0

The concept of God in different religions as well as deism seems to be inconsistent. So what is the best way of defining God?

Reggie O'Donoghue
  • 9
  • 2

4 Answers4

2

A god is a person whose will cannot be disputed by humans

A god satisfies all three of these criteria:

  • A god is a person. Do note that person does not mean "human". All humans are persons but not all persons are humans. The concept of "person" was actually developed during theological debates during the 5th century common era to distinguish between a god and forces of nature.

  • A god has a will, a plan, and acts to enforce this will/plan.

  • The god's will cannot be disputed by humans. The god answers to no human and no human has the authority nor the weight to dispute the will. Humans may try to defy the will, but it will still not be disputed.

MichaelK
  • 5,144
  • 1
  • 16
  • 28
0

I am not an expert but I will try my best. My understanding is that God is a being/existence that would have adequate capabilities to create the known universe as based on God's own will.

scriptbaby
  • 21
  • 1
  • Welcome to Philosophy SE. Your answer is reasonable, but a little recursive insofar as you mention the will of the God in the definition of the God. Perhaps it would be useful to edit your answer to reflect that the power and ability to wield it according to intent are both factors in the definition? Nuclear weapons (for example) are powerful, but do not release their power in a manner that they consciously control. Examples of how each attribute works together (as well as in isolation) can assist here. – Tim B II Feb 15 '18 at 00:36
  • Not quite. For many people God would transcend Being and Existence and would not create the universe but simply be a necessary condition. Thus for Lao Tsu the world is as it is, 'Tao being what it is'. Such people use the word 'created' to refer to metaphysically unreal phenomena - the idea being that what is truly real is not created. . .. . . –  Feb 16 '18 at 13:48
  • By that definition, humans can become gods, when we create self-aware artificial intelligence and lock it into a "universe" that is a simulation. We are already seeing the first traces of this. – MichaelK Mar 17 '18 at 14:14
  • @TimBII Can you please explain to this young grasshopper about what constitutes to conscious? If the being is "conscious" but we, as a human just do not have yet the knowledge to understand that consciousness, do they become not yet conscious instead of not conscious? Thank you! – scriptbaby Mar 20 '18 at 12:35
  • @PeterJ your idea seems legit but my english/philosophy skill is not capable enough to understand it. can you please simplify and perhaps provide some simpler examples please? Thank you beforehand – scriptbaby Mar 20 '18 at 12:37
  • @MichaelK I think so, because I believe that "God" is a relative position. One becomes God given enough abilities. After all, aren't we just artificial intelligence when viewed from God's perspective? there was pretty much nothing and God artificially created our universe – scriptbaby Mar 20 '18 at 12:40
  • @scriptbaby Then what is the point of the god concept if every human being fulfils it? I mean... sure, we can define gods as you propose, but that would also mean that we can appoint everyone as "magicians" according to Arthur C. Clarke's definition of magic. The only use I see of this definition is to deflate the concept all together. – MichaelK Mar 20 '18 at 12:53
  • Consciousness has been defined many different ways throughout history and is one of the primary points of contention within Philosophy even today (IMO). The point I was trying to raise is that a good definition of something doesn't rely on the perception of that thing in order to complete the definition. If you can't define God without mentioning God, then perhaps your definition is incomplete. And no, nuclear weapons aren't conscious, although I'll readily admit that I can't prove the negative but for the purposes of my original comment, there's no way to prove that they ARE either. – Tim B II Mar 20 '18 at 23:46
  • My comment was supporting Chris Degnon's suggestion above, that you'd better off trying to define God by what He is not. This 'negative' theology avoids assigning positive properties to God and thus brings Him into line with Lao Tsu's Tao. . –  Mar 21 '18 at 12:11
  • @MichaelK Please CMIIW, in my definition of God, God is a relative position, not an absolute position, i.e God can the God's God. However, on a human level, we are all born with a different genes variations thus while theoretically it is possible to fulfils it, but statistically only small amount of people (with or without the aid of reincarnation) can fulfill it. IMO, Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic, Thus Any sufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from God.my brain is now fizzing with smoke lol – scriptbaby Mar 22 '18 at 12:24
  • @TimBII Ah I got you! e.g the definition of let's say an Apple, is perhaps something like, A fruit that it is either red or green and is grown on trees (no mention of the word Apple). One day I will tag you again when I have the better definition then. Great comment! – scriptbaby Mar 22 '18 at 12:27
  • @scriptbaby That was word salad to me. I have no idea what you are saying. – MichaelK Mar 22 '18 at 12:30
  • @PeterJ, Let me get back to you when I found the Midphatic definition of God (somewhere between Apophatic and Catphatic). According to the Chris Degnon's link, Sunni Islam is one source though I haven't completely finish reading the wiki link yet. – scriptbaby Mar 22 '18 at 12:37
  • @MichaelK My bad, you are not the first person who thinks I speak in a "word salad" way. I was just trying to answer your question, "what is the point of the god concept if every human being fulfils it?". In my opinion, there is no answer to that, because statistically not every human can fulfil it, either by genetic predispositions or other factors. But yes, I think my definition could be improved over time. – scriptbaby Mar 22 '18 at 12:41
0

I would suggest a reading of defining God by what He is not.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apophatic_theology

For example

The Tâo that can be trodden is not the enduring and unchanging Tâo. The name that can be named is not the enduring and unchanging name.

The Tâo Te Ching 1.1

Compare with Douglas Adams:

There is a theory which states that if ever anyone discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable.

There is another theory which states that this has already happened.

Chris Degnen
  • 5,777
  • 2
  • 15
  • 23
  • This does not really answer the question. This is more like a comment that states that "You could use this approach when creating a definition". Also the Douglas Adams quote is a non sequiteur in relation to the question. – MichaelK Mar 22 '18 at 12:58
  • @MichaelK - In the line of 'whatever you think God is, God is other', this constitutes a kind of definition. Hence the link to Tâo and Adams' universe. Nevertheless that definition is still too determinate for a proper negative theology, and only stated to give a gist of the idea. – Chris Degnen Mar 22 '18 at 13:29
  • 1
    @MichaelK - It is analogous to Heidegger putting Being under erasure. Holding back from jumping in with a definition for something whose definition is only just being attempted. You could say Heidegger "could use this approach when creating a definition" of Being. – Chris Degnen Mar 22 '18 at 14:18
  • @ChrisDegnen - Good point about Heidegger. He warns us against confusing 'Being' with 'beings', a common mistake he calls 'no mere error'. –  Mar 26 '18 at 08:46
-1

God is the idea of All Knowledge & All Power. In whichever form that idea takes.

M. Zeal
  • 29
  • 5
  • What is knowledge? What is power? – MichaelK Mar 22 '18 at 12:54
  • Knowledge: understand, comprehension, command, mastery, awareness, consciousness, realization, cognition, apprehension, perception, etc. Power: ability to act or produce an effect, any effect, etc. – M. Zeal Mar 28 '18 at 21:43