What Is Your Definition of "God"?

[Kerrie]

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...

 

[ahrkron]

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.

 

[Phobos]

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.

 

[STAii]

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).

 

[bogdan]

God has no definition...
It's an axiom...

 

[FZ+]

Axiom?!

Axiom: An accepted general truth or principle

About half the world do not accept this. God is not an axiom, but a hypothesis.

 

[Iacchus32]

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.

 

[zimbo]

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'.

 

[CJames]

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.

 

[bogdan]

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...

 

[wuliheron]

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.

 

[chosenone]

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

 

[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.

 

[STAii]

Zero, existence cannot be explained without the existence of (a) 'God'.

 

[quantumdude]

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.

 

[Kerrie]

*Appreciates Tom's lighter side*

excellent tom, just excellent, where is our dear friend anyway?

 

[kyleb]

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.

 

[dock]

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.

 

[Iacchus32]

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.

 

[kyleb]

so you are saying that if we lived in a binary solar system, the only logical conclusion would be that there are two gods?

 

[Iacchus32]

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."

 

[kyleb]

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.

 

[Iacchus32]

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.

 

[kyleb]

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.

 

[Iacchus32]

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.

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."

 

[quantumcarl]

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!

 

[kyleb]

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!

 

[Sourire]

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..

 

[quantumcarl]

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

 

[MacTech]

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.

 

[Siv]

If I had to choose, I'd go in for the Deistic version.
The sum total of the patterns/order in the universe.

- S.

 

[Iacchus32]

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?[/color] 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!

 

[Lifegazer]

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.

 

[Iacchus32]

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).

 

[Lifegazer]

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.

 

[Iacchus32]

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.[/color] 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.

What would you have me do make something up here? If I "know" something exists, then why should I have to imply I only believe that it exists? Either God is a reality or He isn't. If He is then He's something to be experienced.

This is what the whole of Christendom seems to suggest (I'm referring to the New Testament here), that you come to except Him personally, and actually "know" that He exists. And, while I may doubt the validity of many who claim they do (primarily those who subscribe to organized religion), it still doesn't discount the possibility that it happens.

While you can postulate about "God the concept" all you like, but that don't mean Jack ... If you're looking for the "god of reason," I would suggest approaching the "god Apollo," you might have better luck.

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.

I would much rather experience His presence and bask in the warmth of His Love.

 

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
What would you have me do make something up here? If I "know" something exists, then why should I have to imply I only believe that it exists? Either God is a reality or He isn't. If He is then He's something to be experienced.

You can only "know" something via one of two ways:- 1. Reason.
2. Experience.

My own philosophy (reason) has led me to "know" that 'God' is real.
But so far, I have had no definite experience of this fact. I'd be interested to know how you also "know" that this is true. Intuition?

While you can postulate about "God the concept" all you like, but that don't mean Jack

If you do not understand the meaning of the Divine concept, then how can you come to "know" God? Surely, your knowledge of God is dependent upon what you think that 'God' is. A person must have an understanding of what God is before he/she can come to know 'it'.
Hence, an understanding of 'God the concept' is essential if you ever want to pursue a meaningful relationship with that God.

... If you're looking for the "god of reason," I would suggest approaching the "god Apollo," you might have better luck.

Like I said, anything finite does not fulfil the reasoned criteria for a 'God'. For all things finite are limited. Apollo is not a God of reason.

I would much rather experience His presence and bask in the warmth of His Love. [/B]

Me too. But I don't like to kid myself that any warm feelings that I experience might be emanating from God.
Did you say you were a Christian?

 

[Iacchus32]

My own philosophy (reason) has led me to "know" that 'God' is real.
But so far, I have had no definite experience of this fact. I'd be interested to know how you also "know" that this is true. Intuition?

Do you see my new Avatar? If you go to the thread "The Advent of Color" (God & Religion Forum) I explain what it means. This is just one of many things I've used to validate my experience. And yes, it all has to do with validating things for yourself.

Did you say you were a Christian?

This is only a label, for what otherwise can be understood through "common sense." So in this respect I'm not like most "practicing Christians." Whereas I'm pretty general in my views and try to remain down to earth.

Also, you may want to check out my book by following the link below. Lots of interesting parallels between Dionysus, the Greek of wine, and the inception of Christianity.

 

[Kerrie]

Lifegazer~

My own philosophy (reason) has led me to "know" that 'God' is real. But so far, I have had no definite experience of this fact. I'd be interested to know how you also "know" that this is true. Intuition?

i completely believe that our instinct, intelligence, and intuition are what what people call "god", but fail to realize that it is not separate from them...

 

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by Kerrie
Lifegazer~


i completely believe that our instinct, intelligence, and intuition are what what people call "god", but fail to realize that it is not separate from them...

Yes I have to agree, since I think all 'things' emanate from God. God is all.

 

[N_Quire]

Lifegazer wrote: "Yes I have to agree, since I think all 'things' emanate from God. God is all."
-----------------------------------------------------------------

That statement has nothing to do with reason. It's a statement of blind faith.

 

[M. Gaspar]

"God" is just a nickname

The Universe is a living, conscious Entity that's responsive to all of Its parts.

It wasn't "created" by an "outside force" that we call "God", but is, in fact, a Being whose life cycle(s) spans the time between each "Big Bang" and a subsequent "Big Crunch".

It is an Entity of Energy, whose natural forces give rise to everything that is, has been, and will be...including us. The Universe has NO PLAN...only an INTENTION...It's PRIMARY WILL, which is: to have another Experience, albeit a very complex one consisting of that of each life experience of each being that has lived, is living, and will every live within THIS incarnation of the Universe.

If It had a "Primary Question" it would be: What can I create THIS time? Because we are extensions of the Creative Being that is the Universe, our question should also be: What can I create THIS time?

"God" a nickname for a primitive idea that has "Him" (or even "Her") as an external force that "created" Everything That Is, when, in fact (loosely speaking, of course, as ALL IS THEORY!), Everything That Is is the living/conscious Universe that pulses on!

 

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by N_Quire
Lifegazer wrote: "Yes I have to agree, since I think all 'things' emanate from God. God is all."
-----------------------------------------------------------------

That statement has nothing to do with reason. It's a statement of blind faith.

True. It comes across like that. But this topic is about defining God - not proving that 'it' exists. However, most of the regulars here know that my ~belief~ of God emanates from a reason which, for me at least, enables me to know the existence of God
without having to rely on "blind faith".

 

[Iacchus32]

What's the point in defining God, if it isn't to prove He exists? Or, at least allow the opportunity for others to ascertain it (or prove) for themselves?

 

[Iacchus32]

From the thread, The Mystery Within ...

Originally posted by Iacchus32

The truth of God is without, the whole material universe. The Essence of God is within. Whereas the truth is discerned, and the essence is to be experienced. So why do we go to such great lengths to uncover the truth, when we don't partake of the experience which gives birth to it? We seek the truth in "its effect," but we don't seek the Life which leads to it?

The Mystery of Life, is also the mystery of conception and birth.

 

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
What's the point in defining God, if it isn't to prove He exists? Or, at least allow the opportunity for others to ascertain it (or prove) for themselves?

Exactly. We need to define that concept before we can discuss the possible existence of that concept. That is the point.

 

[M. Gaspar]

LIFEGAZER: I do NOT base my thesis on "blind faith". It is through REASON that I have come to "believe" that the Universe ITSELF is a living, conscious Entity that's responsive to all of Its parts.

I do not have to "prove" the Universe exists. Nor do I have to prove that it is "living" and "conscious".

To tell you the truth, I am not seeking dialogue with those who see "God" as "outside" the Universe as It's "creator". The Universe, in my belief system, is an "Eternal Entity of Energy" with a life cycle that moves from one incarnation to another, from one "Big Bang" though "Big Crunch" to "Big Bang" etc. etc...

My interest is in cosmology, but not just the PHYSICAL Universe. I believe that any theory of cosmology that does not include the nature and evolution of CONSCIOUSNESS is an incomplete theory.

I have some theories about the nature and evolution of consciousness that relates to the laws of physics, which is why I have come to this site.

I am seeking dialogue with minds that PROCESS INFO -- not minds that are HOOKED ON STORIES -- and am about to start a search on this site, within all of its categories, until I identify perhaps 8 persons with whom I would like discourse.

This may take some time, but I'm looking forward to it!

 

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by M. Gaspar
LIFEGAZER: I do NOT base my thesis on "blind faith". It is through REASON that I have come to "believe" that the Universe ITSELF is a living, conscious Entity that's responsive to all of Its parts.

I do not have to "prove" the Universe exists. Nor do I have to prove that it is "living" and "conscious".

To tell you the truth, I am not seeking dialogue with those who see "God" as "outside" the Universe as It's "creator". The Universe, in my belief system, is an "Eternal Entity of Energy" with a life cycle that moves from one incarnation to another, from one "Big Bang" though "Big Crunch" to "Big Bang" etc. etc...

My interest is in cosmology, but not just the PHYSICAL Universe. I believe that any theory of cosmology that does not include the nature and evolution of CONSCIOUSNESS is an incomplete theory.

I have some theories about the nature and evolution of consciousness that relates to the laws of physics, which is why I have come to this site.

I am seeking dialogue with minds that PROCESS INFO -- not minds that are HOOKED ON STORIES -- and am about to start a search on this site, within all of its categories, until I identify perhaps 8 persons with whom I would like discourse.

This may take some time, but I'm looking forward to it!

Make a post in the philosophy forum. Let 'them' find you. I look forward to hearing your views. Welcome.

 

[N_Quire]

Lifegazer, your style of introspection and the quirky results it provides are not what many of us would consider reason. However preposterous, untestable and untenable your conclusions, you consider them to be the products of reason merely because you dreamt them up.

Introspection with little or no background and fieldwork in science and philosophy will never be anything more than armchair philosophising or bar-stool wisdom.

You should first grasp what you mean, and what others mean, by such seemingly simple words and concepts as reason, ultimate, fundamental, truth, absolute, reality, etc, etc. You cannot simply ascribe to these terms a Lifegazer meaning and then use those meanings to arrive at more and more ludicrous conclusions.

It has been pointed out time and time again that you have not fully understood materialism, nor that there is more to science and philosophy science than materialism. Your notion of The Mind and other such fluff does not advance our knowledge in any way.

 

[M. Gaspar]

Wrong Object of Scorn

I believe, N Quire, that you're addressing ME with your derision.
It is MY speculations -- not Lifegazer's -- that propose that the Universe might be a living, conscious Entity that's responsive to all of its parts...etc.

I especially loved your saying that my ideas are not products of reason just because I dreamt them up. You made me smile.

...although I don't remember using such words as "fundamental truth" or "absolute reality," I will say that I do believe the Universe at least EXISTS (or what are the physicists studying?) and that there is CONSCIOUSNESS "in" the Universe (or what would they be studying WITH?).

So let me add this: Any theory of cosmology that does NOT include the nature and evolution of consciousness is an INCOMPLETE THEORY.

I'm sure you'll agree (still smiling).