Define God

This one crossed me mind, before we can get into a real argument about whether there is a God we need to define it.

So my definition. God would have to be the force that created reality, God has to be supernatural and God has to have a really awesome beard. What's your definition?

I was thinking about writing a story once which involved a conversation about what God is. The answer didn't turn out to be the Abrahamic God. It was something like...the force behind everything in nature and science. Sort of like a thread that runs through everything in the universe. The concept is abstract, certainly.

I'm not sure if this helps at all, though...

edited 18th Mar '11 5:04:48 PM by snailbait

I'll stick the Hinduism definition here:

Think of every single adjective you can think of. Then take every single adjective from the dictionary. Then take every single adjective humanity will think of in the future. Then take every single adjective humans will never think up. Put a "not" in front of all of those and you get Brahman.

edited 18th Mar '11 5:13:02 PM by Usht

The problem is of course that most conceptions of god are conceptions of a transcendent being or force of some kind. A transcendent mystery. The thing about transcendence is that it is well...transcendent and as such we cannot describe it with words and a definition that catches the essence of this transcendent mystery is thus, by definition, impossible.

I do however like the idea of god being some kind of transcendent force/energy/mystery that is the energy/creation of the universe and that religions are merely metaphors trying to describe this indescribable thing, sometimes illuminating it sometimes doing the exact opposite. Of course I'm agnostic, so I don't necessearily believe in it, but when I'm leaning towards the theistic side that is how I think of "god", which is merely a name given to this transcendent mystery. So my definition is that "god" is something that cannot be defined. Not particularly helpful. : P

edited 19th Mar '11 4:14:29 AM by Mathias

^^^I'm pretty sure that's part of what God is, anyway.

But, put simply, God is Love, for starters. He is omnipresent, in time as well as space (thus, for example, he knows what we need before we ask for it because he's simultaneously there when we ask, while he's giving it, and after he's given it; I don't put much stock in predestination), omniscient, and omnipotent. He is Good, both in the sense that he does good things and is Good by nature, and in that he embodies and defines all that is Good; if we assume he is the creator of ourselves and the universe, then it is from him that our definitions of good, evil, and morality in general are derived. Thus, whatever is good is of God, and anything Godly is good. Similarly, anything not of God is evil, and so on. Finally, he has an active interest in humans and creation in general. That's my basic definition, anyway.

edited 18th Mar '11 5:19:36 PM by rbx5

Hmm, suppose I should put my own actual definition here:

God is a programmer that more or less made a super program that contains the universe. God has also made it so that s/he can edit it at any point in time from anywhere to do anything. It has an incredibly deep physics engine, a true random number generator, and can spontaneously create intelligence in it. And you're just running around in it. And since s/he's a programmer, s/he probably got pretty attached to the program (as I always do with my large projects).

I might be biased here since I'm a software engineer.

edited 18th Mar '11 5:20:50 PM by Usht

I think The Island say it best.

What's God? Well, you know, when you want something really bad and you close your eyes and you wish for it? God's the guy that ignores you.

edited 18th Mar '11 8:49:26 PM by joeyjojo

Ah, the good old God debate.

It's basically useless. I'm pretty near-certain that there are an infinite amount of God(s) exists with that white beard/etc., and is/are virtually omnipotent. But God's just another fish in the infinite pond we call reality.

Edit: And to answer the debate of who made the universe we currently live in, it was probably some jackass playing around with his universe's LHC.

Or it was an accident.

Fuck, I'll probably make a few universes down the line of my presumably infinite existence, so who's to say one of us didn't make it in some recursive weird bullshit.

edited 18th Mar '11 8:59:37 PM by Ekuran

The person/thing that maybe created existence.

The creator of the universe, ex nihilo. The supreme judge of good and evil. Alternately, see Usht's conception of God-as-programmer.

I don't believe anything can be truly supernatural, even a supreme entity with absolute power, such as God.

As for the beard, beards are common, so why not?

And lastly, I wouldn't say "created reality", as "reality" would have to be defined, and that would complicate things.

God defines himself in the Bible as "Yahweh" or "I am". Interesting turn of phrase, isn't it? It's as if his explanation is that he just sort of... is there, as if for no reason at all. Perhaps before anything existed, there were no laws to govern anything. And thus, God popped in for no reason, and made everything do as a says.

"What is man but an imagination of God?"

In this respect, I think the best way to define him is "supreme being". "Supreme" denotes control and superiority, and God has that.

He is impossible for us to touch directly, as he seems akin to a writer. If you write a story, the characters are just there, penned on in the form of words. You can flip through, but nothing changes. And even if you put a wishing device in your story, and have a character wish themselves out of the book, they won't.

I find it interesting the way the Bible starts. God says "let there be light", as if he is testing his pen, readying himself for a great novel. It's as if he is thinking to himself "hm, what next?".

He seems like he would be a bit closer to us than that, and closer than in the form of just an author avatar (no, I'm not referring to Jesus). It's almost as if he is having a lucid dream. He can experience his own story. Of course, you would have to be an *immensely* intelligent entity to *think* all of the stuff in this world into existence.

There is more to my navel contemplation, I think, but I don't care to ramble forever.

I make a division akin to Gnosticism. There's Yahweh and there's Khaos. The first is the classical demiurge, imperfect at best, and an evil megalomaniac at worst. The second is the genuine creating force, and may or may not be good or amoral. I'm leaning towards Eldritch Abomination.

edited 19th Mar '11 2:53:20 AM by Mullerornis

I think "God" is partially subjective, in that even an all-powerful being that created the universe can be (and, in science fiction, often is) viewed in entirely secular terms, as a sort of alien. It's a bit like how someone who saves a child from drowning still needs the admiration of that child or its parents in order to be a "hero." That said, we have the concept of a Fake Ultimate Hero, and in the same way something that's worshipped may not necessarily be a god if it lacks certain objective qualities (probably omnipotence and omniscience—God Is Evil means omnibenevolence is optional.)

edited 19th Mar '11 3:03:14 AM by feotakahari

"God" is the idea conceived by humanity to explain that which they could formerly not thousand of years ago. There is also a relevance with dominion and subjugation: "God" created us, if something happens it's all according to "God's" will. It is not your responsibility. Of course with the science we have today, such a concept is unneeded. We have learned the rules of physics, chemics etc. But there are still problems. Such an idea has been part of society for thousand of years and has shaped it. And as man is a animal of habits he still clings to it because for all time others believed in it too. Also as we know how insignificant we are in the universe people have something to trust in with "God". After all he must have a meaning of life for creating us, eh? Surely we can't be that insignificant then? Lastly the concept also gave some people power over others. The church is still a greater influence on the people.

My atheistic view on "God".

God is absolute. This is the one "attribute" of god that is universal in any monotheist system, so it's probably the best definition.

You have to define "God" very carefully, then, because mathematics is also absolute, arguably the "creator" of the universe, eternal, and unchanging. It also isn't what most people consider "God".

@rbx 5, you've just ran headlong into the problem of evil.

edited 19th Mar '11 4:10:22 AM by Yej

Mathematics is rule in this universe. Thus it is limited to this universe.

edited 19th Mar '11 7:32:12 AM by Blurring

I can define it in one word: Kira.

That being said another way would be: anything humans don't understand and attribute to higher power in humanizing inhuman concepts do to irrational feelings. Villages in the pacific believed our planes to be gods, and even built shrines to them and prayed for their return.

Everything that humans understand and didn't understand could be attributed to god because the whole universe is submit to God's rules. Understanding something does not get God out of the question. It means we just discovered the method that God wills to happen.

edited 19th Mar '11 8:40:51 AM by Blurring

Mathematics isn't limited to this universe at all, if you take a slightly more metaphysical view of what it tells you. It describes all self-consistent universes, as this Big Bang Theory quote nicely illustrates:

(If you are slightly mad, you can even get it to describe inconsistent universes.)

edited 19th Mar '11 8:42:49 AM by Yej

I have to admit I don't know much mathematics. However, it doesn't change the fact that mathematics is a rule, not God.

Maybe gods ARE rules.

!

Like I said, we've got to be careful how God is defined, since mathematics usually matches all the mystical definitions that get tossed about.

edited 19th Mar '11 8:55:18 AM by Yej

Me.

Oh come on, am I the only one who said this?

Yej:

In what sense is mathematics absolute? Considering Gödel, I'd argue that while mathematics is a formalisation of necessities of logical thinking, the term "absolute" cannot apply. We CAN obviously have illogical thoughts.

And moreover, in what sense does mathematics exist? Surely it is not a "thing" like a whip or a sexy ass.

Well, and also, I don't quite get the logic - how do we go from "maths is absolute" to "I have to be careful about the definition of god"? If you mean to say that my logic implies that god IS logic (or mathematics as one formalisation of logic), then given that you seem to assume that logic is indeed absolute, of course this is one possible solution. I wouldn't see any problem with that - we should then discuss how logic can be considered absolute. Anyway, I don't think we should shy away from a definition just because it leads us to uncomfortable results.

Of course not. What most people consider "god" is so vague and inconsistent as to be completely undefined. So I think we can rule that out in any discussion about definitions of god.

ETA: I mean, sure you can define god as just some uber-power, I'm fine with that. I would simply not attend a discussion that starts from such a definition, because to me, that's just another whip-or-ass, so to speak. And sexy asses are much better experienced than talked about.

edited 19th Mar '11 9:35:54 AM by vijeno