What is God?

[leftrightleftrightleft]

I'm sure this thread has been posted here before, but I haven't seen it in awhile. A bunch of other threads in the Philosophy section seem to be dancing around this topic.

I find that I am becoming more and more atheistic in my thinking for several reasons.

1) I'm finding that the word "God" can always be replaced with something else that is more descriptive. For example, if you see a beautiful sunset, some may say, "God is in that beautiful sunset". But why not just say, "That's a beautiful sunset." Why the middleman?

2) I'm finding that the word "God" is often just a placeholder for "the unknown". For example, if someone's cancer spontaneously disappears, some people say "God healed them", but wouldn't it be more accurate to say, "We don't know what happened."? You don't know God healed them, its a mystery as to what happened.

3) Most problematic is the fact that the word "God" doesn't mean the same thing to different people. Christian literalists use "God" in a completely different way than Hindu monotheists. Progressive Christians use "God" in a completely different way than Muslim mystics. Even the way atheists use the word "God" differs from atheist to atheist. What use is a word if no one can agree on the meaning? Its like talking about apples when other people in the conversation think you're talking about oranges. It completely hinders conversation and understanding.

 

[BL2KTN]

God is the first cause for reality. Beyond that, speculation.

 

[PsychoSarah]

It is such an abstract concept, you should really just be asking yourself what you view a deity to be, because there won't be any homogeny on this

 

[bhsmte]

I'm sure this thread has been posted here before, but I haven't seen it in awhile. A bunch of other threads in the Philosophy section seem to be dancing around this topic.

I find that I am becoming more and more atheistic in my thinking for several reasons.

1) I'm finding that the word "God" can always be replaced with something else that is more descriptive. For example, if you see a beautiful sunset, some may say, "God is in that beautiful sunset". But why not just say, "That's a beautiful sunset." Why the middleman?

2) I'm finding that the word "God" is often just a placeholder for "the unknown". For example, if someone's cancer spontaneously disappears, some people say "God healed them", but wouldn't it be more accurate to say, "We don't know what happened."? You don't know God healed them, its a mystery as to what happened.

3) Most problematic is the fact that the word "God" doesn't mean the same thing to different people. Christian literalists use "God" in a completely different way than Hindu monotheists. Progressive Christians use "God" in a completely different way than Muslim mystics. Even the way atheists use the word "God" differs from atheist to atheist. What use is a word if no one can agree on the meaning? Its like talking about apples when other people in the conversation think you're talking about oranges. It completely hinders conversation and understanding.

God usually is what believers want him to be and that is usually something that meets their needs the best.

Could be why you have so many denominations of Christianity and so many religions that man has created.

 

[DogmaHunter]

God is the first cause for reality. Beyond that, speculation.

Hmmm...
2 things.

- asserting god did anything is speculation, asserting there even is a god to begin with is speculation

- if god caused reality, doesnt that then mean that god isn't part of reality?


As for the OP... Yes, if "god" can't be properly defined, then it doesn't mean anything. Also, how could you define it? Since there isn't any data suggesting a definition, one is to simply dream up a definition.

So it doesn't surprise me that if any individual shares his idea of god, it seems like he just makes it up. He does just make it up. He has no other choice. Wait, that's not true. He can also just repeat what other people have made up.

 

[Davian]

God is the first cause for reality. Beyond that, speculation.

I am still left wondering, did reality need a cause?

 

[BL2KTN]

- asserting god did anything is speculation, asserting there even is a god to begin with is speculation

Depends on how you define "god". If you're inferring that I mean Yahweh, then you are correct. However, I'm not.

if god caused reality, doesnt that then mean that god isn't part of reality?

If the first cause is still in existence, then it is a part of the something that exists which we call reality.

I am still left wondering, did reality need a cause?

At this point I think yes. I also think there's a greater than fifty percent chance this universe is being simulated. Dr. James Gates out of the University of Maryland and on the council to the president has done some work in string theory that seems to indicate this.

 

[quatona]

I'm sure this thread has been posted here before, but I haven't seen it in awhile. A bunch of other threads in the Philosophy section seem to be dancing around this topic.

I find that I am becoming more and more atheistic in my thinking for several reasons.

1) I'm finding that the word "God" can always be replaced with something else that is more descriptive. For example, if you see a beautiful sunset, some may say, "God is in that beautiful sunset". But why not just say, "That's a beautiful sunset." Why the middleman?

2) I'm finding that the word "God" is often just a placeholder for "the unknown". For example, if someone's cancer spontaneously disappears, some people say "God healed them", but wouldn't it be more accurate to say, "We don't know what happened."? You don't know God healed them, its a mystery as to what happened.

3) Most problematic is the fact that the word "God" doesn't mean the same thing to different people. Christian literalists use "God" in a completely different way than Hindu monotheists. Progressive Christians use "God" in a completely different way than Muslim mystics. Even the way atheists use the word "God" differs from atheist to atheist. What use is a word if no one can agree on the meaning? Its like talking about apples when other people in the conversation think you're talking about oranges. It completely hinders conversation and understanding.

These are reasons to ask everyone who talks to us about "God" upfront: "God? What do you mean??". We can´t discuss a concept without knowing it.

Interestingly the very points you have brought up here have been reasons why I am increasingly hesitant to call myself "atheist" (without my position having changed one bit): I am losing track of the multitude of concepts that an atheist doesn´t believe in.

 

[Davian]

I am still left wondering, did reality need a cause?

At this point I think yes.

How can we know, and even then, of what use is there of labeling it a "god" (or "God")? What if the "cause" was no more complex than a toaster oven, a multiverse event that pops out universes once in a while?

I also think there's a greater than fifty percent chance this universe is being simulated. Dr. James Gates out of the University of Maryland and on the council to the president has done some work in string theory that seems to indicate this.

Now you are stacking turtles on top of the turtles.

 

[BL2KTN]

How can we know, and even then, of what use is there of labeling it a "god" (or "God")? What if the "cause" was no more complex than a toaster oven, a multiverse event that pops out universes once in a while?

You can refer to it as "divine", the "first cause", "the alpha", etc. Doesn't matter. Whatever it is, it spawned everything we know, and therefore, I think it earns the title God. Is it intelligent? Maybe. Is it eternal? Maybe. It's all speculative.

Now you are stacking turtles on top of the turtles.

In some sense, except to say that if our universe is simulated, it stands to reason that we would have absolutely no clue what a universe running our's might be like. We have virtual worlds that we already create... and one day they'll be inhabited by intelligent, conscious creatures. Pacman might have a hard time conceiving of a three-dimensional ocean when all he's ever encountered were two-dimensional ghosts and dots. Such would be our problem in trying to conceive of the world that runs our own.

 

[Colter]

I'm sure this thread has been posted here before, but I haven't seen it in awhile. A bunch of other threads in the Philosophy section seem to be dancing around this topic.

I find that I am becoming more and more atheistic in my thinking for several reasons.

1) I'm finding that the word "God" can always be replaced with something else that is more descriptive. For example, if you see a beautiful sunset, some may say, "God is in that beautiful sunset". But why not just say, "That's a beautiful sunset." Why the middleman?

2) I'm finding that the word "God" is often just a placeholder for "the unknown". For example, if someone's cancer spontaneously disappears, some people say "God healed them", but wouldn't it be more accurate to say, "We don't know what happened."? You don't know God healed them, its a mystery as to what happened.

3) Most problematic is the fact that the word "God" doesn't mean the same thing to different people. Christian literalists use "God" in a completely different way than Hindu monotheists. Progressive Christians use "God" in a completely different way than Muslim mystics. Even the way atheists use the word "God" differs from atheist to atheist. What use is a word if no one can agree on the meaning? Its like talking about apples when other people in the conversation think you're talking about oranges. It completely hinders conversation and understanding.

God is just a generic term.

 

[lesliedellow]

What Christians mean by God is fairly well set out in the Bible. Other religions will have their own texts which establish their idea of God.

When those conceptions contradict one another, they obviously can't all be right, which leaves you to decide which one is most likely to be right.

 

[Davian]

You can refer to it as "divine", the "first cause", "the alpha", etc. Doesn't matter. Whatever it is, it spawned everything we know, and therefore, I think it earns the title God. Is it intelligent? Maybe. Is it eternal? Maybe. It's all speculative.

God as the intellectual equivalent of a toaster oven?

In some sense, except to say that if our universe is simulated, it stands to reason that we would have absolutely no clue what a universe running our's might be like. We have virtual worlds that we already create... and one day they'll be inhabited by intelligent, conscious creatures. Pacman might have a hard time conceiving of a three-dimensional ocean when all he's ever encountered were two-dimensional ghosts and dots. Such would be our problem in trying to conceive of the world that runs our own.

A god is someone that creates and runs a computer program?

It doesn't take much to be a god nowadays. The term seems to be highly overrated.

 

[Davian]

What Christians mean by God is fairly well set out in the Bible. Other religions will have their own texts which establish their idea of God.

When those conceptions contradict one another, they obviously can't all be right, which leaves you to decide which one is most likely to be right.

They can all be wrong.

 

[Somber]

I'm sure this thread has been posted here before, but I haven't seen it in awhile. A bunch of other threads in the Philosophy section seem to be dancing around this topic.

I find that I am becoming more and more atheistic in my thinking for several reasons.

1) I'm finding that the word "God" can always be replaced with something else that is more descriptive. For example, if you see a beautiful sunset, some may say, "God is in that beautiful sunset". But why not just say, "That's a beautiful sunset." Why the middleman?

2) I'm finding that the word "God" is often just a placeholder for "the unknown". For example, if someone's cancer spontaneously disappears, some people say "God healed them", but wouldn't it be more accurate to say, "We don't know what happened."? You don't know God healed them, its a mystery as to what happened.

3) Most problematic is the fact that the word "God" doesn't mean the same thing to different people. Christian literalists use "God" in a completely different way than Hindu monotheists. Progressive Christians use "God" in a completely different way than Muslim mystics. Even the way atheists use the word "God" differs from atheist to atheist. What use is a word if no one can agree on the meaning? Its like talking about apples when other people in the conversation think you're talking about oranges. It completely hinders conversation and understanding.

I think that some people are trying to give glory to God in their daily lives when they make comments like that . If you believed wholeheartedly that God created the world, wouldn't you wish to acknowledge that it was his doing?

It is true that "god" can mean many different things to different people. Even in scriptures it uses the word "god" in many different instances, from referring to idols to even a few people. God would seem to mean a higher power or deity. In scriptures, God does have a specific name, though wasn't translated very often in most English versions, usually being replaced with "Lord". YHVH (Jehovah/Yehovah or some pronounce Yahweh), is the name that he told his people to call him by.

In the example of apples to oranges as you put it, I think that "god" would be more like the term "fruit" in that; there are certain characteristics that define what a fruit is. Are apples fruits? Yes! Are oranges fruits? yes! So the word "god" does have a specific use, even though it can mean different things. I think that many people just have preconceived ideas of what "god" means based on their beliefs and how they were raised, so when you tell someone about God without giving a specific name, they will likely automatically assume you are talking about their idea, unless they already know your beliefs.

How does that make you more and more atheistic in your thinking? Seeing that God can mean different things to different people doesn't change the fact that there could be a God. If God is there and is above all things, considering he would have created all things, why should people's varying beliefs and opinions of Him prove that he isn't there? It's like saying that because everyone has a different idea and belief of a painting and who made it, the artist never existed.

 

[BL2KTN]

God as the intellectual equivalent of a toaster oven?

I suspect that neither of us considers a toaster oven as remotely likely for candidate of the first cause.

A god is someone that creates and runs a computer program?

Well, it would look that way to the inhabitants of my Sim City game. But no, the creator is solely the first cause for all the multiverses that might exist. It is the creator of reality.

It doesn't take much to be a god nowadays. The term seems to be highly overrated.

I dunno... the first cause for all of reality seems more impressive than Zeus, El, or Yahweh. =)

 

[Tree of Life]

To address the question in the thread title: God is the one who raised Jesus from the dead.

 

[juvenissun]

I'm sure this thread has been posted here before, but I haven't seen it in awhile. A bunch of other threads in the Philosophy section seem to be dancing around this topic.

I find that I am becoming more and more atheistic in my thinking for several reasons.

1) I'm finding that the word "God" can always be replaced with something else that is more descriptive. For example, if you see a beautiful sunset, some may say, "God is in that beautiful sunset". But why not just say, "That's a beautiful sunset." Why the middleman?

2) I'm finding that the word "God" is often just a placeholder for "the unknown". For example, if someone's cancer spontaneously disappears, some people say "God healed them", but wouldn't it be more accurate to say, "We don't know what happened."? You don't know God healed them, its a mystery as to what happened.

3) Most problematic is the fact that the word "God" doesn't mean the same thing to different people. Christian literalists use "God" in a completely different way than Hindu monotheists. Progressive Christians use "God" in a completely different way than Muslim mystics. Even the way atheists use the word "God" differs from atheist to atheist. What use is a word if no one can agree on the meaning? Its like talking about apples when other people in the conversation think you're talking about oranges. It completely hinders conversation and understanding.

Do you know the Christian God has a variety of Names? Each of them means something different. Of course, you add all of them together, that would be equal to the Christian God.

Is there anything wrong with this particular nature of the God?

 

[Paradoxum]

God is the first cause for reality. Beyond that, speculation.

God being the first cause for reality is also speculation... there's no proof a God did it.

 

[Davian]

I suspect that neither of us considers a toaster oven as remotely likely for candidate of the first cause.

I said, the intellectual equivalent of a toaster oven. How smart did this creator need to be?

Well, it would look that way to the inhabitants of my Sim City game. But no, the creator is solely the first cause for all the multiverses that might exist. It is the creator of reality.

If a creator is needed.

I dunno... the first cause for all of reality seems more impressive than Zeus, El, or Yahweh. =)

And the FSM.

On the other hand, perhaps what we know as reality was inevitable. Was it possible for there to be nothing?