So I consider myself an atheist, for the most part. I don't believe in religion, and I don't believe in any religions God. But things get dicey, for me, when as an atheist, one begins to think about a non-religious god.

Without the trappings of Christianity, (for example) what does "God" even mean? We all know what the Christian god is like--walks around, smells stuff, talks to people, has emotions, judges people's souls, created the universe--but none of that necessarily pertains to any other god, right? I mean, all Thor did was sit up in the clouds and make thunder afaik--but if I said, "oh, yeah, I believe in god, and by that I mean I believe there is a man in the clouds that hits things with his hammer and makes lightning," people would look at me funny.

I like to think I believe in something along the lines of Einstein's God, something like a quasi-underlying force to the universe, but I don't find the existence of this force relevant for me anyway, so I just say I'm an atheist.

perhaps this will help.







love to you Hector

I think most peoples definition in a very general sense would be...

A cognizant being of impossible power that created everything.

I believe that fits most religions.

"God" is a word. This particular word, can mean/be whatever you want it to be. It can also possess whatever attributes you believe a god should possess, ie. omnipresence, omniscience etc.

Whatever definition you choose, who can argue with you? Some will agree with your definition(s), while others will disagree.

Either way, the concept of god, is a belief(construct) in the mind of an individual. Some will argue vehemently that god is "real" - of course referring to the god they themselves believe in - and that they have proof.

Up to you OP. You decide, or let others decide for you based on their beliefs.

Deepity alert! Deepity alert!

Stick with that then.

God is Consciousness.

Here's a book for you. I point you to chapter 7. You might realize some very interesting things there.

However, in my opinion, it would probably be helpful to read chapter 6 first though.

This pretty much how I feel. I feel the sensation one could call "god" sometimes, and it just represents some sort of intangible and ununderstandable essence of the Universe. Some manner of respect for the enormity of our condition, which we ignore on a day to day basis so we can just go about our lives.

It bothers me for some reason that the term God seems to have been coopted by religion. When someone says "do you believe in god," what they really mean most often is "do you believe in jehova." And if not jehova specifically, then essentially the imprint and the characteristics of jehova.

"God" still has the same definition whether you believe in a particular religion's depiction of God or not.

You don't have to believe in a god of any sort if you don't want to. Nothing is "missing" from you if you choose not to believe in God. It's not like you have to define your own God at all.

Existence.

I mean, pretty much all of that is sort of lol, but "walks around, smells stuff"? That sounds pretty creepy.

Don't look at me, I didn't come up with it.

Ok, but who came up where with "walks around, smells stuff"?

Um, some old goat herder, I guess.

Right. Now on to the "where" part (which, just to avoid further confusion, asks for a cite).

lmgtfy

So you don't feel like sourcing your claims that "we all know" that the christian God "walks around, smells stuff"?

Ok. fwiw it wouldn't be all that hard to find at least semi-relevant quotes...

I define God as "An intelligent creator of the Universe".

Unless someone can think of something else, I think that covers the characteristics sufficient for me to call something "God".

Anything else I can think of seems extraneous.

Pretty close. No need for the word "intelligent" even though it's obvious ( at least to some! ) that Hashem ( "G-d" ) is "intelligent". Also, it's not obvious that one ought to capitalize "universe" ever since multiverse hypotheses in physics were given serious consideration ( see Tegmark's taxonomy of four levels of universes, including a level with the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics ). I'm glad you didn't unnecessarily embellish this with some variation that is found, for example, in the standard dictionary definitions ( e.g., in Oxford or Merriam-Webster dictionaries ). In addition, your use of "an" doesn't imply monotheism, although the article "the" really is forgiveable as there truly exists a unique "G-d".

"G-d" ~ Creator of the universe

but best is:

"G-d" = Creator

IMHO, there is no definition that is more "fundamental". This also leaves open the questions of what is "created" and by what means are "creations" created?

The reason I say intelligent is because otherwise naturalistic causes can be considered God.

Without intelligence any first movement could be considered the cause of the Universe (which if we're being pedantic I think can still be considered a proper noun) and this isn't sufficient for me. If the explosion of a singularity (big bang theory (or whatever better definition of the BBT you put in)) were the first cause, I wouldn't consider it God. If whatever caused the big bang were unintelligent, I wouldn't consider that God either.

If we consider non-intelligent causes, then anything that happened first is God. And in that case we're all theists and the definition is far too broad.

If the use of "an" doesn't imply monotheism then good. If there were two or more intelligent creators of the Universe, then there are two or more Gods.

I understand your point of view. There seems to be some importance for an "ultimate cause" rather than just any "cause" and therein lies the problem: what does "create" really mean? I would say that in context of the definition of "G-d", the word "create" in a statement such as "the computer created that image" is not the same "create" as implied by "Creator". There is a distinction between "caused" and "created". One point of view is that "G-d" can be defined as the "ultimate cause" ( of all that is "caused" ).

"G-d" ~ the ultimate cause

The above doesn't seem to strike at the essence of the matter, but does ring true for some human beings.

IMHO, I believe the universe was created through natural processes, but the ultimate Creator is Hashem ~ "G-d". Thus, the key word is "create" ( Hebrew bara ) and what subject(s) or object(s) can be properly used with this transitive verb; the word "cause" is only somewhat related. The other point of view that you've hinted at is that "intelligence" is what is fundamental to "G-d": i.e., the "mind"/"intelligence" that is self-existent and some would argue, the "intelligence" each human being partakes of, is "divine" and I would agree that every human being "entering into the world" has this "light". Some Christians erroneously believe that "Jesus" created the "Universe", but their error, IMHO, is a bit technical in that Hashem created through the "preincarnate Yeshua" as the Miltha ~ Divine Word, all that is created.

If, for example, we simply state that any "creator" requires "intelligence" ( and I think that position is viable ), then the definition you give is redundant. The other difficulty is that a deist might not believe in the existence of a "personal G-d" and then a definition requiring "intelligence" will not necessarily hold for their conception of "G-d" ( even though IMHO, deists are often misusing the word "G-d" and are wrong to believe in a divine being that is not "intelligent" ). Thus, even though I think your definition of "G-d" is close enough to the truth, it's not as fundamental as equating "G-d" with "Creator".

Re: God as Creator

The book I was reading last week (that inspired my other TL;DR thread) talks about "what" God is in an interesting way, so I'd like to sort-of-quote-sort-of-paraphrase it

There are some decent responses in this thread.

God is the being that sends that bad beat river card to hell after you say "goddamit".

For the first time in a while I have actually been thinking about this stuff recently, I think you make a good point with the above, and I imagine a lot of people feel the way you describe. For anyone with an IQ over about 110, it's almost impossible to believe in what has come to be accepted in our culture as a standard "religious" or christian version of god.

i think for you, the realisation that any "underlying force" that may exist in the universe is directly relevant to you is the first step in becoming "spiritual", and believing in more than an objective material reality. The truth is, for an intelligent and free-thinking individual, a belief in god will always be built on what feels acceptable and "true" to them, there isn't any other way, because they will not blindly accept the word of others.

You seem to be unhappy that you do not feel free to believe in whatever it is you believe in, without it being viewed through a religious filter. you are free to believe whatever feels right to you, and to pursue that belief in whatever way you wish. the truth is more important than any label we choose to stick on it.

god is a mystery, and is echoed in the mystery of the human condition. a sense of mystery must be cultivated inside us if we are to seek what lies beyond our current schema of reality. most people on this forum are not interested in doing that, so they try to match "god" with the model they already have and then protest it cannot exist when they don't find it there.

Well there's the christian version of god which I used to believe in but have slowly faded away from that belief. Over time I've came to the realization that man created god in his own image rather than the other way around. This is why the bible, particularly the old testament, portrays a god that is not only tribal, but often quite emotional and fairly egotistical.

Nonetheless, I still believe there is an intelligence that pervades the universe in the form of spirit. I believe that we are all expressions of god, who is experiencing himself and the universe through consciousness. I don't believe there's any one true religion or that there's a vengeful god who punishes those who don't believe in certain things.

No I don't have any "proof" of this. To me, the universe, consciousness, and life itself are proof enough that we're not some sort of cosmic accident. I don't judge others for what they believe or don't believe. If you don't want to believe in god then thats fine and that will be your experience. God won't send you to hell for something your mind has created. In fact, I don't believe that who you are is your "mind" anyway, you are a spirit with a mind for the purpose of experiencing the material realm.

Having said all that, the human mind (in this dimension at least) can't really know who or what god is. We can believe, or disbelieve for that matter, in the existence of god but either way its just a mental concept. Knowing or realizing god and having a mental projection of him in your mind are two different things.

As a footnote to this, there's a principle that Thomas Aquinas made frequent use of: quidquid recipitur ad modum recipientis recipitur, or "whatever is received is received according to the mode (or condition) of the receiver."

The reason for the principle is basically what you went on to say: that "the human mind can't really know who or what god is", and that sacred writings are certainly influenced by the cultures and world views of those who created them, without denying that they were also divinely inspired.