Defining God

[Received]

When defining God we don't need to define every aspect of him, just as with anything in the physical universe we only need to define a few aspects to distinguish them from other things. There is always a potentially infinite number of details beyond our grasp with anything we define. We might not even have enough senses to grasp details of things that could be unveiled if, say, you had more color receptors or senses entirely.

We must, must, must define God metaphorically, although some aspects of him might be understood literally, like "creator". Take note, though, that the vast majority of terms in English (and other languages too) are either metaphorical, or as literal terms had metaphorical beginnings. The point: there's nothing inferior at all about defining things metaphorically. With God it's absolutely required to define him metaphorically, given that he's a spiritual dude, and as such can't be seen. So how can be conceive of spirit? Maybe like the third dimension to the second dimension, even though God isn't arguably limited by the third dimension, just as the universe isn't obviously limited by the second.

So what of God and defining him? I contend that he's a creator of the physical universe, and as such transcends the physical universe, and this area of transcendence I call spirit, which I define as "unembodied personal power" (Willard). Because he created the physical universe, he must by definition be beyond time and space, analogous to how numbers are beyond time and space. He is an eternal spiritual being who created the universe, and also arguably upholds all of existence; were it not for God, this universe wouldn't have been created for one, but also could not even exist now after creation if he were to leave town for a vacation.

Please keep in mind that this is an attempt at a definition, and not a philosophical argument for him. That can be made elsewhere. The big question so far is, now that we get that God can be defined as an eternal spiritual creator-sustainer being, how do we get a picture of this in our minds? And the answer: we can't, not literally. So how do we get a picture of him in our minds metaphorically?

And here I think it's not really needed to get a picture of him "as a whole". To define God might mean to grasp a few of his qualities, like eternal creator, or sustainer, or whatever. But I think it's possible to get a picture of him, such as a sphere in relation to a plane (the universe), which captures the idea that he's beyond this universe while still relating to it. Actually, the most useful image I have for him is like some grand infinity that "surrounds" (note the quotes) the universe, which is a bit like an organism that's growing or expanding inside him (the universe as its continues its spatial and physical expansion). Which brings up a cool idea of God as a mother in that he enwombs the universe.

There are other images, of course, but those are my preferred ones. Thoughts?

 

[PsychoSarah]

Any detailed definition of god beyond literally defining what the word means is going to be extremely subjective.

 

[Received]

Any detailed definition of god beyond literally defining what the word means is going to be extremely subjective.

All definitions are subjective. By definition.

 

[PsychoSarah]

All definitions are subjective. By definition.

-_- not really...

 

[Received]

-_- not really...

You don't subjectively say!

 

[PsychoSarah]

You don't subjectively say!

I mean that what a word means, which yes can change over time, generally is objective to a consensus of what it means. Define the word "the" in a way that means multiple different things.

 

[True Scotsman]

When defining God we don't need to define every aspect of him, just as with anything in the physical universe we only need to define a few aspects to distinguish them from other things. There is always a potentially infinite number of details beyond our grasp with anything we define. We might not even have enough senses to grasp details of things that could be unveiled if, say, you had more color receptors or senses entirely.

We must, must, must define God metaphorically, although some aspects of him might be understood literally, like "creator". Take note, though, that the vast majority of terms in English (and other languages too) are either metaphorical, or as literal terms had metaphorical beginnings. The point: there's nothing inferior at all about defining things metaphorically. With God it's absolutely required to define him metaphorically, given that he's a spiritual dude, and as such can't be seen. So how can be conceive of spirit? Maybe like the third dimension to the second dimension, even though God isn't arguably limited by the third dimension, just as the universe isn't obviously limited by the second.

So what of God and defining him? I contend that he's a creator of the physical universe, and as such transcends the physical universe, and this area of transcendence I call spirit, which I define as "unembodied personal power" (Willard). Because he created the physical universe, he must by definition be beyond time and space, analogous to how numbers are beyond time and space. He is an eternal spiritual being who created the universe, and also arguably upholds all of existence; were it not for God, this universe wouldn't have been created for one, but also could not even exist now after creation if he were to leave town for a vacation.

Please keep in mind that this is an attempt at a definition, and not a philosophical argument for him. That can be made elsewhere. The big question so far is, now that we get that God can be defined as an eternal spiritual creator-sustainer being, how do we get a picture of this in our minds? And the answer: we can't, not literally. So how do we get a picture of him in our minds metaphorically?

And here I think it's not really needed to get a picture of him "as a whole". To define God might mean to grasp a few of his qualities, like eternal creator, or sustainer, or whatever. But I think it's possible to get a picture of him, such as a sphere in relation to a plane (the universe), which captures the idea that he's beyond this universe while still relating to it. Actually, the most useful image I have for him is like some grand infinity that "surrounds" (note the quotes) the universe, which is a bit like an organism that's growing or expanding inside him (the universe as its continues its spatial and physical expansion). Which brings up a cool idea of God as a mother in that he enwombs the universe.

There are other images, of course, but those are my preferred ones. Thoughts?

I define God as a floating abstraction.

 

[PsychoSarah]

I define God as a floating abstraction.

Why floating?

 

[True Scotsman]

Why floating?

Not tied to any referents in reality, subjective.

 

[Received]

Not tied to any referents in reality, subjective.

That's a bit self-atheistically serving, don't you think? Can't we define something without implicitly holding to its truth or falsity?

 

[PsychoSarah]

That's a bit self-atheistically serving, don't you think? Can't we define something without implicitly holding to its truth or falsity?

Well, since atheists don't generally believe in gods, wouldn't it stand to reason that many of us would define god as imaginary?

 

[Received]

Well, since atheists don't generally believe in gods, wouldn't it stand to reason that many of us would define god as imaginary?

A definition can refer to something that's imaginary or real, so there's no point to go the extra step and make something imaginary intrinsic to a definition. With God, you're essentially biasing yourself against him, which can only make it harder to come around and see things more neutrally later on.

 

[True Scotsman]

That's a bit self-atheistically serving, don't you think? Can't we define something without implicitly holding to its truth or falsity?

You can define the concept of God any way you want to and each and every person has their own definition which should be a clue that gods are just what I said they are, floating abstractions.

 

[Received]

You can define the concept of God any way you want to and each and every person has their own definition which should be a clue that gods are just what I said they are, floating abstractions.

So you don't think the quantum world exists?

 

[PsychoSarah]

A definition can refer to something that's imaginary or real, so there's no point to go the extra step and make something imaginary intrinsic to a definition. With God, you're essentially biasing yourself against him, which can only make it harder to come around and see things more neutrally later on.

Against him, you have bias in favor of a specific sort of god by your religion. Bias is unavoidable.

 

[Usus Vox Tractus]

Here's what I use: GOD before the beginning is a saturated ocean of substance, something like quark matter: An infinitely super conductive Fermi liquid billions of time hotter and denser that the atomic matter we and most every thing inside the universe is composed of.

I imagine it like an ocean of honey amber liquid gold that is transparent to consciousness and goes forever in all directions.

The Ocean of Bliss.

The Eternal Abode.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Here's what I use: GOD before the beginning is a saturated ocean of substance, something like quark matter: An infinitely super conductive Fermi liquid billions of time hotter and denser that the atomic matter we and most every thing inside the universe is composed of.

I imagine it like an ocean of honey amber liquid gold that is transparent to consciousness and goes forever in all directions.

The Ocean of Bliss.

The Eternal Abode.

So god to you is just the universe as a whole? How Buddhist of you.

 

[Usus Vox Tractus]

So god to you is just the universe as a whole? How Buddhist of you.

No. GOD The Infinite Saturate is the Eternal Living One before a beginning.

The beginning is when this Being expresses it's Self and creates infinite equal sized universes as a perfectly flat plane of void bubbles and the contractive wave front keeps creates planes as it travels downwards.

The Infinite GOD is still above and below the stack of planes of universe, squeezed into super-symmetric flow between all of them (The Word), and lofted as nested wave forms within a universe. One of those is God the Holy One/God the Son/Lord God, all same the same being. He is the personal expression (like a Man) of the Infinite one GOD outside the universe, as the individuated "finite" God within the universe. The soul that incarnated as Jesus.

The Infinite is not diminished in the creation (generation) of the infinite universes. Because the entire process is the over-unity reproductive act of The GOD.

 

[PsychoSarah]

No. GOD The Infinite Saturate is the Eternal Living One before a beginning.

The beginning is when this Being expresses it's Self and creates infinite equal sized universes as a perfectly flat plane of void bubbles and the contractive wave front keeps creates planes as it travels downwards.

The Infinite GOD is still above and below the stack of planes of universe, squeezed into super-symmetric flow between all of them (The Word), and lofted as nested wave forms within a universe. One of those is God the Holy One/God the Son/Lord God, all same the same being. He is the personal expression (like a Man) of the Infinite one GOD outside the universe, as the individuated "finite" God within the universe. The soul that incarnated as Jesus.

The Infinite is not diminished in the creation (generation) of the infinite universes. Because the entire process is the over-unity reproductive act of The GOD.

So god poots out universes then? How very Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy of you

 

[2PhiloVoid]

When defining God we don't need to define every aspect of him, just as with anything in the physical universe we only need to define a few aspects to distinguish them from other things. There is always a potentially infinite number of details beyond our grasp with anything we define. We might not even have enough senses to grasp details of things that could be unveiled if, say, you had more color receptors or senses entirely.

We must, must, must define God metaphorically, although some aspects of him might be understood literally, like "creator". Take note, though, that the vast majority of terms in English (and other languages too) are either metaphorical, or as literal terms had metaphorical beginnings. The point: there's nothing inferior at all about defining things metaphorically. With God it's absolutely required to define him metaphorically, given that he's a spiritual dude, and as such can't be seen. So how can be conceive of spirit? Maybe like the third dimension to the second dimension, even though God isn't arguably limited by the third dimension, just as the universe isn't obviously limited by the second.

So what of God and defining him? I contend that he's a creator of the physical universe, and as such transcends the physical universe, and this area of transcendence I call spirit, which I define as "unembodied personal power" (Willard). Because he created the physical universe, he must by definition be beyond time and space, analogous to how numbers are beyond time and space. He is an eternal spiritual being who created the universe, and also arguably upholds all of existence; were it not for God, this universe wouldn't have been created for one, but also could not even exist now after creation if he were to leave town for a vacation.

Please keep in mind that this is an attempt at a definition, and not a philosophical argument for him. That can be made elsewhere. The big question so far is, now that we get that God can be defined as an eternal spiritual creator-sustainer being, how do we get a picture of this in our minds? And the answer: we can't, not literally. So how do we get a picture of him in our minds metaphorically?

And here I think it's not really needed to get a picture of him "as a whole". To define God might mean to grasp a few of his qualities, like eternal creator, or sustainer, or whatever. But I think it's possible to get a picture of him, such as a sphere in relation to a plane (the universe), which captures the idea that he's beyond this universe while still relating to it. Actually, the most useful image I have for him is like some grand infinity that "surrounds" (note the quotes) the universe, which is a bit like an organism that's growing or expanding inside him (the universe as its continues its spatial and physical expansion). Which brings up a cool idea of God as a mother in that he enwombs the universe.

There are other images, of course, but those are my preferred ones. Thoughts?

Received,

I would think that in dealing with the Biblical God, 'less is more.' In other words, in dealing with the Jewish God, it is enough to simply identify G-d as the "I AM of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob." The other parameters our human minds would like to define can be drawn easily enough--even though perhaps somewhat hazily--from the Scriptures.

Peace