Is God (as YHWH/IEUE, or Allah, etc.) a being because he represents his name from this reality, or because he has the potential to represent his name from other realities?

  • Cteated by what entity? Nov 4, 2023 at 12:58
  • 1
    Right, 'creat-ure' means created. 'being' doesn't have that stipulation, and the question title and body don't match, so which are you asking about?
    – Scott Rowe
    Nov 4, 2023 at 13:26
  • God, in fact, has his own form in all Abrahamic religions.
    – fkybrd
    Nov 4, 2023 at 15:07
  • 2
    What is "representing one's name from this or other realities" supposed to mean? Is that some denotational theory of meaning taken backwards or what?
    – Philip Klöcking
    Nov 4, 2023 at 19:59
  • 2
    The point is that representations by definition are not the real thing. Thus, it seems your wording is misguiding in any case and that you ask either whether just by virtue of having many names/representations God becomes an actual entity, or whether God, having many names, is a being by virtue of potentially being represented, ie. disclosing His reality. Or something entirely different. I honestly can't tell from what you write.
    – Philip Klöcking
    Nov 4, 2023 at 20:31

2 Answers 2


I think that "Abrahamic God" is considered a being because of His "acting upon" this reality.

  • According to the transcendent morality of the Abrahamic religions, God is omniscient and his wisdom cannot be questioned. According to this idea, he will want to maintain the integrity of his form. This would show that God has a complex harmony with reality. As a God who does not stipulate blessing with luck and cursing with bad luck. It made sense to me too.
    – fkybrd
    Nov 4, 2023 at 19:21
  • Inanimate things are described as acting on things. Isn't that phrasing a narrative choice rather than stating any necessary inference?
    – CriglCragl
    Nov 5, 2023 at 0:36
  • Isn't it that, the definition of the miracle? Nov 5, 2023 at 8:12
  • @CriglCragl Ioannis Paizis did not use a sharp expression.
    – fkybrd
    Nov 5, 2023 at 15:01

"So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them."

-Genesis 1:27

This stirs up plenty of exegetical debate about imago dei, the Image of God.

"Thus saith the LORD, The heaven is my throne, and the earth is my footstool: where is the house that ye build unto me? and where is the place of my rest?"

-Isiah 66.1

Whether this passage is taken as a metaphor, or as implying god has feet, is going to depend on your theology. Either choice will have important consequences.

If you look at the history & archeology, you find that monotheism emerged from henotheism. Discussed here: Why is God, if He exists, assumed to be reasonable in most of philosophy? It is notable that the god of more brutal ancient times was pictured in those terms, as a jelous god. Whereas the Jesus part of the trinity presented a more chill mode to an era where that could make at least some head way.

And Jewish cosmology emerged from earlier ideas in ways we can trace. Discussed here: Are various concepts of divine creation based on more basic/simpler/integrated concepts, or are they indefinitely diverse? It's also been profoundly influenced by Ancient Greek thought like notably Socrates 'Euthyphro Dilemma', Hellenic influence on Christianity, the Islamic Golden Era building on Greek thought, and Rabbinic & Scholastic scholarship. Even now, huge gulfs exist between different branches in views on the deity, with even Prosperity Gospel Evangelical Chrurches having been declared formally heretical by the Catholic & other churches.

In Islam & Judaism, they are very clear that the deity is beyond our capacity to understand. Given how most humans struggle with both physics & biology, that seems a pretty reasonable stance to take towards a being that could create our cosmos. Wouldn't their explaining themselves to us be like Einstein giving a lecture to a dog? Isn't think we can have all the answers, the real source of a lot of problematic religious behaviour? We can live with a little mystery 'under the Sun'.

Buddhist thought goes quite a bit further than the Euthyphro Dilemma, saying not only is the most powerful/oldest being, subject to reason and it's constraints, but also was born into this realm and will die eventually, does not create aby beings only moves them into this realm, and faces the struggle to reach Enlightenment which is to say 'unshakeable liberation from the causes of suffering', just like all beings on the wheel of becoming. Discussed here: Are gods also bound to the laws of physics?

TLDR: What you say about god says more about you than about god. Stay curious.

  • I. Is it possible to print quality on a poor quality paper with a quality ink? A person died and lost the reasons for living with his body. II- I think it is much more appropriate to give examples from the first four books. III- I could not find any information in the links you provided about Jewish cosmology that connected to my question about God's self.
    – fkybrd
    Nov 5, 2023 at 3:49
  • V- If this reality is God's creation, why should we not be able to observe his form according to the laws of physics? While his form is in with the laws of physics, it is impossible to argue that he is distinct from the laws of physics; directly or indirectly, not everything is possible.
    – fkybrd
    Nov 5, 2023 at 4:26
  • IV- The sixth pillar of Islam is not only faith in fate; that is, Islam does not essentially fatalism as primary*. We can say that a fatalistic God is fundamental in Judaism and Christianity, and it is not stated that it is a primary. In the Hebrew religions, real originates from his level and the existence of real is accepted. Because it is real, and there is no real war and nobody's business in realism. Think about what kind of killer Michael is. Or think about what kind of psychopath Uriel is.
    – fkybrd
    Nov 5, 2023 at 14:31
  • @fykbrd: Your points seem (1) Incoherent (2) Totally unrelated to my answer & points therein.
    – CriglCragl
    Nov 5, 2023 at 19:48
  • @CriglCragl You submitted your answer while discussing the question. I have no words for the passage you shared, but the fact that it does not contradict your own book can be counted as theological proof. If you want to edit your answer, check the edit history of the question.
    – fkybrd
    Nov 5, 2023 at 21:27

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .