What think you? A definition of god.

[pengd0t]

So this is a bit long, as a definition of god might be expected to be...
So bear with me.

I've tried to edit it a bit, but it was a single post written in response to someone's questions about god and prayer and the like, so if something seems random or out of place, it was probably addressing something in the conversation.

So what do you think?

The world's preeminent religious text, wikipedia, explains: Pantheism is the view that everything is of an all-encompassing immanent abstract God; or that the Universe, or nature, and God are equivalent. More detailed definitions tend to emphasize the idea that natural law, existence, and the Universe (the sum total of all that is, was, and shall be) is represented in the theological principle of an abstract 'god' rather than a personal, creative deity or deities of any kind.

At first glance, this might seem to cheapen the idea of god, reduce it even. But really this is like going a step higher than monotheism, a true monotheism, one in which it's just silly to describe the idea of god as seperate entities like Yahweh, Allah, the sun, the son, etc... To me, THAT seems like a cheapening of the beauty of the thing, the concept ideal.

I came upon these ideas many years ago, though it took me a little while to understand what it was exactly that I was thinking... Sitting in church, I would be thinking how completely absurd it was to explain that Yes, we are monotheists, but OUR god is the best, the only one that really counts... that sort of thinking only necessitates more gods of that sort. I knew that there was definately something I thought of as "god," but it seemed pretty obvious that all different gods were just a matter of what you saw when you perceived this idea from your own cultural reference point.

That's the reason why Jesus, in our culture, is pictured as a white, tall, thin European-looking man. I imagine people picture him a little differently in the middle east. Likewise, for the warlike tribes of Judea, god was envisioned not too much differently than a Spartan might envision god. Yahweh was a spiteful, jealous god who took revenge for every wrongdoing and who led them into their battles. Being of this nature, he of course saw no problems with the killing of anyone not of those tribes, even encouraged complete genocide, advocating the destruction of everything save the spoils of war. Yahweh was also of course, a man. THE ultimate man really, an all powerful king ruling those under him by fear of punishment. This easily explains why all the early civilizations who most cherished ideals such as peace and cooperation, pictured god as a woman, being the ultimate creative force and also a loving, caring mother.

It's no surprise that simplifying the idea of god to this sort of level makes it easily communicated to absolutely anyone, whether they've ever pondered such ideas or not. But this is not a simple idea. The truth is, the more the idea of god is simplified, equated to the drama of human life, the less being god really means. This is exemplified in polytheism. In the mythos of the Greeks or Hindus, the god-stage was filled with god-soap-operas in which the gods lived lives almost identical to men, just on a higher level, being a little more powerful than regular humans. The idea of god as an old man with a long grey beard, I guess a picture of zeus with the name scribbled out, is certainly the easiest way of conceptualizing and relating to something like this, and therefore, the most common manner of thinking from what I can tell. I'm not sure most christians of any intelligence really believe this when it comes down to the issue, but it's a sort of shortcut used in explaining the idea to a child, and one that seems to stick with us no matter how much more complicated things get later on.

Personally, when I really try to think of what's really meant by the word "god," the simplest, ultimate definition is that god is a sort of ultimate, overall creative force. The sort of thing that might explain things like the difference between a dead, and an alive human being, both being physically identical... The kind of thing that causes simple elements to organize into amino acids on their own... these things are just what the universe does, and it's beautiful. Really, considering god as a "force," I've found, is a little closer to what I'd really mean if I were to use the word "god."

Gravity needn't necessarily be thanked for being around everyday, but it's really a pretty nice thing to have around, so I really appreciate it. Only, by my definition, "god" would have to operate a level higher than something like gravitational force, that is to say, gravity is a property of "god." As is already becoming apparent, "god" starts to look curiously like the universe itself. If that sort of idea seems somewhat less than the romanticized version, it's only because people imagine a sort of "thing..." out there... (wait, where?)... when they picture the universe itself. The universe is itself, almost indescribable. The word "universe" is derived from Old French univers, from Latin universum, which combines uni- (the combining form of unus, or "one") with versus (perfect passive participle of vertere, or "turn"). The word, therefore, means "all turned into one" or "revolving as one." That shows precisely the god / religion (or perhaps simply personal spiritual... whatevers) relationship I'm describing.


Here, is the photograph of the largest portion, of the largest portion that lies within the visible-light spectrum, of the universe.
LINK

That photograph was the ultimate achievement of the Hubble Telescope. The angle of here shows a selection of space appoximately 5 Billion light years across. It is determined that this picture shows an exposure of 1/88,000,000th of the whole spherical "sky." Considering that each dot of light seen is a seperate galaxy, some of which are millions of light years across... Each of which contains countless stars, stars which all have orbiting systems like our own... This is as beautiful as any photograph of god might hope to be.

Perhaps, if there is one day a "theory of everything," an elegant mathematical formula, possibly fairly short, that describes every force in the universe, that would be as good a name for god as any. Until then, I'm content to just let most people assume I'm an atheist, and leave it as that. As I'm sure you can tell, this kind of thing takes a while to explain to someone raised to think of god in the way most westerners do. I was however, surprised to find that plenty of easterners think of god in this manner, with texts describing such having existed since before all western religious ideas were recorded. The ideas of Taoism, or Buddhism are basically the same, with Hinduism taking a panDeistic view instead. A notion which basically just establishes the ideas of god and the universe as nouns having, officially, different names. The idea being that, out of god, became the universe, which will return to the state of god... much like the big-bang / big-crunch theory.
LINK

[pengd0t]

So... surprising absence of input from a group with such strong opinions usually.

So no opinions ?
or no readers?

[T-BagBikerStar]

God in your sense doesn't really have any power, it just exists. It is the creator in the sense that it is inclusive of everything and in that sense that must include its own creation, but realistically it isn't doing anything besides following the accepted laws of nature, which is really what atheists believe in.

The traditional judeo-christian concept of god gives the term a meaning (despite the absurdity of their ideas) that god is able to sympathize with humans beings and that god has power to change the fortunes of human beings. You have shown well in your argument that this concept is ludicrous, looking at the big scheme of things there is no way such a god exists.

What you're essentially left with is atheism, which I still believe you are. You attempt to attach the word "god" to something it doesn't mean. You can revel in the beauty of the universe as an atheist, but trying to use the word "god" in this instance doesn't add much to those views.

[pengd0t]

Originally Posted by T-BagBikerStar

God in your sense doesn't really have any power, it just exists. It is the creator in the sense that it is inclusive of everything and in that sense that must include its own creation, but realistically it isn't doing anything besides following the accepted laws of nature, which is really what atheists believe in.

Wrong.
God, in my definition, is necessarily all of the power.
And "accepted laws of nature" are an aspect of "god" not its limiting factors.

The traditional judeo-christian concept of god gives the term a meaning (despite the absurdity of their ideas) that god is able to sympathize with humans beings and that god has power to change the fortunes of human beings. You have shown well in your argument that this concept is ludicrous, looking at the big scheme of things there is no way such a god exists.

The judeo-christian view gives god personality, which only makes the abstract easier to mentally grasp, without any reality necessarily backing it. Much in the same way people personify animals or even inanimate objects to explain why they work the way they do.

A odd sort of problem I find with atheism is that, because the idea of a judeo-christian god can be so ridiculous, they tend to get into atheism by way of anti-judeo-christianity, with logic coming later.

All cultures have their idea of god, and of course they're all personified in culturally understandable and relevant ways. There's obviously no zeus-y old man in the sky ready to strike us down with lightening bolts when he pleases, but to call that idea atheism is a bit much I think. There has to be a notion of what this idea of "god" is, where such an idea comes from in all cultures.

What you're essentially left with is atheism, which I still believe you are. You attempt to attach the word "god" to something it doesn't mean.

"God" is perhaps THE most subjective term.

You can revel in the beauty of the universe as an atheist, but trying to use the word "god" in this instance doesn't add much to those views.

Perhaps you're missing the point. What I've done is an attempt to figure out what I might mean if I, as a logical person not approaching from a standpoint of religious zealotry, used the word god. What the idea of such a thing would refer to.

The point of the exercise ultimately being, to find what the logical, and therefore most likely inspiration for such an idea must be. The reference point of wonder that has inspired all cultures.

[ArmsMerchant]

The laws of nature are the thoughts of God.

To me, God is the spiritual force behind the sum total of everything, and is sentient, intelligent, loving and creative.

[Q]

Me. ‬‬‬‬‬

[pengd0t]

Originally Posted by ArmsMerchant

The laws of nature are the thoughts of God.

When you say "the thoughts of god," do you mean that in a sort of nonpersonal god-as-Logos kind of way?
Or in a literal sense, with god being a sky-person with a brain whose thoughts you are referring to.

To me, God is the spiritual force behind the sum
total of everything, and is sentient, intelligent, loving and creative.

There are similarities in our ideas it would seem, but it looks like they end by the first half of your sentence.
Sentient, intelligent, loving, and creative...
That sounds like feelings that rely on humans having anthropomorphosed their own properties and ideas on the concept of god. Do you think that is that the case with your idea?

---

As for sentience and intelligence, as far as I know those are about the same thing, perhaps the difference being that sentience is intelligence that includes knowledge of the self.

In the logos fashion, god is described as intelligence itself, the most pure truth and nothing besides. Perhaps a sort of super-conciousness could be derived from an "entity" (that is, information) in that state, especially with as little as is known about how exactly information must be organized for consciousness to arise. If you consider our own brains and the field of artificial intelligence, it seems that that's about all it takes...
So perhaps sentience could be reluctantly yielded as well, if only until we know more about what exactly the conditions for consciousness are.

It strikes me as odd to consider this description of god.
Simply, truth, pure information.

But then it hit me that the idea of a "theory of everything," that formula encompassing the whole of all the activities and forces in the universe, would be exactly that. A pure and concise bit of information that is the rule by which the physical world is organized on all levels, from the chemical to the atomic.

---

As for the idea that god is loving... I suppose in a (very) roundabout way that's kind of the case... First though, we must disregard the personal idea of emotional love, who has any idea how to get into that... at best we could talk about chemical interactions I guess but that doesn't help any when talking about this idea of "god." In terms of a more objective love, a situation that is overall protective and fosters growth, it would seem that that is the case.

The fact that anything exists in the universe at all is evidence that the universe is not a net-destructive-forced thing. The fact is, the universe tends towards positivity, that is growth and organization of complex interacting systems, therefore, we complex systems get to sit around and talk about it.

---

Creative?
Things are created, sure.
Creative in the abstract sense that you might call a person "creative," no.

---

I've surprised myself in finding that, upon setting out expecting to argue against your seemingly personified-god exclusive traits, I've found that the universe itself DOES exists as those things. Curious...

[pengd0t]

Originally Posted by Q

Me. ‬‬‬‬‬

Agreed.
Me too.

[BrokeProphet]

There is an explanation of God every culture and society throughout history has had for God:

The unexplainable, explained.

God is a comforting thought b/c almost every god comes equipped with an afterlife. It is MUCH nicer to think that your granny's ghost is partying in a perfect place, than to think she is food for worms.

God = Comfort.

God is almost always an immensly powerful entity that has a soft spot for humanity and has numerous simplistic primitive rituals that make this awesome creature happy. God's motives are best described as God wanting to party with your ghost forever. God is comfort. God is explaination. God is a lie.

[pengd0t]

Originally Posted by BrokeProphet

There is an explanation of God every culture and society throughout history has had for God:

The unexplainable, explained.

The idea that "god" is something unexplainable isn't really necessary. What you are talking about is every cultures' description of what "god" is. What I'm talking about is the idea that inspires different cultures to create explanations as personified gods.

God is a comforting thought b/c almost every god comes equipped with an afterlife. It is MUCH nicer to think that your granny's ghost is partying in a perfect place, than to think she is food for worms.
God = Comfort.

I did not mention any notion of an "afterlife."
If there's something inside of us that joins up with what's inspiring matter to life in others elsewhere, it's certainly not going to be a magical container of one's personality.
It wouldn't, however, be that hard to find a parallel between religious ideas and, say, something like the electrical energy, or even biomass energy in our bodies being returned back to a more basic stuff of the universe. Something with which new things might eventually be "created."

I need nothing to comfort me from the idea of being eaten by worms, I'd prefer they didn't, if only for their own health, knowing the sorts of chemicals they fill dead bodies with... Otherwise I'd think it was wonderful if anything at all found a use for my dead body.

In short, I don't really care if there's anything that by some stretch could be referred to as an "afterlife." By it's very nature, it doesn't concern me in this "during-life."

God is almost always an immensly powerful entity that has a soft spot for humanity and has numerous simplistic primitive rituals that make this awesome creature happy. God's motives are best described as God wanting to party with your ghost forever.

You're talking about a god that is a personified representation of the idea of "god." If god were to be something, it obviously isn't going to be the ghost partier you described, so to use that as the basis for trying to logically disprove the idea of "god," just doesn't make any sense.

God is comfort. God is explaination. God is a lie.

1. Not anymore than no-god.
2. (Explanation) That doesn't even make sense.
3. God is a lie? A lie, is god? That's just absurd.