The concept of God in different religions as well as deism seems to be inconsistent. So what is the best way of defining God?
6
-
1There’s a great book by Tim Mawson, called ‘Belief in God’. It talks about all the classic Divine attributes (like omniscience, necessity, etc.) It’s very readable. Incidentally, it may also help with your question on objective value.– MarkOxfordCommented Feb 13, 2018 at 21:44
-
Hi, welcome to Philosophy SE. Please visit our Help Center to see what questions we answer and how to ask. We do not answer questions on definitions of terms, you can google "God definition", read Wikipedia's God, or ask on English SE, Christianity SE, etc.– ConifoldCommented Feb 13, 2018 at 22:28
-
See Concepts of God.– Mauro ALLEGRANZACommented Feb 14, 2018 at 9:54
-
2Asking for what is "best" is opinion based, and thus not proper for this Q&A forum.– luchonachoCommented Feb 15, 2018 at 10:22
-
3There is no commonly agreed definition among theists or atheists. I doubt any two believers or any two sceptics will have the same definition. This is what makes most of the arguments for and against so futile.– user20253Commented Feb 15, 2018 at 13:02
|
Show 1 more comment
4 Answers
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.
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.
-
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 IICommented Feb 15, 2018 at 0:36
-
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. . .. . .– user20253Commented Feb 16, 2018 at 13:48
-
-
@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! Commented Mar 20, 2018 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 Commented Mar 20, 2018 at 12:37
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.
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.
answered Feb 15, 2018 at 9:35
-
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.– MichaelKCommented Mar 22, 2018 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. Commented Mar 22, 2018 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. Commented Mar 22, 2018 at 14:18
-
@ChrisDegnen - Good point about Heidegger. He warns us against confusing 'Being' with 'beings', a common mistake he calls 'no mere error'.– user20253Commented Mar 26, 2018 at 8:46
God is the idea of All Knowledge & All Power. In whichever form that idea takes.
-
-
Knowledge: understand, comprehension, command, mastery, awareness, consciousness, realization, cognition, apprehension, perception, etc. Power: ability to act or produce an effect, any effect, etc.– M. ZealCommented Mar 28, 2018 at 21:43