Happy Atheist Forum

Happy New Year! :devil:

How do you define God?

I would define God as an intelligent being who created the universe. He wouldn't need to have any of the traits that the Bible or any other religious text ascribes to him.

Does a god necessarily have to have created the universe? Any universe?
Does a god necessarily have to be intelligent?
Does a god necessarily have to have dominion over other beings?
Does a god necessarily have to be good?
Is god a relative concept e.g. it has to have dominion over the beings that classify it as a god?

Would Doctor Manhattan from the Watchmen comic seric be considered a god?
Would the devil be considered a god?
EDIT: Going by our definition of god could it be argued that dolphins might correctly consider humans to be their gods?
Would stars be considered gods? If so would humans only consider the Sun as their god?

Quote from: "Stevil"Does a god necessarily have to have created the universe? Any universe?

Yes.

QuoteDoes a god necessarily have to be intelligent?

Yes.

QuoteDoes a god necessarily have to have dominion over other beings?

No.

QuoteDoes a god necessarily have to be good?

No.

QuoteIs god a relative concept e.g. it has to have dominion over the beings that classify it as a god?

No.

QuoteWould Doctor Manhattan from the Watchmen comic seric be considered a god?

Probably not (I've never read the comics).

QuoteWould the devil be considered a god?

No.

QuoteIs it possible that dolphins consider humans to be gods?

Uh, sure...I guess? Maybe?

QuoteWould stars be considered gods? If so would humans only consider the Sun as their god?

No.

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"

QuoteIs it possible that dolphins consider humans to be gods?

Uh, sure...I guess? Maybe?

If your stance is that a god had to have created at least one universe then by this definition dolphins don't necessarily have to consider humans to be gods and if they did then they would be incorrectly assuming that humans created a universe.

Quote from: "Stevil"

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"

QuoteIs it possible that dolphins consider humans to be gods?

Uh, sure...I guess? Maybe?

If your stance is that a god had to have created at least one universe then by this definition dolphins don't necessarily have to consider humans to be gods and if they did then they would be incorrectly assuming that humans created a universe.

Well, I'm just going by my definition of what I would call a god. If dolphins can even imagine an abstract concept such as higher powers, then their definition probably varies from mine.

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"Well, I'm just going by my definition of what I would call a god. If dolphins can even imagine an abstract concept such as higher powers, then their definition probably varies from mine.

Yes, likely I didn't word the dolphin example very well, I need to relate it back to us, to our definitions of god.
Going by our definition of god could it be argued that dolphins might consider humans to be their gods?

Sure, why not. I highly doubt it, but I guess it's possible.

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"Sure, why not. I highly doubt it, but I guess it's possible.

This is harder than I thought. I think I will try again to redefine the example
Going by our definition of god could it be argued that dolphins might correctly consider humans to be their gods?

Quote from: "Stevil"

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"Sure, why not. I highly doubt it, but I guess it's possible.

This is harder than I thought. I think I will try again to redefine the example
Going by our definition of god could it be argued that dolphins might correctly consider humans to be their gods?

No, because we aren't. However, "correctness" is of no concern. If they think we're gods, then we're gods to them. It's as simple as that.

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"

Quote from: "Stevil"

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"Sure, why not. I highly doubt it, but I guess it's possible.

This is harder than I thought. I think I will try again to redefine the example
Going by our definition of god could it be argued that dolphins might correctly consider humans to be their gods?

No, because we aren't. However, "correctness" is of no concern. If they think we're gods, then we're gods to them. It's as simple as that.

No was the answer I was looking for given your definition of god, so I have the example formed correctly I think.

I am not interested in the dolphins potential definition of god as this thread's intent is to explore our definition. I just thought these examples as a tool might help me to understand other people's definitions.

Quote from: "Stevil"No was the answer I was looking for given your definition of god, so I have the example formed correctly I think.

I am not interested in the dolphins potential definition of god as this thread's intent is to explore our definition. I just thought these examples as a tool might help me to understand other people's definitions.

What is your definition of "God"?

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"

Quote from: "Stevil"No was the answer I was looking for given your definition of god, so I have the example formed correctly I think.

I am not interested in the dolphins potential definition of god as this thread's intent is to explore our definition. I just thought these examples as a tool might help me to understand other people's definitions.

What is your definition of "God"?

I think we are doing things backwards, coming up with a definition and then trying to find something that matches that definition.
I think we need to first discover this god, define its unique characteristics and then use these to define what a god is.
Problem is in finding a god without first knowing what its characteristics are. We seem to have a noun "god" that could mean anything so potentially we could discover something that doesn't already have a noun and then formulate the god noun based on that something. Hence maybe one day there will be a god and its characteristics will be well defined and testable.

Quote from: "Stevil"I think we need to first discover this god, define its unique characteristics and then use these to define what a god is.

I doubt that anything I would call "God" actually exists.

LegendarySandwich - going by your god definition I was just wondering why it is important that this god created the universe?
Why couldn't it simply have dominion over everything within the universe without having the burdon of creating the universe?

To me dominion is much more powerful and important than simply creation.

Of these gods, how many are supposed to have created a universe, or be omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, benevolent, even supernatural, or are said to have any of the other attributes typically posited as criteria for godhood? What supposed attributes do all of these have in common?

Agdistis or Angdistis
Ah Puch
Ahura Mazda
Alberich
Allah
Amaterasu
An
Anansi
Anat
Andvari
Anshar
Anu
Aphrodite
Apollo
Apsu
Ares
Artemis
Asclepius
Athena
Athirat
Athtart
Atlas
Baal
Ba Xian
Bacchus
Balder
Bast
Bellona
Bergelmir
Bes
Bixia Yuanjin
Bragi
Brahma
Brigit
Camaxtli
Ceres
Ceridwen
Cernunnos
Chac
Chalchiuhtlicue
Charun
Chemosh
Cheng-huang
Cybele
Dagon
Damkina (Dumkina)
Davlin
Dawn
Demeter
Diana
Di Cang
Dionysus
Ea
El
Enki
Enlil
Eos
Epona
Ereskigal
Farbauti
Fenrir
Forseti
Freya
Freyr
Frigg
Gaia
Ganesha
Ganga
Garuda
Gauri
Geb
Geong Si
Guanyin
Hades
Hanuman
Hathor
Hecate (Hekate)
Helios
Heng-o (Chang-o)
Hephaestus
Hera
Hermes
Hestia
Hod
Hoderi
Hoori
Horus
Hotei
Huitzilopochtli
Hsi-Wang-Mu
Hygeia
Inanna
Inti
Iris
Ishtar
Isis
Ixtab
Izanaki
Izanami
Jesus
Juno
Jupiter
Juturna
Kagutsuchi
Kartikeya
Khepri
Ki
Kingu
Kinich Ahau
Kishar
Krishna
Kuan-yin
Kukulcan
Kvasir
Lakshmi
Leto
Liza
Loki
Lugh
Luna
Magna Mater
Maia
Marduk
Mars
Mazu
Medb
Mercury
Mimir
Min
Minerva
Mithras
Morrigan
Mot
Mummu
Muses
Nammu
Nanna
Nanna (Norse)
Nanse
Neith
Nemesis
Nephthys
Neptune
Nergal
Ninazu
Ninhurzag
Nintu
Ninurta
Njord
Nugua
Nut
Odin
Ohkuninushi
Ohyamatsumi
Orgelmir
Osiris
Ostara
Pan
Parvati
Phaethon
Phoebe
Phoebus Apollo
Pilumnus
Poseidon
Quetzalcoatl
Rama
Re
Rhea
Sabazius
Sarasvati
Selene
Shiva
Seshat
Seti (Set)
Shamash
Shapsu
Shen Yi
Shiva
Shu
Si-Wang-Mu
Sin
Sirona
Sol
Surya
Susanoh
Tawaret
Tefnut
Tezcatlipoca
Thanatos
Thor
Thoth
Tiamat
Tianhou
Tlaloc
Tonatiuh
Toyo-Uke-Bime
Tyche
Tyr
Utu
Uzume
Vediovis
Venus
Vesta
Vishnu
Volturnus
Xipe
Xi Wang-mu
Xochipilli
Xochiquetzal
Yam
Yarikh
Yhwh
Ymir
Yu-huang
Yum Kimil
Zeus

For a definition of "god" to make sense as a definition, doesn't it have to apply to all of them?

Edited for spelling

I don't know. Probably it's just because I've always imagined God as the creator of the universe. To think of him as anything else seems weird.

Yes, you can tell I was raised Christian.

EDIT:

Quote from: "ellibean"For a definition of "god" to make sense as a definition, doesn't it have to apply to all of them?

Not necessarily.

Quote from: "elliebean"For a definition of "god" to make sense as a definition, doesn't it have to apply to all of them?

Either that or some of these gods need to be redefined/relabelled as something other than a god.

Quote from: "Stevil"

Quote from: "elliebean"For a definition of "god" to make sense as a definition, doesn't it have to apply to all of them?

Either that or some of these gods need to be redefined/relabelled as something other than a god.

Perhaps "Sub-Gods". Or something.

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"

Quote from: "ellibean"For a definition of "god" to make sense as a definition, doesn't it have to apply to all of them?

Not necessarily.

Why not?

Quote from: "elliebean"

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"

Quote from: "ellibean"For a definition of "god" to make sense as a definition, doesn't it have to apply to all of them?

Not necessarily.

Why not?

You could say that those gods weren't really gods.

Or you could say that wasn't a real definition.

My definition of God is exactly the same as the Sandwich man's.  It seems to be the minimum God could be and still be considered God by anyone.  And by that definition, I don't think anyone can ever prove that God doesn't exist.  (Or that he does.)  In fact, that's the Deist God.

But of course a God which has only those characteristics has no place in our lives.  Makes absolutely no difference whether we believe in Him or not.  Add another characteristic - benevolent, interventionist, eternal life - so that it might be significant to believe in Him .. and He becomes much, much easier to disprove.

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"Not necessarily

Quote from: "elliebean"Why not?

QuoteYou could say that those gods weren't really gods.

And actually, my point is that none of them are "really" gods.  

Quote from: "Wilson"My definition of God is exactly the same as the Sandwich man's. It seems to be the minimum God could be and still be considered God by anyone. And by that definition, I don't think anyone can ever prove that God doesn't exist. (Or that he does.) In fact, that's the Deist God.

But of course a God which has only those characteristics has no place in our lives. Makes absolutely no difference whether we believe in Him or not. Add another characteristic - benevolent, interventionist, eternal life - so that it might be significant to believe in Him .. and He becomes much, much easier to disprove.

Yep.

Quote from: "elliebean"Or you could say that wasn't a real definition.

Yep. This just further proves the point that it's all opinion.

A human creation to explain the inexplicable by personification of phenomena.
The inexplicable doesn't necessarily remain so, therefore last millennia's gods can seem ludicrous.

Quote from: "The Magic Pudding"A human creation to explain the inexplicable by personification of phenomena.
The inexplicable doesn't necessarily remain so, therefore last millennia's gods can seem ludicrous.

Yes, wanting to know the answers to everything without having to admit that we just don't know.

Problem How come we exist?
Theory 1In the begining there was nothing. Then the universe was created.
Problem with Theory 1 But everything seems so complicated and appears to be designed.
Theory 1-1 The universe was created by an intelligent designer.

Are there any other problems that Theory 1 and Theory 1-1 don't solve but may need expansion of the idea of an intelligent designer to solve?

Quote from: "Stevil"Yes, wanting to know the answers to everything without having to admit that we just don't know.

Problem How come we exist?
Theory 1In the begining there was nothing. Then the universe was created.
Problem with Theory 1 But everything seems so complicated and appears to be designed.
Theory 1-1 The universe was created by an intelligent designer.

Are there any other problems that Theory 1 and Theory 1-1 don't solve but may need expansion of the idea of an intelligent designer to solve?

You might think the designer is a benevolent father.
Some bad guy is going to be needed to explain bad stuff.
Or you could blame your self, it that's your thing.
Death is a problem, something will have to done about that.

Quote from: "The Magic Pudding"

Quote from: "Stevil"Yes, wanting to know the answers to everything without having to admit that we just don't know.

Problem How come we exist?
Theory 1In the begining there was nothing. Then the universe was created.
Problem with Theory 1 But everything seems so complicated and appears to be designed.
Theory 1-1 The universe was created by an intelligent designer.

Are there any other problems that Theory 1 and Theory 1-1 don't solve but may need expansion of the idea of an intelligent designer to solve?

You might think the designer is a benevolent father.
Some bad guy is going to be needed to explain bad stuff.
Or you could blame your self, it that's your thing.
Death is a problem, something will have to done about that.

People need incentive to belief this stuff
so, good people go to heaven and bad people go to hell

but then non believers think they are good people so have the basses cover

Well, trump that with,
No matter what, if you don't believe, then you go to hell.

Quote from: "elliebean"For a definition of "god" to make sense as a definition, doesn't it have to apply to all of them?

Then the definition would be, "that which is worshipped."

So far this thread has impressed upon me a key differentiator among respondents, as some emphasize creation; others, dominion; others, worship; and others, explanatory utility.

The last of the four is the one I currently emphasize in my own thinking, and so I name energy my God, pointless to worship.  Energy ultimately explains everything.  It also needs no creation if it was always here, no governance since its attributes are eternally constant, and no worship since it presumably is oblivious to that.  We could start a church of energy and name physicists its de facto clergy, except there would be no point.  Interestingly, New Age spirituality speaks endlessly of energy, only in forms our physicists are unable to detect.

I think religions we have today exist for a variety of reasons.

The first and obvious reason is an ignorance that people want to fill. Why are we here? Why are things the way they are? How do things work? This is how religion was started all that time ago.

The second is tied to the first -- the fear of the unknown. Why do you things happen? And then there's the biggest unknown of them all: death. So stories of the afterlife were born.

The third is tied to the second -- wanting good things to happen to them and bad things to happen to their enemies. We are the chosen people; our god(s) will help us win this war. After death, we will go to heaven and our enemies to hell.

The fourth is tied to the third -- an incentive for people to join the religion, and be good. Believe in our god and join our side, and go to heaven; don't, and go to hell. Be a good little boy, Johnny -- believe in God, go to church, eat your veggies, and you will go to heaven. Be bad and you'll go straight to Hell!

The fifth is the way memes/ideologies work. Parents pass their religion on to their kids, the religion gets implanted into their brain on a very core level, and, eventually, they pass it on to their kids. Add all the other reasons to this and the religion could become very popular and powerful. Since memes evolve, the religion can adapt to new situations, although it will resist -- and if it can't adapt, it will die. Thus why we have the religions we have today, just like the reason we have the animals we have today.

My theory could use quite a bit of refinement.

Inevitable Droid wrote:

QuoteIf theist, how do you define the nature of what you believe in; if atheist, the nature of what you don't?

It's not my job to come up with a nature of things I don't believe. The only thing in common about the things I don't believe is that there's currently not enough evidence for me to believe in them.

Quote from: "dloubet"Inevitable Droid wrote:

QuoteIf theist, how do you define the nature of what you believe in; if atheist, the nature of what you don't?

It's not my job to come up with a nature of things I don't believe. The only thing in common about the things I don't believe is that there's currently not enough evidence for me to believe in them.

I've noticed this interesting not my job meme on the board lately. :blink:

If you know what it purports to be, you can answer reasonably.  If you look it up, you can answer reasonably.  But if you don't know what it purports to be and you don't look it up, you would have to answer no, you don't believe in it, which would be strictly accurate but not very reasonable, especially since life on Earth absolutely depends on what that thing purports to be.  You might as well say you don't believe in oxygen.

It's cool to put the burden of citing evidence on the person making a claim.  It's also cool to ignore the whole conversation.  But if you engage in the conversation, and want to be reasonable, you need to at least take the trouble to form an idea of what it is you're conversing about.

Do you believe in Omicron Eridani?

Let's see if this helps at all:

Quote from: "url=http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/god]Dictionary.com[/url]"]
God
â€, â€,/gÉ'd/
â€"noun

1. the one Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe.

2. the Supreme Being considered with reference to a particular attribute: the God of Islam.

3. ( lowercase ) one of several deities, esp. a male deity, presiding over some portion of worldly affairs.

4. ( often lowercase ) a supreme being according to some particular conception: the god of mercy.

5. Christian Science . the Supreme Being, understood as Life, Truth, love, Mind, Soul, Spirit, Principle.

6. ( lowercase ) an image of a deity; an idol.

7. ( lowercase ) any deified person or object.

8. ( often lowercase ) Gods, Theater .

 a. the upper balcony in a theater.

 b. the spectators in this part of the balcony.

Looks like, to understand some of those concepts, we need a definition of "deity":

Quotede·i·ty
â€, â€,/ˈdiɪti/ [dee-i-tee]
â€"noun, plural -ties.

1. a god or goddess.

Quoteeta: good lord.  :brick:

Oooookaaaaayyy...

Quotedi·vin·i·ty
â€, â€,/dɪˈvɪnɪti/[dih-vin-i-tee]
â€"noun, plural -ties.
1. the quality of being divine; divine nature.

2. deity; godhood.

3. a divine being; god.

4. the Divinity, ( sometimes lowercase ) the Deity.

5. a being having divine attributes, ranking below God but above humans: minor divinities.

6. the study or science of divine things; theology.

7. godlike character; supreme excellence.

8. Also called divinity fudge . a fluffy white or artificially tinted fudge made usually of sugar, corn syrup, egg whites, and flavoring, often with nuts.

So there we have it: a god is a deity, which is something divine; and divinity is something gods have, such as godlike characteristics, or deity. Makes perfect sense.  

Putting this all together so far, I'm still not sure there's any more unified, agreed-upon, or useful definition of "god" than "something that is called god".

Quote from: "elliebean"Putting this all together so far, I'm still not sure there's any more unified, agreed-upon, or useful definition of "god" than "something that is called god".

Since I don't believe in any gods and even if any exist, they're most likely irrelevant to me, I'm fine with this definition. Theists may want to get their act together and actually come up with a useful definition, though.

My definition depends on the believer's.

Quote from: "elliebean"Putting this all together so far, I'm still not sure there's any more unified, agreed-upon, or useful definition of "god" than "something that is called god".

The very first usage includes the words, "creator and ruler of the universe."  That's two of the four that most of us put forward.  The word "worshipped" doesn't appear in any of the usages, which I find odd, but "revered as a god" appears, which is close enough to "worshipped" to satisfy me, at least, so that's three of the four.  The only one of our big four that doesn't show up is, "explanatory."

I really don't think the argument that the word is meaningless gets us anywhere.  The word isn't meaningless.  It has content.  Creator, ruler, worshipped, explanatory - one or some combination of those four is always meant.  Individualism is demonstrated by which of the four is (are) selected and, if multiple, which is (are) held to be crucial.

If I insist the word God is meaningless, then when I say I don't believe in God, I have to acknowledge that I haven't communicated at all, that my own sentence is meaningless.  I guess it could be amusing to mock the theist's statement of belief as meaningless, but the sword in this instance cuts both ways, and most theists aren't such morons as to be unable to offer, "creator and ruler of the universe."  I know the (scriptural) theists on this message board (at least lately) have a weird tendency to run off at the mouth and say very little, but real believers in the real world will quickly answer, "creator and ruler of the universe," if asked.  I understand what those words mean.  I don't believe they signify anything real, but I know what they mean, just as I know what leprechaun means.

God is ego.

Quote from: "Smarmy Of One"God is ego.

Are you..? Really..? Can you conjure me a bag of donuts..? Prayer-free to secure my repeat customs..?  

Inevitable Droid wrote:

QuoteHow do you evaluate the evidence for X if you don't know what X purports to be?

By evaluating the evidence. Do I really need X if I have the evidence for it? I don't know what gravity is, (In other words I don't know exactly how it works.) but I see plenty of evidence for it and really accurate descriptions of its effects.

QuoteDo you believe in RUBISCO?

Until I know what it is, I lack belief in it. The only alternative is to say I do believe in it before I even know what it is, and that would really be stupid.

QuoteBut if you don't know what it purports to be and you don't look it up, you would have to answer no, you don't believe in it, which would be strictly accurate but not very reasonable, especially since life on Earth absolutely depends on what that thing purports to be.

Not very reasonable? The only alternative is to say you do believe in it when you don't even know what it is. That's definitely not reasonable!

I'll be happy to re-evaluate my state of belief once my state of knowledge is adjusted. But until then I have to relegate my lack of belief in RUBISCO with the infinity of things I am similarly ignorant of. Especially of ending a sentence with a preposition.

QuoteIt's cool to put the burden of citing evidence on the person making a claim. It's also cool to ignore the whole conversation. But if you engage in the conversation, and want to be reasonable, you need to at least take the trouble to form an idea of what it is you're conversing about.

That's what the conversation, and the burden of proof, is FOR. To allow you to form an idea of what they're talking about, and evaluate it. How else would you form the idea of what they're talking about? Not all people I have conversations with have written books that I can study in advance about what they're talking about. We know that every Christian seems to have a different interpretation of what their book says, so what good would it be to study the bible, and any given concept of god, knowing that we're just going to be forced to ask the theist his personal interpretation anyway? That's what this whole forum demonstrates over and over and over.

My conversational sequence of events is something like this:
The theist comes up with a version of god. We have a conversation about it so that I understand what he's talking about. I determine if the evidence he's presented is sufficient for me to agree with his version. So far, no sale.

What's your conversational sequence of events?

It's simple people.. The concept of a god is inherently so vague and undefined that its of pure concept of opinion, and title. Thus since opinions and concepts based on opinions such as this with infinite number or qualifiers and non-qualifiers  become worthless in a world of other opinions. It becomes 100% =/= 100% argument on the existence and non-existence of anything that might exist to which you may or may not consider a "GOD".  And under this argument, anything can be considered a GOD by virtue of opinion alone! Thus all things are GODS, or there are no GODS at all!

Example:

I may as well worship the dust bunnies on my desktop as GODS of sneezing! I will later sacrifice my neighbors virgin daughter to appease the sneeze GOD!

Example 2:

I can simply disqualify anything from being a GOD simply because Existence itself can not be created when such entities are salve to require it. This includes the very fact that it takes more cause to support consciousness than it does to support unconsciousness.