Defining God

  • Thread starter Kerrie
  • Start date
  • #1
Kerrie
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
841
15
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...
 

Answers and Replies

  • #2
ahrkron
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
756
2
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.
 
  • #3
Phobos
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
1,954
6
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.
 
  • #4
STAii
333
1
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).
 
  • #5
bogdan
191
0
God has no definition...
It's an axiom...
 
  • #6
FZ+
1,599
3
Axiom?!
Axiom: An accepted general truth or principle
About half the world do not accept this. God is not an axiom, but a hypothesis.
 
  • #7
Iacchus32
2,313
1
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.
 
  • #8
zimbo
50
0
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'.
 
  • #9
CJames
369
0
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.
 
  • #10
bogdan
191
0
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 existence without any proof...only our senses tell us that there is something out there...outside of us...
 
  • #11
wuliheron
2,135
0
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.
 
  • #12
chosenone
183
1
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 beginning when he set forth creating the universe the way he wanted to.thats why in quantum theory you can't see the atoms and the uncertainty principle exists,because god doesn't 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
 
  • #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.
 
  • #14
STAii
333
1
Zero, existence cannot be explained without the existence of (a) 'God'.
 
  • #15
quantumdude
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
5,575
23


Originally posted by Kerrie
In this thread, I would like to know what your definition of "God" is,

*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).

if it is a being,

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

a force,

Impossible.

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

if it is equivalent to Mother Nature, to science, etc...

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

Thank you.
 
  • #16
Kerrie
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
841
15
*Appreciates Tom's lighter side*

excellent tom, just excellent, where is our dear friend anyway?
 
  • #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:
 
  • #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

implications:

(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.
 
  • #19
Iacchus32
2,313
1
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.
 
  • #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?
 
  • #21
Iacchus32
2,313
1
so you are saying that if we lived in a binary solar system, the only logical conclusion would be that there are two gods?

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."
 
  • #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:
 
  • #23
Iacchus32
2,313
1
Iacchus32, but why do you arbitrary base that concusion on the center of our solar system?

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.
 
  • #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:
 
  • #25
Iacchus32
2,313
1
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:

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."
 
  • #26
quantumcarl
770
0


Originally posted by Kerrie
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...

My answer with regard to this question, Kerry, can be simple or could breach the number of characters allowed by the Lords of the PhysicsForums!

So, I'll keep it brief, if that's ok!

My assessment of the use of the word God is seen below...it is in general terms and is arrived at by-way of a non-epidemiological analysis... in other words... in my opinion.

The pronoun/noun/verb/adverb/adjective/discriptive adjective, etc,,, "God", is a layperson's term for the Quantum/Synergistic/Relativistic and Symbiotic nature of the universe with which we have always found ourselves existing, simultaniously and relatively harmoniously.

The layperson sees it written that God is everything, everywhere all the time... no two ways about it. There is no separation from God... God is omnipotent. God is the Creator. God is the "uninstaller"... etc...

Having said this, the conclusion which should naturally come out of this layperson's definition is that the layman is god... and that there are no worries... because that means the layman is the creator... the "uninstaller" the omnipotent and all giving power in charge of the said layperson's life.

Having defined God as such we can continue and denote that all other singular, physical and conceptual units, suchas the layperson, are God as well.

For instance: Nature is god. Artificiallity is god. Science is god. Religion is god. Dirt is god. All thoughts are god. Love is god. Even hatred is god at work.

That is my opinion for the moment. Thank you!
 
Last edited:
  • #27


Originally posted by quantumcarl
For instance: Nature is god. Artificiallity is god. Science is god. Religion is god. Dirt is god. All thoughts are god. Love is god. Even hatred is god at work.

monk: what is Buddha?
Unmon: a dried ****-stick!
 
  • #28
Sourire
57
0
Originally posted by Phobos
I would define God as the omniscient, omnipotent creator of the universe.

I would have to add that He is the Creator of the universe.. all you need to do is look around and see..
 
  • #29
quantumcarl
770
0
Originally posted by Sourire
I would have to add that He is the Creator of the universe.. all you need to do is look around and see..

Dear Sourire

What do you see, when you look around, that proves the universe exists because of a "He" or a "Creator"? Just asking.

To this valley of the Sun
Rain has come, rain has come,
Falling on everyone

Satoru
 
  • #30
GOD = Globle Orbital Defence, a SDI project that relatest to the starwars inititive of the 70s and 80.. jk...

If God didn't exist, it would be necessary to invent him. -Voltaire.

Define god?

a being that holds power to all.
 
  • #31
Siv
Gold Member
89
5
If I had to choose, I'd go in for the Deistic version.
The sum total of the patterns/order in the universe.

- S.
 
  • #32
Iacchus32
2,313
1
Originally posted by Zero
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.
Use your imagination man! That's what God gave it to you for!
 
  • #33
Originally posted by Iacchus32
Use your imagination man! That's what God gave it to you for!
'God' is a concept which is not borne of the imagination - but of reason. It's a deductive concept, existing in our minds, exactly like the concept of 'infinity', for example.
The concept of an omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent creator - as the possible essence of all existence - is borne of reason. Those who claim to not comprehend that concept are not failing to use their imaginations - they're failing to use their intelligence.
 
  • #34
Iacchus32
2,313
1
Originally posted by Lifegazer
'God' is a concept which is not borne of the imagination - but of reason. It's a deductive concept, existing in our minds, exactly like the concept of 'infinity', for example.
The concept of an omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent creator - as the possible essence of all existence - is borne of reason. Those who claim to not comprehend that concept are not failing to use their imaginations - they're failing to use their intelligence.
God is not just a concept, but a reality which is to be experienced. Therefore it requires the use of your imagination as well.

And, while I can't say I've experienced God person to person, I can say I've experienced the "reality of God" which, is about all one can hope to accomplish. Perhaps this is what you mean by concept, I don't know?

Whereas we see by the light of the sun (truth/intelligence) and are sustained by its warmth (love/imagination).
 
  • #35
Originally posted by Iacchus32
God is not just a concept, but a reality which is to be experienced.
Proving the reality of the concept, or having direct experience of that concept, is something else altogether. The thread is about "defining" God - not proving that God exists. I'm merely making the point that the human-mind is quite capable of grasping the existence of the concept without having had direct experience or proof of that concept's actual existence. For example, everyone more-or-less understands what 'infinity' and 'nothing' are; but no human mind has ever grasped these concepts within their experience. The concepts are intangible. The concepts are merely understood by the mind. By reason.
Therefore it requires the use of your imagination as well.
I disagree. I believe it takes faith & trust in knowing that the reasoned-concept (God) has a reality unto itself. Imagination is only required to formulate a subjective-God (a limited God). Reason, however, understands that the concept of God is boundless (non-finite). Thus, imagination is actually meaningless in relation to this attribute (boundlessness); for it is meaningless to formulate a imagined-opinion of God if one understands the boundlessness that is intrinsic to that concept.
 

Suggested for: Defining God

Replies
3
Views
591
Replies
1
Views
941
  • Last Post
Replies
2
Views
741
  • Last Post
Replies
32
Views
879
Replies
25
Views
1K
  • Last Post
Replies
11
Views
570
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
733
Replies
7
Views
966
  • Last Post
Replies
2
Views
4K
Top