It would seem that we often define God — Sam Aldridge

That is the whole problem with gods, it is the humans that define them.
If there were such a being, would it not define itself.

Furthermore, if a thing has no meaning apart from God, yet gives God His very essence, — Sam Aldridge

A thing such as?

quote="Sam Aldridge;d10627"]how then do we avoid utter relativism?[/quote]

What do mean by this?

Thank you for the observant critique.
"A thing such as" Merely meant the previous descriptors.
Regarding relativism, I simply mean that nothing can be defined. This does presume that God's existence is necessary for objective descriptors to be used in an objective sense.

I define deify Death as "the only god" (and Sleep "her prophet").

:death::flower:

NB: death = nonbeing (śūnyatā)

God = The Creative Nothing

I remember when you spoke of the 'creative nothing' you saw it as a starting point for creativity. So, nothing may be like a void of potential and possibilities.Perhaps it is the unconscious.

I propose that God is a function of belief which is a physical form of the mind, or brain just to be clear. Accepting that forms of the mind have physical existence then it follows that God also has physical existence within the mind; he or she certainly exerts an influence. The logical extension of this proposition is that God only exists in our minds and is a limited or personal individual experience for each of us. A shared experience of God may create a mutual concept of God but he or she is still limited to an individual's construct and not linked to the consciousness of others. Interestingly this could explain why God is perceived as omnipotent, as he or she is inexorably tied to our minds and privy to everything that goes on in there.

Time is the god of before and after "the only god" Death.

I'll define little "g" god. A god is the personification of existence or a portion of existence. It is a human act to personify - attribute human characteristics to non-human phenomena. We do it with dogs, cars, and countries, so why not everything all at once. Mother nature. Gaia. That works for immanent gods, but not for transcendent Gods like in Christianity or Islam.

if a thing has no meaning apart from God, yet gives God His very essence, hence his own deity, how then do we avoid utter relativism? — Sam Aldridge

Presuming that God creates the world, there is presumably an intended shape to the circle of life and death we encounter. So worship is in search for that shape, the stamp so firmly pressed into my flesh.

Your results, of course, will vary.

I define god as something like Avogadro's number: 6.5*10^23.

What I mean, is does god need our definition to exist, or to have his attributes, of which we know nothing? Can't we give god enough credit to have some self-knowledge, and not rely on man's ability and obsession to classify him by defining its parameters?

You will have no luck finding a coherent definition of 'God'.This is for two reasons.

First, metaphysical analysis (Kant et al) reveals that a coherent definition of the Ultimate requires that it transcends the categories of thought, thus cannot be thought or positively defined.

Second, if we define the Ultimate as beyond all positive description, as analysis implies we must, then we are no longer talking about God but about Brahman, Tao, paraNirvana and so forth, or the 'Being, Consciousness, Bliss' of the Upanishads, and this is not God.

The only coherent definition of the Ultimate, if we are looking for a theoretical term to ground a metaphysical theory, is one for which it is not God. Of, course, we can call it God if we wish, and some folk do, but this is the mysterious God of the scriptural via negativa,by which he lies, as one Christian mystic puts it, 'beyond the coincidence of contradictories' or, in other words, beyond the categories of thought.

Despite this, or because of it, it is a very good idea to attempt to define God in a way that makes sense even under close analysis, since this is reliable way to discover it isn't possible to do so. Then Christian mysticism will begin to make more sense and also the Classical Christianity of the early church.

I can recommend an excellent book by Keith Ward titled God: A Guide for the Perplexed.

The point is to deify X and not to "define g/G".

I think God is The Universe - from which we all are created, the cosmos, the planets, the stars, every life form that has ever existed. The very thing that gives us the fuel of existence and the very thing we turn to after death. The endless, infinite cycle of creation and destruction.

I think God is The Universe - from which we all are created, the cosmos, the planets, the stars, every life form that has ever existed. The very thing that gives us the fuel of existence and the very thing we turn to after death. The endless, infinite cycle of creation and destruction. — SupernovaGirl

I think that is an excellent definition of god, except for the part: "the very thing we turn to after death" - that is not really logical, as it implies that in life we are not part of the universe?

I think when speaking of a god it is important to provide a definition, as god is likely to be a slightly different concept in everyone's mind, so thank you for doing so.

Yes you're right. Now that I read it again, it does seem like we are not a part of the universe when we are alive. But that's not true. Thank you for correcting me.

It is a common mistake that I often make myself. I mentioned it as I think this way leads to a better paradigm: If God = Universe, and I = Universe, then I = God. :smile: At one extreme such a paradigm might land one in a nut house, but at the other extreme god becomes only as omnipotent as we are. Which raises the question - how omnipotent is that? I think the most powerful thing in the world is an idea / concept. It is through these as belief systems that we partake in the world. These can change the world. All ideas and concepts are man made, including god! So in this sense we are indeed omnipotent gods.

I didn't mean to turn this into a sermon. I'm just relating how it pans out in my mind.

If God = Universe, and I = Universe, then I = God. — Pop

How about

'if God = the universe
if I = virtual wavicle of the universe
then I = virtual wavicle of God'

or, in other words, each of us is just one, albeit unique, teardrop in the ocean?

And yet we can cognitively behold (glimpse) the sublime vastness within which we beholders are held. Perhaps it's true: each I is simply a facet in its means for the universe (God?) to behold itself. :eyes:

You are not a drop
in the ocean
You are [And] the entire ocean
in a drop. — Rumi

Perhaps it's true: each I is simply a facet in its means for the universe (God?) to behold itself. :eyes: — 180 Proof

:up: I think its something like that. I could go on, in various ways, for a long time, but it would all be off topic. :smile:

Am I the only one who thinks that the concept of God could use its own pronoun? ye/yem/yeirs, perhaps?

You get to realize that not only do you get to define god the way you want to, but also you have to.