What Makes A God?

[Sunstone]

What do you mean by that, Phil?

Will, awareness, intentionality -- what goes into making something an agent.

 

[Storm]

Ah, thank you. What other qualities?

 

[Willamena]

Frequently, when explaining non-theistic God-concepts, I have encountered the opinion that "that's not really a God."

So, what are your standards for Godhood?

An idea.

 

[kerrythekiwi]

I don't mean to disregard anything you've said, but the question is more "What qualities does "God" or "a god" have in your opinion". As in, when someone says "God" or "a god" to you, what would be an acceptable definition, and what wouldn't. For instance, I think that the term "God" should refer to an intelligent being. My definition excludes things like equating God with nature. What do you think?

... I'm not really sure about that. Likely I would call 'God' an energy source beyond physical limits as we know them. 'God' in any religion always seems to be that way to me, rather than an entity conscious of its own actions. But I don't know what qualities it would have. I'd only think of it as power.

 

[Willamena]

I don't mean to disregard anything you've said, but the question is more "What qualities does "God" or "a god" have in your opinion". As in, when someone says "God" or "a god" to you, what would be an acceptable definition, and what wouldn't. For instance, I think that the term "God" should refer to an intelligent being. My definition excludes things like equating God with nature. What do you think?

What is acceptable to me is acceptable to me. What is acceptable to them is acceptable to me as acceptable to them.

 

[Magic Man]

What is acceptable to me is acceptable to me. What is acceptable to them is acceptable to me as acceptable to them.

Right, but the point is not to say that others are wrong. It's just to say what is right for you. Basically, it's "Here's my opinion...", not "Here's my opinion, and it should be the opinion of everyone...". For me, it's right to say that "God" is not "nature", but something else. For others, "God" is "nature".

 

[Willamena]

Right, but the point is not to say that others are wrong. It's just to say what is right for you. Basically, it's "Here's my opinion...", not "Here's my opinion, and it should be the opinion of everyone...". For me, it's right to say that "God" is not "nature", but something else. For others, "God" is "nature".

That was my answer, though, as to what is acceptable as "God": whatever is acceptable to others as "God" is acceptable to me as acceptable for them --even if it's the whole of the natural world, and even if it's beyond.

They would, however, be required to be more specific than I.

 

[Father Heathen]

What if our collective consciousness is god, slumbering?

 

[Azakel]

What if our collective consciousness is god, slumbering?

Kind of like an Egregore: Egregore - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Father Heathen]

Kind of like an Egregore: Egregore - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yeah, a lot like that.

 

[YmirGF]

Frequently, when explaining non-theistic God-concepts, I have encountered the opinion that "that's not really a God."

Then again, it is not like anyone is actually an expert on the subject, now, is it.

So, what are your standards for Godhood?

I don't need so-called "godhood" as that implies something to which all else is subservient. I don't see reality that way. I am rather keen on a concept called "Creaturehood" however. It does not suffer from the inherent limitations of imagined "godhood".

I'm not expecting a single answer, only individual perspectives.

Realistically speaking, no one CAN give you more than their opinion.

I'll offer my own beliefs up for inspection.

For those unfamiliar, I believe in what has been called a "living Godiverse." I believe that the universe as we know it is a living, sapient organism. It has three basic elements: matter, consciousness, and "life force". It is a juvenile, and life as we know it is the process of God's maturation. It was Created by another, mature Godiverse.

That isn't all that bad, Storm. There is a certain elegance to it, overall. It reminds me othe Hindu idea that creation is the endless process of god meeting himself and consciously becoming aware of what and who he is. I am curious though of two points. 1) Exactly how does consciousness differ from "life force"? 2. Given that all matter is energy at the atomic and subatomic level, is there a connection there that corresponds to consciousness or "life force"? Is the "connection" even more subtle than perhaps the subatomic level?

Do you consider this a God? Why or why not?

Sure. Why not? It's what you envision, so there is that inherent reality to it, even if it is your own projection. Does it matter what others think of your conceptions? More importantly why SHOULD your view mesh with that of others?

 

[Tau]

Frequently, when explaining non-theistic God-concepts, I have encountered the opinion that "that's not really a God."

So, what are your standards for Godhood?

For a God to exist he/she/it will need at least one believer.

 

[Tau]

What if our collective consciousness is god, slumbering?

Yes the soul pool, this is part of Tau religion personally I am more for the Greater Good philosophy nowadays which is eclipsing the old Tau faith.

 

[Da Troof]

What is a God?

Well just look at every religion man has ever invented and you will see that there are many kinds of God from the infinitely powerful single God of Judaic religions to the Gods whose powers are limited to one task like sun or weather. All share the common attribute of having super-natural powers.

OH, and ALL are man made, superstitious, nonsense.

 

[Tau]

OH, and ALL are man made, superstitious, nonsense.

Perhaps and again perhaps not, you are a limited creature like any of us and cannot truly know if Gods exist or not, especially when the definition of what a God is, is wide open to interpretation.

 

[BucephalusBB]

Frequently, when explaining non-theistic God-concepts, I have encountered the opinion that "that's not really a God."

So, what are your standards for Godhood?

Depends on who I'm talking to. If it's an atheist (including myself), I see God as the answer to unanswerable questions. Talking to anybody else the standard can be pretty wide.

I might be one of the people you encounter though (although not towards your opinion) as I don't think you should replace perfectly simpel objects to "God". Without explanation I reject all opinions who call "nature" "God" for example. Unless (that's why I need the explanation) the God version of nature is different from the dictionaries nature.

So I will not go with God is "nature" or God is "love" or whatever..