"God" is such a nebulous term.

[Erebus]

This topic comes up quite frequently in discussions here and I figured it could use it's own thread. One of the things you get on a forum with so many different religions, philosophies and perspectives is the word "God" used to describe a wide variety of things. Some, like myself, use the word "God" in a pantheistic sense, referring to the sum total of reality. Some people argue that this is not a meaningful application of the word and that it should instead refer to a supernatural being. Another person will then say it's not enough to refer to a supernatural being, it has to refer to an omnimax being. I've even seen a couple of people claim that they don't believe in "God" because their own definition of "God" means that he/she/it would be an impossible entity anyway.

So, in your opinion what definitions of "God" are useful/meaningful? What term would you give to some of the God concepts that don't fit into this view? Do you have a problem with the word God being used for both (as an example) the Abrahamic God and the Dharmic God despite the two being quite different?

Anyway, those questions are just there as food for thought.

 

[Azekual]

I've never heard of God pertaining to the sum total of reality. It sounds interesting.

To me, God is the Abrahamic god. Though I don't have a choke hold on the name, I accept that other religions use the name and will even use God to refer to other deities if it comes up. But the first thing that always comes to mind is the Abrahamic god.


......Is that a Critter in your signature?

 

[Breathe]

So, in your opinion what definitions of "God" are useful/meaningful?

Good question.

To me, "god" is any conscious, præternatural entity. They don't have to be the creator, or eternal, or supreme. It can be like the Abrahamic, Pagan, or Dharmic ones, as long as it's conscious. I'm not really a fan of the term God to describe things that can be used for other things, because it's adding a term that is unnecessary for something that can be summed up with "All" just as easily - however, it's up to them what they use.

However, for "God", I think it's best for an eternal, supreme præternatural entity. They don't have to be omnimax, because omnimax is a bit, well.. impossible.


For me, personally as a panentheist, God is everything and beyond. I see God as both personal guide (sort of like "gut feeling" - but not quite. Can't explain it. Wouldn't if I could) that can be experienced, and impersonal sum of all things and ultimate reality.

 

[blackout]

Just like so many other words,
the word "god" has many possible meanings and applications.

I'm sure I use them all, at different times,
to refer to different things.

 

[Acim]

T
So, in your opinion what definitions of "God" are useful/meaningful? What term would you give to some of the God concepts that don't fit into this view? Do you have a problem with the word God being used for both (as an example) the Abrahamic God and the Dharmic God despite the two being quite different?

Anyway, those questions are just there as food for thought.

God contained to definition is not meaningful ultimately. The reason the descriptions are diverse is because God is (inherently) understood as creator of everything. But since we are that which is coming to terms with understanding of 'what is everything' and 'what am I' then just like we perceive variation in physical versions of self, we are likely to filter variation in understanding what it means to be creator of everything.

I tend to adapt concept of God to what is useful in situation. When with spiritual folk, God (as relatable concept) is, generally speaking, Maximal or Infinite Love. Keyword being Love. If I am with intellectual folk where 'airy fairy feelings' are less likely to impress, God as concept becomes Life. Could be as simple as that, but if needing add-on to enhance (need for) accuracy, I'll go with Eternal Life. And in intellectual discussions, I'll go with Supreme Being (with Being as keyword).

Other concepts I feel are interchangeable, though have become almost divisive in certain venues are:
Father (or Mother)
Creator
Great Spirit

And I have terms I'll use for own personal, inner understanding. I hesitate to share these aloud mostly because they are uncustomary. These are also not necessarily one word concepts. One example would be "Being who is at Supreme Rest" with keyword being Rest. That is one that really works for me now, but didn't for awhile. I only sort of grasped it before and then when I had deeper awareness around what "Rest" really means, it became most profound concept I've encountered besides "Life" and "Love" concepts.

I have no problem with how others use term of God, as I generally realize label / definition doesn't contain God. I also use sense of discernment to get at what others are 'really saying.' And admittedly, I see it as Spirit speaking through another (brother) to help me understand 'it' in another way. Not a 'better' way, but another way.

Admittedly though I may debate someone on conceptualizations of Divine which is me having some problems with labels, but is almost always superficial, and not something that ever comes remotely close to 'threatening my core understandings.' I'll call God, concepts like FSM or Big Daddy just to keep myself in check and not take (superficial) things too seriously.

 

[St Giordano Bruno]

I think it is a highly ambiguous term because it could mean anything from a personal god to just merely an abstract principle such as the personification of the laws of nature. So my standard reply to anyone who asks me if I believe in God is, which one?

 

[Sunstone]

It's a pet peeve of mine that most people do not distinguish between God and god. Capital "G" God is a proper name. Small "g" god is a generic name. The difference is the same as the difference between Smith, the name of a person, and smith, the name of an occupation.

Most folks spell both the proper name and the generic name for god with a capital "G". It's not all that important, but it's annoying.

 

[sandandfoam]

It's a pet peeve of mine that most people do not distinguish between God and god. Capital "G" God is a proper name. Small "g" god is a generic name. The difference is the same as the difference between Smith, the name of a person, and smith, the name of an occupation.

Most folks spell both the proper name and the generic name for god with a capital "G". Hence, you cannot always immediately tell what the hell they are talking about. Not that most folks would make sense anyway, but just sayin'.

"G" - this one is mine
"g" - this one is yours

 

[St Giordano Bruno]

It's a pet peeve of mine that most people do not distinguish between God and god. Capital "G" God is a proper name. Small "g" god is a generic name. The difference is the same as the difference between Smith, the name of a person, and smith, the name of an occupation.

Most folks spell both the proper name and the generic name for god with a capital "G". It's not all that important, but it's annoying.

For many Muslims the only god which deserves a capital letter is Allah. The rest just have small "g"s

 

[E. Nato Difficile]

I'm sure it's no mistake that contemporary believers have reconceptualized God so drastically that the term is virtually meaningless. This makes it easier to dismiss any criticism of religious belief as a straw man: I have indeed heard believers claim that unless someone has assessed literally every conceivable god-concept, his or her nonbelief is an irresponsible form of prejudice.

For the millionth time: if your concept of God, whatever it may be, makes you a happier, more tolerant, more responsible person, then I'm glad you have it.

-Nato

 

[Falvlun]

A god is a supernatural being (or force) that has control over at least some aspect of reality.

 

[Skwim]

I address the notion of god as it's regarded or defined by the person using it. Most often this is will be god of Abraham, the one I'm most familiar with.

And I don't think the term "god" is so nebulous as much as it is incredibly varied. Seems most religions have a pretty clear notion of their god, albeit often a contradictory one.

 

[Falvlun]

I figure this is as good a place as any for this little rant.

It really irks my taters when people say that the fact that they haven't heard/researched every last god concept is a barrier to their ability to say "I don't believe that god exists."

We don't believe in the existence of a lot of things despite the fact that we may not have heard every description of that thing. This is because we base our belief/lack there of on the category, rather than individual examples.

Take bigfoot for example. Bigfoot is also known as Sasquatch and Yeti. Some people may envision him as 6 ft high, others as 10ft. Some people might believe he only has brown fur, some people may believe he is black or white furred. Some people may think he is only lightly furred, more like a caveman. Some people may believe that Sasquatch has the strength of ten men; some may believe he only has twice our strength. Some may believe he is a man-eater; others may believe he is vegetarian.

Now, I assume that most of you do not believe that Bigfoot exists. Have you read every single definition of Bigfoot before you came to that conclusion? Have you read about every single expedition or research endeavor to discover this animal? Have you talked to every single Bigfoot believer? No. You have not. And yet you still are content to believe that Bigfoot doesn't exist. This is because the category of "Bigfoot"-- something large, hairy, manshaped that stalks forests with big feet-- suffices for all the individual examples. Details are irrelevant to the general concept.

So why do we hold the concept of god to such a higher standard? I'm willing to wager that there is even more evidence-- various unidentified bones, eyewitnesses, blurry videotape-- of Sasquatch than we do of the existence of God. So what gives? Why is the concept of god an exception to our ability to make decisions at the category level?

 

[Erebus]

So why do we hold the concept of god to such a higher standard? I'm willing to wager that there is even more evidence-- various unidentified bones, eyewitnesses, blurry videotape-- of Sasquatch than we do of the existence of God. So what gives? Why is the concept of god an exception to our ability to make decisions at the category level?

I know what you're saying. I will admit though, it's a tactic I've used on those people who come on the forums and say "All Religion is evil/stupid/archaic because the Bible says nasty things." It's those people who need to do some research IMO, but not so that they might believe, just so they might not be such a tool in the future

Part of the reason for making this thread was to get people sharing the manner in which they envision God/god/gods. There are a lot more God concepts than there are Bigfoot concepts (although I get what you were conveying in your example) and on a forum like this it's easy to get a lot of miscommunication simply through people having a different perspective on the same word (God, Atheist, Faith and Worship seem to be the biggest ones).

 

[Sunstone]

A god is a supernatural being (or force) that has control over at least some aspect of reality.

So do ghosts, spirits, dead ancestors, dead saints, and various other non-gods.

 

[PolyHedral]

So, in your opinion what definitions of "God" are useful/meaningful?

Ones we do not already have names for.

 

[Sunstone]

God is an ineffable experience.

 

[St Giordano Bruno]

God is just a certain "consonant vowel consonant" that resonates in the English language.

 

[E. Nato Difficile]

So why do we hold the concept of god to such a higher standard?

Because people have a lot invested in the notion of God existing. So much, in fact, that they'd rather reduce it to a neurotic word game than allow the concept to be subjected to the same scrutiny to which we insist on subjecting all other ideas in our society. Now God isn't a being, or a force, or a phenomenon, or anything else we can assess critically.

So God has become something no other idea in our culture is: a concept so vague that it can mean anything to anyone.

-Nato

 

[blackout]

I figure this is as good a place as any for this little rant.

It really irks my taters when people say that the fact that they haven't heard/researched every last god concept is a barrier to their ability to say "I don't believe that god exists."

We don't believe in the existence of a lot of things despite the fact that we may not have heard every description of that thing. This is because we base our belief/lack there of on the category, rather than individual examples.

Take bigfoot for example. Bigfoot is also known as Sasquatch and Yeti. Some people may envision him as 6 ft high, others as 10ft. Some people might believe he only has brown fur, some people may believe he is black or white furred. Some people may think he is only lightly furred, more like a caveman. Some people may believe that Sasquatch has the strength of ten men; some may believe he only has twice our strength. Some may believe he is a man-eater; others may believe he is vegetarian.

Now, I assume that most of you do not believe that Bigfoot exists. Have you read every single definition of Bigfoot before you came to that conclusion? Have you read about every single expedition or research endeavor to discover this animal? Have you talked to every single Bigfoot believer? No. You have not. And yet you still are content to believe that Bigfoot doesn't exist. This is because the category of "Bigfoot"-- something large, hairy, manshaped that stalks forests with big feet-- suffices for all the individual examples. Details are irrelevant to the general concept.

So why do we hold the concept of god to such a higher standard? I'm willing to wager that there is even more evidence-- various unidentified bones, eyewitnesses, blurry videotape-- of Sasquatch than we do of the existence of God. So what gives? Why is the concept of god an exception to our ability to make decisions at the category level?

To a Pantheist or Panentheist every'thing, is evidence of gOd.
(or "gOd evident")

Ultimately though men are the Gods who define reality.
They are the Self Realization, and Creators of the UniVerse.


EDIT: We have I can't even guess how many thousands of videos of evidence worth of this.
Netflix might be a good place to begin.