What Is God

[Ahab]

On another thread about whether or not Atheists should lie about not believing in God the topic of what God is came up.  I believe it's important to define God correctly even if we don't know very much about him/her/it, whatever we may properly refer to as God, because whether or not someone believes in God is based on how that person defines the word God.  So I'd like this thread to be about what we should say that God is.  How should we define what God is?  What is a basic definition everyone should be able to give that would fit every correct concept of God?

Some people define God as the creator of the universe, or at least consider that ability or accomplishment as something that helps to define or describe what God is.  Stephen Hawking had a problem with that idea because he could show with mathematics that the universe has always existed and did not require a creator to create it.  I believe most of us LDS agree with him on that point.  I and other LDS believe the universe is as eternal as God is, and what God has done and continues to do is to create within the universe.  God didn't create it from scratch, or at least many of us LDS do not believe that, so if we're going to refer to God as a creator we need to be careful to explain what it is that God does to create.  And for those who believe God did create the universe from scratch and can do so again, then go ahead and say that but please make it clear that not everybody has that same idea about God. 

So what else could we say about God to give a proper definition of what it is that God is?

Many Jews and Christians have what some other people consider to be some incorrect concepts of God,  so another thing we need to watch out for is various groups of people with various beliefs about God. We shouldn't say we believe what other Christians believe about God if we have some beliefs some of those Christians do not agree with.  We need to somehow sort out who believes what about God, even if we are trying to stick to very basic definitions.

We need to be careful to present God as he is rather than presenting incorrect concepts of God. We don't want anyone to get any false concepts of God from us, or to share any false concepts of God with others. 

So, with all of that understood, what should we feel confident about when we say what we believe God really is.  I think one basic idea all people who believe in God should feel safe in saying is that God is the most supreme kind of being or thing in all of existence.  From that point we might disagree on what kind of being is that being or what that being is like, but I think that is a relatively safe place to start from.  

What else should we feel safe in saying about God which would define God universally well for everybody?  When we have any disagreements, and I'm sure we'll  have some if we actually discuss this, let's at least try to stick to basic concepts that apply equally well to all true concepts of God.

[Analytics]

Hi Ahab,

Paraphrasing a point from the other thread, it seems to me that many definitions of God are quite unintelligible and are based upon the philosophical speculations of medieval philosophers. In contrast, the LDS conception of God is (or at least historically was) a lot more intelligible--a being in the universe, the father of our spirits, a more advanced and mature version of us. I have my doubts that this is actually true, but I appreciate that it is at least intelligible.

The idea that God is the most "supreme" thing out there doesn't get me very far. What does "supreme" mean in this general sense? Thinking about the assertion from my perspective, earth is the most supreme planet in the universe, the United States is the most supreme country on the planet, and the U.S. government is the most supreme entity within the nation. The Supreme Court is the most supreme part of the government, with Chief Justice John Roberts being the most supreme member of the court.

I believe John Roberts exists, and I can't think of an entity that is more supreme than him. But does that somehow mean I think John Roberts is God? I wouldn't think so.

This exercise reminds me of that 1977 movie "Oh God" staring John Denver and George Burns. If an old man in a fishing hat introduces himself to you and says he is God, how do you know? What if he does some cool magic tricks. Does that prove it? If not, what would prove it? In principle, God could manifest himself to a group of scientists at MIT, announce that He is ready to prove to the world that He exists, and that they are the ones who will publish the results in Science or the journal of their choice. They could put him on a scale to weigh him, give him a test in ancient Aramaic, take a blood sample, ask him to walk on water, hook him up to a generator at a powerplant and see how much power he has, and do anything else they could think of. They could prove that the being they are examining exists, but could they prove that it is really The God?

It's an interesting question.

Best,

Analytics

[Ahab]

3 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Hi Ahab,

Paraphrasing a point from the other thread, it seems to me that many definitions of God are quite unintelligible and are based upon the philosophical speculations of medieval philosophers. In contrast, the LDS conception of God is (or at least historically was) a lot more intelligible--a being in the universe, the father of our spirits, a more advanced and mature version of us. I have my doubts that this is actually true, but I appreciate that it is at least intelligible.

I like that about our beliefs too and it's something that drew me into "Mormonism" as it was called and sometimes still is. And I think those who try to describe God should do so intelligibly and accurately, as well as they can.

3 minutes ago, Analytics said:

The idea that God is the most "supreme" thing out there doesn't get me very far. What does "supreme" mean in this general sense? Thinking about the assertion from my perspective, earth is the most supreme planet in the universe, the United States is the most supreme country on the planet, and the U.S. government is the most supreme entity within the nation. The Supreme Court is the most supreme part of the government, with Chief Justice John Roberts being the most supreme member of the court.

I believe John Roberts exists, and I can't think of an entity that is more supreme than him. But does that somehow mean I think John Roberts is God? I wouldn't think so.

This exercise reminds me of that 1977 movie "Oh God" staring John Denver and George Burns. If an old man in a fishing hat introduces himself to you and says he is God, how do you know? What if he does some cool magic tricks. Does that prove it? If not, what would prove it? In principle, God could manifest himself to a group of scientists at MIT, announce that He is ready to prove to the world that He exists, and that they are the ones who will publish the results in Science or the journal of their choice. They could put him on a scale to weigh him, give him a test in ancient Aramaic, take a blood sample, ask him to walk on water, hook him up to a generator at a powerplant and see how much power he has, and do anything else they could think of. They could prove that the being they are examining exists, but could they prove that it is really The God?

It's an interesting question.

Best,

Analytics

Good idea but I would just cut to the chase and say that if anything is better than the kind of being we call God then we should refer to that thing as God rather than the other thing that is not as good even if one is almost as good as the other. Know what I mean?

We have some scriptures... maybe save that for another thread topic... in which we are told that the glory of God is intelligence, so intelligence is something I think we should consider when determining whether one thing is more supreme than the other.  We are also told that we are God, that our kind of being is it, and from what I can see on this planet I don't have see any reason to reject that idea, even though some of us are more intelligent than some others of us, our kind of being.  But even if we are not it, even if there is some other kind of being out there that is more intelligent than our kind of being, I would refer to that kind of being as God because that would be the one that was the most supreme in intelligence.  And hopefully I would be intelligent enough to realize which kind of being is the most intelligent one.

[Dan McClellan]

Many conceptual categories are not amenable to definition. The practice of definition is a process of reduction to the smallest list of necessary and sufficient features, and since that's just not how most conceptual categories form and are used in communication, it can be a remarkably distorting framework to impose. I would suggest "God" is definitely incommensurate with the approach. I wrote a master's thesis many years ago that treats the question of the conceptualization of deity in the Hebrew Bible (here). I think a more fruitful approach is to interrogate the conceptual metaphors we use to conceptualize God, both those that are prototypical and those that are more peripheral. One gets a much clearer picture of the contours and extent of the category that way. 

[Ahab]

2 minutes ago, Dan McClellan said:

Many conceptual categories are not amenable to definition. The practice of definition is a process of reduction to the smallest list of necessary and sufficient features, and since that's just not how most conceptual categories form and are used in communication, it can be a remarkably distorting framework to impose. I would suggest "God" is definitely incommensurate with the approach. I wrote a master's thesis many years ago that treats the question of the conceptualization of deity in the Hebrew Bible (here). I think a more fruitful approach is to interrogate the conceptual metaphors we use to conceptualize God, both those that are prototypical and those that are more peripheral. One gets a much clearer picture of the contours and extent of the category that way. 

Definitions are what words are all about, and your thesis is simply a construct of words which you are trying to use to define your concept of what it is to be God.  If you've got something better than words to try to communicate with, I will try to pay attention. 

Some people who are God are really good at communicating their thoughts to me and sometimes they don''t use any words at all, even though I and others have tried to put some of their thoughts into words to try to convey what they have told us.  Can you do that?

It's something I'd like to be able to do, someday, as well as they do, but I think most of us on this planet are still trying to use words to convey our ideas.

From that thesis you wrote, or from any of your other experiences, can you share one or two basic concepts which you think might help to define or describe God?  Even just what God is, as a kind of being, if not identifying which particular kind of being God is?

[Dan McClellan]

1 minute ago, Ahab said:

Definitions are what words are all about, and your thesis is simply a construct of words which you are trying to use to define your concept of what it is to be God.  If you've got something better than words to try to communicate with, I will try to pay attention. 

I'd have to disagree. Words were used for millennia in thousands of different languages without any definitions or dictionaries of any kind whatsoever. You know what the word "furniture" means, and you can distinguish things that are furniture from things that aren't furniture, and you've never once had to go look up the definition of "furniture" in the dictionary. If you did go look it up, you'd see it does not adequately delineate the category according to your or any other English speaker's actual use of the word. I've published a more extended discussion of why definition is a problem for most conceptual categories (and in the case of this publication, the definition of "religion" here). Another good discussion is here. 

Quote

Some people who are God are really good at communicating their thoughts to me and sometimes they don''t use any words at all, even though I and others have tried to put some of their thoughts into words to try to convey what they have told us.  Can you do that?

Non-verbal communication? Everyone does that, whether they're aware of it or not. 

Quote

 

It's something I'd like to be able to do, someday, as well as they do, but I think most of us on this planet are still trying to use words to convey our ideas.

From that thesis you wrote, or from any of your other experiences, can you share one or two basic concepts which you think might help to define or describe God?  Even just what God is, as a kind of being, if not identifying which particular kind of being God is?

 

God is a person, and we generally use frameworks of fatherhood, sovereignty, kingship, marriage, and war to conceptualize God. Ontological frameworks aren't going to be very useful. 

[Ahab]

12 minutes ago, Dan McClellan said:

I'd have to disagree. Words were used for millennia in thousands of different languages without any definitions or dictionaries of any kind whatsoever. You know what the word "furniture" means, and you can distinguish things that are furniture from things that aren't furniture, and you've never once had to go look up the definition of "furniture" in the dictionary. If you did go look it up, you'd see it does not adequately delineate the category according to your or any other English speaker's actual use of the word. I've published a more extended discussion of why definition is a problem for most conceptual categories (and in the case of this publication, the definition of "religion" here). Another good discussion is here. 

We seem to be stuck on the definition of definition now.  Not making much progress at this rate.  When people use words there is a meaning that is attached to that word even if it is not referred to as a definition.  The words mean something to the ones who use them even if the ones who hear them don't understand what they mean.  At that point someone would need to be educated a bit about what that word meant, and if books are not available then verbal communication would have to do unless there was some other way to transmit to the hearer what the speaker was trying to say.  At some point it might be good to teach that person that language though otherwise it would be like playing charades which would only work if both were in each other's physical presence.

12 minutes ago, Dan McClellan said:

Non-verbal communication? Everyone does that, whether they're aware of it or not. 

Okay, go for it.  I'll be right here waiting to see which thought you will try to convey to me next.  And if you plan to use pictures just try to prepare yourself if I have any questions about what you are trying to tell me.

You do realize I was talking you and me, here and now, don't you?

12 minutes ago, Dan McClellan said:

God is a person, and we generally use frameworks of fatherhood, sovereignty, kingship, marriage, and war to conceptualize God. Ontological frameworks aren't going to be very useful. 

God is also a kind of being that includes all of us.  Are you aware of that concept?  And not very useful is better than no use at all so go ahead and throw in some ontological frameworks of language.  I'm open to anything you want to use to try to define what God is.

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, Ahab said:

...........................................

So what else could we say about God to give a proper definition of what it is that God is?

......................................

"God" is a word in our dictionaries, but the concept of "God" is whatever someone wants it to be.

[Dan McClellan]

23 minutes ago, Ahab said:

We seem to be stuck on the definition of definition now.  

No, just an understanding of how the practice functions. I'll demonstrate. Define the word "furniture." You won't be able to do it a priori, so you're welcome to look it up if you wish, but I'll demonstrate how whatever dictionary definitions you find utterly fail to adequately delineate the concept. This doesn't mean the word has no meaning, or that we don't all understand it the same way, it's just a demonstration of how most conceptual categories do not form and are not used in reference to necessary and sufficient features.

[Sunslight]

A lot of jargon going on. If we want to know what God is all we habe to do is look in the mirror. We are, after all, his children.

[Ahab]

15 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

"God" is a word in our dictionaries, but the concept of "God" is whatever someone wants it to be.

So no common ground with anyone else is required when using that word, in your opinion, huh.  Interesting perspective. I would advocate that however someone defines God that it be included among all of the other definitions of what that word could mean, though, otherwise how is anyone else to know what the heck they are talking about when they use that word?

[Ahab]

15 hours ago, Dan McClellan said:

No, just an understanding of how the practice functions. I'll demonstrate. Define the word "furniture." You won't be able to do it a priori, so you're welcome to look it up if you wish, but I'll demonstrate how whatever dictionary definitions you find utterly fail to adequately delineate the concept. This doesn't mean the word has no meaning, or that we don't all understand it the same way, it's just a demonstration of how most conceptual categories do not form and are not used in reference to necessary and sufficient features.

My point is that however a word is defined that is a word or symbol for what is being referred to when using that word.  I understand that words are not perfect representations of what we use them to represent but what else are you going to use when you try to communicate with someone else if you 1) can't communicate telepathically, 2) can't show someone your body language because they are not able to see you physically, or 3) show them a picture or physical image so they can see what you are talking about?

Words have been around for a long, long time and apparently they are at least a little bit useful otherwise we wouldn't still be trying to use them.  We just need to somehow communicate what we mean when we use them and that is what we refer to as associating a word with a definition. otherwise the word wouldn't mean or represent anything.

Edited February 6, 2020 by Ahab

[Robert F. Smith]

7 minutes ago, Ahab said:

So no common ground with anyone else is required when using that word, in your opinion, huh.  Interesting perspective. I would advocate that however someone defines God that it be included among all of the other definitions of what that word could mean, though, otherwise how is anyone else to know what the heck they are talking about when they use that word?

Most people use the word "God" or even "god" very loosely and generically, without defining it at all.  Most people use it in a context (home or church) in which it is already understood to fit patterns of common usage in one's unique culture.  Thus, even though a Muslim, a Jew, a Christian, and a Hindu might have some very divergent impressions of what "God" is, we don't spend much time discussing those divergent aspects.  In fact, most people don't even know the specific theological nature of their own God, much less that of anyone else.

Instead, most people have impressions of who and what God is, whether He is immanent or distant, an abstraction or anthropomorphic, rigid and demanding or kind and loving, etc.  Since most people do not discuss God in theological terms anyhow, why would that be important to them?

[Ahab]

14 hours ago, Sunslight said:

A lot of jargon going on. If we want to know what God is all we habe to do is look in the mirror. We are, after all, his children.

I agree but how would you explain what God is to others who may not know what you are talking about?  What is it about looking in a mirror that tells us what God is?  Or what it is about being "his" children that qualifies us as being God?

Imagine you are helping to write a dictionary and you want to include your concept of what God is in it.  How would you define the word God?  Go ahead and add as many definitions as you wish, but also try to point out anything that all of the definitions have in common.

[Ahab]

6 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Most people use the word "God" or even "god" very loosely and generically, without defining it at all.  Most people use it in a context (home or church) in which it is already understood to fit patterns of common usage in one's unique culture.  Thus, even though a Muslim, a Jew, a Christian, and a Hindu might have some very divergent impressions of what "God" is, we don't spend much time discussing those divergent aspects.  In fact, most people don't even know the specific theological nature of their own God, much less that of anyone else.

Instead, most people have impressions of who and what God is, whether He is immanent or distant, an abstraction or anthropomorphic, rigid and demanding or kind and loving, etc.  Since most people do not discuss God in theological terms anyhow, why would that be important to them?

That perspective would result in many different definitions of God, I would think, so that if someone were to compile a list of what all of those people mean when they use the word God, all of their ideas would be included in it.  Whatever each person considers God to be.

So with that understanding I can better appreciate what you may have meant when you said the word God is whatever anyone wants that word to mean.  But I would still advocate for putting all of those definitions in a dictionary.  And if someone were to say they believe in God, I would then ask them which version or definition of God they have in mind when using that word.  Also understanding that they may not mean the same thing when they use that word again, since God would have multiple definitions and all of them would be considered valid.

Maybe sometime soon we can also talk about the Devil, and whether or not he can also be considered to be God by some people.  Breaking down our means of communicating with each other is something I would attribute to him, the bad guy, while considering God to be the good guy, perhaps including all who are on the good guy's side to be good guys, too.

[Robert F. Smith]

8 minutes ago, Ahab said:

That perspective would result in many different definitions of God, I would think, so that if someone were to compile a list of what all of those people mean when they use the word God, all of their ideas would be included in it.  Whatever each person considers God to be.

So with that understanding I can better appreciate what you may have meant when you said the word God is whatever anyone wants that word to mean.  But I would still advocate for putting all of those definitions in a dictionary.  ................................

No dictionary would be large enough to contain all those features. Instead, we have huge theological volumes describing every possible aspect of God.  Only specialists in philosophy and theology use such sources and carry on such exotic conversations.  As a practical matter, it is too onerous a burden to expect ordinary people to participate in that sort of thing -- and for what purpose?

8 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Maybe sometime soon we can also talk about the Devil, and whether or not he can also be considered to be God by some people.  Breaking down our means of communicating with each other is something I would attribute to him, the bad guy, while considering God to be the good guy, perhaps including all who are on the good guy's side to be good guys, too.

 

I have tried to sum up the biblical status of the Devil in my “Śaṭan: Notes on the Gods,” 2012 (version 2), online at https://www.scribd.com/doc/58985133/Satan-Notes-on-the-Gods .

[Ahab]

14 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

No dictionary would be large enough to contain all those features. Instead, we have huge theological volumes describing every possible aspect of God.  Only specialists in philosophy and theology use such sources and carry on such exotic conversations.  As a practical matter, it is too onerous a burden to expect ordinary people to participate in that sort of thing -- and for what purpose?

 

I have tried to sum up the biblical status of the Devil in my “Śaṭan: Notes on the Gods,” 2012 (version 2), online at https://www.scribd.com/doc/58985133/Satan-Notes-on-the-Gods .

 

Good, as long as there is at least one person on this planet trying to put all of the information in one place.  I understand that not everyone wants to do that job but I do think it might help other people to understand what various people mean when they use the word God.  I'd want to summarize all of the various views as much as possible, though, finding common themes and ideas.

I think I've determined that from now on when people say they believe in God I'm going to ask them what they are talking about when they say that.  Which version or definition of God they have in mind.  Otherwise I might not understand what the heck they are saying.

edited to add:  I like how short and sweet your definition of Satan is, even in that limited context.  Makes it easier to get the gist of the ideas associated with the word while providing references for people who want to know more.

Edited February 6, 2020 by Ahab

[The Nehor]

God is a rabbit.

[Ahab]

7 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

God is a rabbit.

Fast, when he wants to be, like the Easter Bunny.  Got it.  Thank you.

[Sunslight]

49 minutes ago, Ahab said:

I agree but how would you explain what God is to others who may not know what you are talking about?  What is it about looking in a mirror that tells us what God is?  Or what it is about being "his" children that qualifies us as being God?

Imagine you are helping to write a dictionary and you want to include your concept of what God is in it.  How would you define the word God?  Go ahead and add as many definitions as you wish, but also try to point out anything that all of the definitions have in common.

God: A glorified human being composed of spirit, flesh and bones coupled together in an inseparable and immortal body.

[bluebell]

When I hear the question "what is God" it doesn't make a lot of sense to me.  Like asking "What is president" or "what is mother" or "what is human".

[mfbukowski]

7 minutes ago, bluebell said:

When I hear the question "what is God" it doesn't make a lot of sense to me.  Like asking "What is president" or "what is mother" or "what is human".

Exactly!!

It's a word.

That's what "God" is.

If you don't know what it means look it up in a dictionary.

Those dictionary writers are infallible. That's why they are so famous and revered as individuals. I don't know if people know that generally.

Those little green visors they wear and the rolled-up sleeves are badges of their office.  They are the High Priests and dispensers of meaning in life

 

 

Edited February 6, 2020 by mfbukowski

[Ahab]

2 minutes ago, bluebell said:

When I hear the question "what is God" it doesn't make a lot of sense to me.  Like asking "What is president" or "what is mother" or "what is human".

Now I don't know what you mean when you say you don't know what God is, since I know you are a faithful member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

In my mind I'm thinking, "How can bluebell not know what God is and yet at the same time be a faithful member of the true church of Jesus Christ, as I am?  A church that teaches what God is, at least on some level, and how we are children of God".

You can describe God in any way you wish, but why speak as if you don't know anything at all about what God is?  No clue at all?  Not even a little bit?

[Ahab]

15 minutes ago, Sunslight said:

God: A glorified human being composed of spirit, flesh and bones coupled together in an inseparable and immortal body.

Okay.  Got it.  Got any other definitions you would like to see included?  How about adding or replacing the word "any" with your word "a"?  Would that work, too, or are you referring to only one particular human being who fits that description?

[hope_for_things]

19 hours ago, Ahab said:

On another thread about whether or not Atheists should lie about not believing in God the topic of what God is came up.  I believe it's important to define God correctly even if we don't know very much about him/her/it, whatever we may properly refer to as God, because whether or not someone believes in God is based on how that person defines the word God.  So I'd like this thread to be about what we should say that God is.  How should we define what God is?  What is a basic definition everyone should be able to give that would fit every correct concept of God?

I’m too much of a philosophy novice to make any cogent arguments for God from that perspective.  I have to say I’ve been recently influence by Paul Tillich’s “ground of being” definition for God, but I honestly don’t understand philosophy well enough to wade into these waters of discussion.  

Without relying on any schools of philosophical thought, my current perspective about God is that you have two categories to put a God definition into.  The first is that I believe when people talk about God, they are talking about an experience.  Thinking of God as experience is a way to think about the feelings people have, the religious phenomena people experience, and the certainty and even trust people grant to this God experience concept.  

The idea of God as experience helps me to explain and appreciate everyone’s unique understanding of God and its not dependent on any particular denominational orientation.  

The second category is God as a relationship towards something.  God as a relationship towards the universe, towards other humans, towards nature, towards oneself.  This category for God can be a specific as belief in an anthropological God like in the Mormon tradition to a belief in a God of the living force like in Star Wars.  Theism, Pantheism, Polytheism, I think all expressions for God can fit into this tent.