he/it IS capeable of interacting with the world as we know it
'God' actualy DOES interact with the world as we know it
'God' wants us to know X
'God' presumeably detects what is going on on earth
Etc...

Thus while you may not have 'defined' 'God' you have certainly said a lot of things about what god is like and what god is not like. Semanticaly saying that this is not a 'deffinition' of god seems to be drawing a rather arbitrary line on what is and is not a defining trait.
Far from 'God' being something that is beyond any deffinition by his/its very nature we have defacto defined god as 'something' (yes it is true that we have not nailed down its exact nature) with a whole list of properties in much the way we might define 'cups' as having a whole list of poperties and not having other properties.

[Deep13]

59. I submit that if it is undefineable...

...it is because there are no observable characteristics. I submit, therefore, that 'god' is not real in any meaningful sense of the word.

[Realityhack]

41. Extreamly Important Question.

Before anyone claims to be anything but an atheist they should be quite clear on exactly what they mean by 'God'. It is clear that while many are (typically those subscribing to a biblical style 'interventionist' or 'personal' god) many who profess to be more 'sophisticated' in their religious views are clearly not at all sure what they mean by the term 'God' and they tend to try to 'define' it by using a series of other terms which they in turn can not define. All of which strikes me as a bit silly.

---

Interestingly this is also related to an fallacious argument for religion that I see quite frequently that seems to get a 'pass' from many people.
I have seen a number of religious people including quite famous ones who ought to know better make an argument that goes something like this…
‘god’ (current operational definition quite nebulous, separated from the universe etc.) might possibly exist.
Therefore
Christianity.

The tick being that they change operational definitions of god in the middle of the argument from ‘something’ to ‘Christian god worthy of warship’ without even acknowledging it.

---

I would like to see some of the people on DU define what THEY mean by 'God'

[Evoman]

42. God is love.

Or so I hear.

[Realityhack]

51. lol (eom)

[Deep13]

63. Really? I hear he/she/it/they are judgment and doom.

[longship]

47. Myth. (nt)

.

[Deep13]

68. Myth is just another word for religious stories.

It does not necessarily imply falsity, if that is what you meant.

[Realityhack]

71. I do not think they are by deffinition religous. eom

[longship]

77. We are all atheists about Thor, Wotan, Zeus, Apollo, etc.

I just take it one god further.

[Deep13]

83. Apollo too?

Does that mean it is never Showtime at the Apollo?

[kiahzero]

90. No, we aren't.

This is probably one of the sillier arguments for atheism; then again, it's still better than the all-caps method seen above.

[Realityhack]

96. well.

its not an argument for atheisim in and of itself. However most people do not in fact bleive in those gods. And this begs the question why beleive in a diffrent god?
It also brings up the point that while one may have a hard time providing evidence against all concepts of 'god' and certianly can't disprove them all. One has a much easier time arguing against a particular specific god. And those that most people beleive in are quite easy to poke holes in.

[Goblinmonger]

100. You aren't?

You believe in ALL gods? Every one of them?

[Goblinmonger]

99. I think your high school English teacher

would be disappointed. Can you give me an example of a myth that is true?

[Odin2005]

104. Myths arn't necissarily religious

Many myths tell tales that express fundimental "archtypes" of the human experience, such as stories consisting of a young adult hero guilded by an wise elder through an age of crisis, and then for that hero to tragically decend into hubris later in life.

[demigoddess]

50. humankind's woobie, or blankie , or baby blanket, in other words

comfort item. I happen to prefer Mother Nature myself.

[Deep13]

65. So "mother nature" is your name for your psychological ...

... security blanket?

[Realityhack]

66. stupid question...

why 'Mother Nature' and not just 'Nature' or simply no comfort item at all?

[Odin2005]

93. Might I ask what a woobie is?

:-)

[Goblinmonger]

101. Woobie!!

Best thing I've heard all day. Thank you.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

89. Everything....

and nothing.

[Odin2005]

91. Damn, this thread been busy!

[Odin2005]

95. Dawkins on Deism and Pantheism

"The trouble is that God in this sophisticated, physicist's sense bears no resemblance to the God of the Bible or any other religion. If a physicist says God is another name for Planck's constant, or God is a superstring, we should take it as a picturesque metaphorical way of saying that the nature of superstrings or the value of Planck's constant is a profound mystery. It has obviously not the smallest connection with a being capable of forgiving sins, a being who might listen to prayers, who cares about whether or not the Sabbath begins at 5pm or 6pm, whether you wear a veil or have a bit of arm showing; and no connection whatever with a being capable of imposing a death penalty on His son to expiate the sins of the world before and after he was born."

[Realityhack]

97. Dawkins makes a good point there.

Too often we see the argument that 'God' is what caused the universe or whatever... therefore christianity. Which is completely bogus.

[immoderate]

110. John Lennon: God is a concept by which we measure our own fame.

Key word is concept.

--IMM

[Meshuga]

113. In my own case,

having different concepts of God is not a reason to be an atheist. My concept of God keeps changing with time and many times I also have doubts about the existence of a Supreme Being.

I guess we are all a product of our environment and the concept of God is molded according to what we were taught and our background. But this doesn't negate the existence of a God. It only negates the definition of what God is. Maybe it only shows that God might not be as he/she is described in the bible and perhaps an argument for saying that the bible is rubish. But it doesn't negate the existence of a God.

In Jewish theology, God does not have any form or shape and cannot be described. The only definition is that God is one. People can disagree with every other characteristic because they are not defined. So people can have their own idea of what God is without a problem.