Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Defining God

  1. Mar 8, 2003 #1


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member

    Defining "God"...

    In this thread, I would like to know what your definition of "God" is, if it is a being, a force, if it is equivalent to Mother Nature, to science, etc...
  2. jcsd
  3. Mar 9, 2003 #2


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member

    I think God has to be distinct from "mother nature". Otherwise, if they were two different words for the same concept, the belief in God has a much different meaning, one that makes no assertions at all.
  4. Mar 9, 2003 #3


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Big question. Big unknown. I would define God as the omniscient, omnipotent creator of the universe. As such, the universe could just be an aspect of God. Or not. I'm still trying to figure things out.

    Science is Humanity's invention for understanding how the universe we live in works.
  5. Mar 17, 2003 #4
    For me "God" is (first of all) not a material thing.
    We cannot consider it to be anything that we all know its nature.
    He does not replicate, did not come from another "God".
    He created the universe, and he is able to control it as he wishes.
    He is only a single one (there are no other '"Gods").
    He has no equalivant (not sure of the spelling ).

    (when i use the word "he" i do not mean that God has to be a male (or sth like that), put any other pronoun instead of "he" if you want).
  6. Mar 17, 2003 #5
    God has no definition...
    It's an axiom...
  7. Mar 17, 2003 #6


    User Avatar

    About half the world do not accept this. God is not an axiom, but a hypothesis.
  8. Mar 17, 2003 #7
    The idea of God kind of goes beyond words, but it brings to mind words like Eternal, Timeless, Everpresent, and yet not that easily approached. But the evidence is all around us if we only cared to look.
  9. Mar 18, 2003 #8
    My personal definition of God:

    'The ultimate in truth and goodness.'

    (Corollary: ignorance is the cause of all evil?)

    God isn't an agent that does/did things, but a way through which things should be done, in an ideal world.

    For an atheist like me, this is the most I would accept about 'God'.
  10. Mar 18, 2003 #9
    I would define God as a creator of the universe, as that seems to be a very commong trend. Did Zues create the universe? Or his dad or whatever? Can't remember. I would call other godlike entities, supernatural beings. I believe in none of them.
  11. Mar 18, 2003 #10
    Well, God is a truth generally accepted by people...without any demonstration...
    Like Spinoza said...God is not the creator of the universe...It is the universe...
    And we accept universe's existance without any proof...only our senses tell us that there is something out there...outside of us...
  12. Mar 18, 2003 #11
    If there is a God, I assume s/he/it is as Lao Tzu wrote,

    "The Mother of Nature."

    The mother of nature does not mean merely the creator of the universe. More Broadly it denotes the paradox of existence itself which everything shares.
  13. Mar 18, 2003 #12
    what if god as everyone likes to believe is all things because he created everything,if this were true then matter is god.god is pure energy with consciousness.he converted himself into matter in the begining when he set forth creating the universe the way he wanted to.thats why in quantum theory you cant see the atoms and the uncertainty principle exists,because god does'nt want you to know what he is doing,so he created the laws of physics to trap you out of ever being able to.so god is infinite right,so that means that god is every particle and every atoms all at once,he is making everything in time move forward together to act out his plan that he's been doing from the begining
  14. Mar 19, 2003 #13
    The whole concept of 'God' doesn't even fit into my brain. No offense to anyone, but I can't see it as being a meaningful term. Something that is invisible, doesn;t interact, and is everywhere and nowhere at once? I think it is an invention of people who didn't know any better.
  15. Mar 20, 2003 #14
    Zero, existance cannot be explained without the existance of (a) 'God'.
  16. Mar 20, 2003 #15

    Tom Mattson

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Re: Defining "God"...

    *Mustering up best Russian accent*

    Kerry, god(s), Santa Clauses, Zeuses, Ras do not exist, by definition. Whole nature (=math) would be mess with god (heizenberg uncertainty, Shred equation, etc).

    What you mean 'being'? It is 99.99999% certain that no beings exist outside Earth.


    Force is F=dp/dt. Does that spell "god"?

    Nature already got name (=universe). Science too (=math). Why you need another one?

    Thank you.
  17. Mar 20, 2003 #16


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member

    *Appreciates Tom's lighter side*

    excellent tom, just excellent, where is our dear friend anyway?
  18. Mar 21, 2003 #17
    god is that which there is not anything else but; all that is, is god. well that is the best i can tell from where i stand anyway.:wink:
  19. Mar 21, 2003 #18
    when Moses asked GOD what are you?, GOD said:"I AM THAT I AM"

    your definition of GOD?...so when tallking on "GOD/Religion" subject we will know how to translate our ideas to the others.

    here are my definitions:

    (1) charge, mass, position in space are physical qualities.
    (2) matter is physical something that has nonzero(charge and mass) somewhere in space.
    (3) vacuum is physical something that has zero(charge and mass) somewhere in space.
    (4) the set of all the matter is universe.
    (5) universe union all the vacuum is GOD


    (1) God is undestructable cause if you destroy the matter you'll generate vacuum and if you destroy the vacuum you'll generate matter. the vacuum into matter conversion is given with the following equation dM=(k/w)(q/m)dQ where k and w are constants, q/m is charge-mass ratio of one particle, dQ/dM is the ratio of the changes of the charge and mass of the other particle. if (M=Q=0 b4) and (M<>0 and Q<>0 after) then matter is being made from vacuum.
    (2) we are all, separately, subsets of GOD.
    (3) God is every where all the time.
    (4) God will be cause God is. God is cause God was. God was cause God will be.
    (*)...........you name it.
  20. Mar 22, 2003 #19
    One God ...

    There is only one sun in the sky, which in the spiritual sense can only suggest one thing, "One God." Not all is lost though (for those with varying views), for a whole diversitly of life has evolved on this planet about this one idea. And yet each has developed its own unique interpretation as to what that means.
  21. Mar 22, 2003 #20
    so you are saying that if we lived in a binary solar system, the only logical conclusion would be that there are two gods?
  22. Mar 22, 2003 #21
    Actually I'm saying you can have as many Gods as you want, just so long as you understand it's derived from the "same source."
  23. Mar 22, 2003 #22
    Iacchus32, but why do you arbitrary base that concusion on the center of our solar system?

    also Sensei, you are deniying your nature as a human by thinking such things. inorder to have all information you must be all that exists, so even if you could it sure would be boreing because you would be all alone and with nothing to learn. :wink:
  24. Mar 22, 2003 #23
    Because like God, the sun is a primary source of existence. This is why in the spiritual sense (in heaven if you will), God is seen and experienced as the sun.

    This is not my original conclusion by the way (I have reference materials), although it is something I have experienced for myself.
  25. Mar 22, 2003 #24
    but the sun is not the primary source of existence. also, i know that it is not your original idea, i just don't understand why you are perpetuating such ideology. most of us gave up worshiping Ra a long time ago.:wink:
  26. Mar 22, 2003 #25
    Just as you and I are human beings, and have a soul which reflects this, our sun -- which, to the natural world is most like God -- has its spiritual counterpart as well, and it too "governs" so to speak in the spiritual world.

    The mistake here is that we don't take that which is natural, be it you, I, the sun, a nation, etc., and bow down and worship it, because this is idolitry. Therefore when we approach God it should be done in essence (spiritually), rather than as some material manifestation, otherwise we'll lose sight of the fact that we're "spiritual beings."
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook