So this is a bit long, as a definition of god might be expected to be...
So bear with me.

I've tried to edit it a bit, but it was a single post written in response to someone's questions about god and prayer and the like, so if something seems random or out of place, it was probably addressing something in the conversation.

So what do you think?


The world's preeminent religious text, wikipedia, explains: Pantheism is the view that everything is of an all-encompassing immanent abstract God; or that the Universe, or nature, and God are equivalent. More detailed definitions tend to emphasize the idea that natural law, existence, and the Universe (the sum total of all that is, was, and shall be) is represented in the theological principle of an abstract 'god' rather than a personal, creative deity or deities of any kind.

At first glance, this might seem to cheapen the idea of god, reduce it even. But really this is like going a step higher than monotheism, a true monotheism, one in which it's just silly to describe the idea of god as seperate entities like Yahweh, Allah, the sun, the son, etc... To me, THAT seems like a cheapening of the beauty of the thing, the concept ideal.

I came upon these ideas many years ago, though it took me a little while to understand what it was exactly that I was thinking... Sitting in church, I would be thinking how completely absurd it was to explain that Yes, we are monotheists, but OUR god is the best, the only one that really counts... that sort of thinking only necessitates more gods of that sort. I knew that there was definately something I thought of as "god," but it seemed pretty obvious that all different gods were just a matter of what you saw when you perceived this idea from your own cultural reference point.

That's the reason why Jesus, in our culture, is pictured as a white, tall, thin European-looking man. I imagine people picture him a little differently in the middle east. Likewise, for the warlike tribes of Judea, god was envisioned not too much differently than a Spartan might envision god. Yahweh was a spiteful, jealous god who took revenge for every wrongdoing and who led them into their battles. Being of this nature, he of course saw no problems with the killing of anyone not of those tribes, even encouraged complete genocide, advocating the destruction of everything save the spoils of war. Yahweh was also of course, a man. THE ultimate man really, an all powerful king ruling those under him by fear of punishment. This easily explains why all the early civilizations who most cherished ideals such as peace and cooperation, pictured god as a woman, being the ultimate creative force and also a loving, caring mother.

It's no surprise that simplifying the idea of god to this sort of level makes it easily communicated to absolutely anyone, whether they've ever pondered such ideas or not. But this is not a simple idea. The truth is, the more the idea of god is simplified, equated to the drama of human life, the less being god really means. This is exemplified in polytheism. In the mythos of the Greeks or Hindus, the god-stage was filled with god-soap-operas in which the gods lived lives almost identical to men, just on a higher level, being a little more powerful than regular humans. The idea of god as an old man with a long grey beard, I guess a picture of zeus with the name scribbled out, is certainly the easiest way of conceptualizing and relating to something like this, and therefore, the most common manner of thinking from what I can tell. I'm not sure most christians of any intelligence really believe this when it comes down to the issue, but it's a sort of shortcut used in explaining the idea to a child, and one that seems to stick with us no matter how much more complicated things get later on.

Personally, when I really try to think of what's really meant by the word "god," the simplest, ultimate definition is that god is a sort of ultimate, overall creative force. The sort of thing that might explain things like the difference between a dead, and an alive human being, both being physically identical... The kind of thing that causes simple elements to organize into amino acids on their own... these things are just what the universe does, and it's beautiful. Really, considering god as a "force," I've found, is a little closer to what I'd really mean if I were to use the word "god."

Gravity needn't necessarily be thanked for being around everyday, but it's really a pretty nice thing to have around, so I really appreciate it. Only, by my definition, "god" would have to operate a level higher than something like gravitational force, that is to say, gravity is a property of "god." As is already becoming apparent, "god" starts to look curiously like the universe itself. If that sort of idea seems somewhat less than the romanticized version, it's only because people imagine a sort of "thing..." out there... (wait, where?)... when they picture the universe itself. The universe is itself, almost indescribable. The word "universe" is derived from Old French univers, from Latin universum, which combines uni- (the combining form of unus, or "one") with versus (perfect passive participle of vertere, or "turn"). The word, therefore, means "all turned into one" or "revolving as one." That shows precisely the god / religion (or perhaps simply personal spiritual... whatevers) relationship I'm describing.


Here, is the photograph of the largest portion, of the largest portion that lies within the visible-light spectrum, of the universe.
LINK (http://www.firstpr.com.au/astrophysics/hubble-deep-field/hubble-deep-field-northern-detail-rw.bmp)

That photograph was the ultimate achievement of the Hubble Telescope. The angle of here shows a selection of space appoximately 5 Billion light years across. It is determined that this picture shows an exposure of 1/88,000,000th of the whole spherical "sky." Considering that each dot of light seen is a seperate galaxy, some of which are millions of light years across... Each of which contains countless stars, stars which all have orbiting systems like our own... This is as beautiful as any photograph of god might hope to be.

Perhaps, if there is one day a "theory of everything," an elegant mathematical formula, possibly fairly short, that describes every force in the universe, that would be as good a name for god as any. Until then, I'm content to just let most people assume I'm an atheist, and leave it as that. As I'm sure you can tell, this kind of thing takes a while to explain to someone raised to think of god in the way most westerners do. I was however, surprised to find that plenty of easterners think of god in this manner, with texts describing such having existed since before all western religious ideas were recorded. The ideas of Taoism, or Buddhism are basically the same, with Hinduism taking a panDeistic view instead. A notion which basically just establishes the ideas of god and the universe as nouns having, officially, different names. The idea being that, out of god, became the universe, which will return to the state of god... much like the big-bang / big-crunch theory.
LINK (http://www.meditationiseasy.com/app/isa_upanishad.htm)

So... surprising absence of input from a group with such strong opinions usually.

So no opinions ?
or no readers?

God in your sense doesn't really have any power, it just exists. It is the creator in the sense that it is inclusive of everything and in that sense that must include its own creation, but realistically it isn't doing anything besides following the accepted laws of nature, which is really what atheists believe in.

The traditional judeo-christian concept of god gives the term a meaning (despite the absurdity of their ideas) that god is able to sympathize with humans beings and that god has power to change the fortunes of human beings. You have shown well in your argument that this concept is ludicrous, looking at the big scheme of things there is no way such a god exists.

What you're essentially left with is atheism, which I still believe you are. You attempt to attach the word "god" to something it doesn't mean. You can revel in the beauty of the universe as an atheist, but trying to use the word "god" in this instance doesn't add much to those views.

God in your sense doesn't really have any power, it just exists. It is the creator in the sense that it is inclusive of everything and in that sense that must include its own creation, but realistically it isn't doing anything besides following the accepted laws of nature, which is really what atheists believe in.
Wrong.
God, in my definition, is necessarily all of the power.
And "accepted laws of nature" are an aspect of "god" not its limiting factors.

The traditional judeo-christian concept of god gives the term a meaning (despite the absurdity of their ideas) that god is able to sympathize with humans beings and that god has power to change the fortunes of human beings. You have shown well in your argument that this concept is ludicrous, looking at the big scheme of things there is no way such a god exists.
The judeo-christian view gives god personality, which only makes the abstract easier to mentally grasp, without any reality necessarily backing it. Much in the same way people personify animals or even inanimate objects to explain why they work the way they do.

A odd sort of problem I find with atheism is that, because the idea of a judeo-christian god can be so ridiculous, they tend to get into atheism by way of anti-judeo-christianity, with logic coming later.

All cultures have their idea of god, and of course they're all personified in culturally understandable and relevant ways. There's obviously no zeus-y old man in the sky ready to strike us down with lightening bolts when he pleases, but to call that idea atheism is a bit much I think. There has to be a notion of what this idea of "god" is, where such an idea comes from in all cultures.

What you're essentially left with is atheism, which I still believe you are. You attempt to attach the word "god" to something it doesn't mean.
"God" is perhaps THE most subjective term.

You can revel in the beauty of the universe as an atheist, but trying to use the word "god" in this instance doesn't add much to those views.
Perhaps you're missing the point. What I've done is an attempt to figure out what I might mean if I, as a logical person not approaching from a standpoint of religious zealotry, used the word god. What the idea of such a thing would refer to.

The point of the exercise ultimately being, to find what the logical, and therefore most likely inspiration for such an idea must be. The reference point of wonder that has inspired all cultures.

The laws of nature are the thoughts of God.

To me, God is the spiritual force behind the sum total of everything, and is sentient, intelligent, loving and creative.

Me. ‬‬‬‬‬

The laws of nature are the thoughts of God.
When you say "the thoughts of god," do you mean that in a sort of nonpersonal god-as-Logos kind of way?
Or in a literal sense, with god being a sky-person with a brain whose thoughts you are referring to.

To me, God is the spiritual force behind the sum
total of everything, and is sentient, intelligent, loving and creative.
There are similarities in our ideas it would seem, but it looks like they end by the first half of your sentence.
Sentient, intelligent, loving, and creative...
That sounds like feelings that rely on humans having anthropomorphosed their own properties and ideas on the concept of god. Do you think that is that the case with your idea?

---

As for sentience and intelligence, as far as I know those are about the same thing, perhaps the difference being that sentience is intelligence that includes knowledge of the self.

In the logos fashion, god is described as intelligence itself, the most pure truth and nothing besides. Perhaps a sort of super-conciousness could be derived from an "entity" (that is, information) in that state, especially with as little as is known about how exactly information must be organized for consciousness to arise. If you consider our own brains and the field of artificial intelligence, it seems that that's about all it takes...
So perhaps sentience could be reluctantly yielded as well, if only until we know more about what exactly the conditions for consciousness are.

It strikes me as odd to consider this description of god.
Simply, truth, pure information.

But then it hit me that the idea of a "theory of everything," that formula encompassing the whole of all the activities and forces in the universe, would be exactly that. A pure and concise bit of information that is the rule by which the physical world is organized on all levels, from the chemical to the atomic.

---

As for the idea that god is loving... I suppose in a (very) roundabout way that's kind of the case... First though, we must disregard the personal idea of emotional love, who has any idea how to get into that... at best we could talk about chemical interactions I guess but that doesn't help any when talking about this idea of "god." In terms of a more objective love, a situation that is overall protective and fosters growth, it would seem that that is the case.

The fact that anything exists in the universe at all is evidence that the universe is not a net-destructive-forced thing. The fact is, the universe tends towards positivity, that is growth and organization of complex interacting systems, therefore, we complex systems get to sit around and talk about it.

---

Creative?
Things are created, sure.
Creative in the abstract sense that you might call a person "creative," no.

---

I've surprised myself in finding that, upon setting out expecting to argue against your seemingly personified-god exclusive traits, I've found that the universe itself DOES exists as those things. Curious...

Me. ‬‬‬‬‬

Agreed.
Me too.

There is an explanation of God every culture and society throughout history has had for God:

The unexplainable, explained.

God is a comforting thought b/c almost every god comes equipped with an afterlife. It is MUCH nicer to think that your granny's ghost is partying in a perfect place, than to think she is food for worms.

God = Comfort.

God is almost always an immensly powerful entity that has a soft spot for humanity and has numerous simplistic primitive rituals that make this awesome creature happy. God's motives are best described as God wanting to party with your ghost forever. God is comfort. God is explaination. God is a lie.

There is an explanation of God every culture and society throughout history has had for God:

The unexplainable, explained.
The idea that "god" is something unexplainable isn't really necessary. What you are talking about is every cultures' description of what "god" is. What I'm talking about is the idea that inspires different cultures to create explanations as personified gods.

God is a comforting thought b/c almost every god comes equipped with an afterlife. It is MUCH nicer to think that your granny's ghost is partying in a perfect place, than to think she is food for worms.
God = Comfort.
I did not mention any notion of an "afterlife."
If there's something inside of us that joins up with what's inspiring matter to life in others elsewhere, it's certainly not going to be a magical container of one's personality.
It wouldn't, however, be that hard to find a parallel between religious ideas and, say, something like the electrical energy, or even biomass energy in our bodies being returned back to a more basic stuff of the universe. Something with which new things might eventually be "created."

I need nothing to comfort me from the idea of being eaten by worms, I'd prefer they didn't, if only for their own health, knowing the sorts of chemicals they fill dead bodies with... Otherwise I'd think it was wonderful if anything at all found a use for my dead body.

In short, I don't really care if there's anything that by some stretch could be referred to as an "afterlife." By it's very nature, it doesn't concern me in this "during-life."

God is almost always an immensly powerful entity that has a soft spot for humanity and has numerous simplistic primitive rituals that make this awesome creature happy. God's motives are best described as God wanting to party with your ghost forever.
You're talking about a god that is a personified representation of the idea of "god." If god were to be something, it obviously isn't going to be the ghost partier you described, so to use that as the basis for trying to logically disprove the idea of "god," just doesn't make any sense.

God is comfort. God is explaination. God is a lie.
1. Not anymore than no-god.
2. (Explanation) That doesn't even make sense.
3. God is a lie? A lie, is god? That's just absurd.

The idea that "god" is something unexplainable isn't really necessary. What you are talking about is every cultures' description of what "god" is. What I'm talking about is the idea that inspires different cultures to create explanations as personified gods.

God is not something unexplainable. I have explained God. God is what humanity created to cope with the unknown. God is the, unexplainable (life after death, disease, famine, creation, natural disaster) explained.

Why do we not believe Thor's hammer creates thunder or Neptune hurricanes? B/C we know better now. It was a great EXPLAINATION then for the scary shit ignorant humans endured. By explaining it through mythology it brought people comfort. Give offering to the God of the sea before you cross that scary dangerous mother fucker. You will feel more comforted.

The Gods humanity throughout history had one job......to explain what could not be explained at the time. This brought comfort. This, for me, defines all Gods and their past, present and future roles for humans.

God is not something unexplainable. I have explained God. God is what humanity created to cope with the unknown. God is the, unexplainable (life after death, disease, famine, creation, natural disaster) explained.

Ancient Theosophists claimed, and so do the modern, that the infinite cannot be known by the finite -- i.e., sensed by the finite Self -- but that the divine essence could be communicated to the higher Spiritual Self in a state of ecstasy.

Why do we not believe Thor's hammer creates thunder or Neptune hurricanes? B/C we know better now. It was a great EXPLAINATION then for the scary shit ignorant humans endured. By explaining it through mythology it brought people comfort. Give offering to the God of the sea before you cross that scary dangerous mother fucker. You will feel more comforted.

Thors hammer, Neptune, offerings, they are all symbols that our minds make to feel more comfortable with the world around us. But think about this, everything you know, everything you'll ever know, is a symbol, your mind finds it's own connection with everything that is experienced. Every symbol can be perceived differently by different people. This belief of comfort is necessary, how wold we cope with the world if we saw how it really was? Now here is where it gets really crazy. It turns this out this is how it really is, the universe is interconnected.

A major shift in the scientific paradigm was the concept that the observer of a phenomenon was just as critical to the outcome of the experiment as all the "controlled factors" of the experiment. Previously in science we believed that we could observe something and have no effect on the outcome. By isolating all the factors under laboratory conditions, we thought that we could screen out all other influences.

Through quantum physics, scientists came to the conclusion that the observer affects the outcome of an experiment on the level of the quantum, where energy can sometimes be observed as particles and other times as waves. Previously, energy was considered to be only a particle or only a wave, but not both, depending on the observer. This new fluidity in the perception of energy changed everything. If our observation can affect things on such a tiny scale, then it can possibly influence all events.

The wisdom of the ancient sages are stating the same facts as the quantum physicist, but in a more artistic, elegant, and timeless fashion. The interconnection of all things echoes the Hindu teachings on the maya, or the illusion of reality in which we all seem separate yet are all one. Similar beliefs are found in Hermetic magick and tribal beliefs.

It seems to me that our beliefs have an outcome over our reality.

The Gods humanity throughout history had one job......to explain what could not be explained at the time. This brought comfort. This, for me, defines all Gods and their past, present and future roles for humans.

Ancient religions consisted of esoteric or secret teachings and exoteric (outward public) worship. The mysteries of the ancients comprised with every nation the "greater" (secret) and "lesser" (public) mysteries. "e.g. in the celebrated solemnities called the Eleusinia, in Greece. From the Hierophants of Samothrace, Egypt, and the initiated Brahmins of the India of old, down to the later Hebrew Rabbis, all preserved, for fear of profanation, their real bona fide beliefs secret." Not one of the ancient nations ever imparted through its priests its real philosophical secrets to the masses, but allotted to the latter only the outer shell.

This secrecy is quite necessary, you wouldn't feed your flock of sheep learned dissertations on botany instead of grass. Everything that you think you know about religion is a shadow of the true wisdom.

BTW Good read OP, similar to the way I see it.
You guys might want to check this out.
http://www.theosociety.org/pasadena/key/key-hp.htm
Really interesting book.

.....

Does not change the fact of what I said about the common ground all gods share...

Explaining the unknown/unexplainable to bring comfort.

This is the simplest answer to the question of defining ALL gods,and it DOES answer that.

One can speculate that God is everything and nothing or something equally abstract but my definition is correct and simple.

Unexplainable yes; Unreal no.

Unexplainable yes; Unreal no.

What?

Does not change the fact of what I said about the common ground all gods share...

Explaining the unknown/unexplainable to bring comfort.

This is the simplest answer to the question of defining ALL gods,and it DOES answer that.

One can speculate that God is everything and nothing or something equally abstract but my definition is correct and simple.

You're using a more magical idea of "god" than I am, methinks. Nevermind the fact that you're saying that your definition of god is correct in that it is wrong... because you say so...



There is something that inspires awe among humans.
This, something, is what I'm describing.

Of course, the less is known about the technical workings of the visible world, lightening/thunder, seasons changing, etc... the more open the area is to all manner of mythical explanations. These mythical explanations of why things might happen are the gods you're talking about, and in that sense, I agree with you. The real point is that you're not arguing against my points, but misunderstanding them and talking about something else entirely.

I've said that the universe itself IS the awe-inspiring, "loving," creative force that ultimately exists, a definition that seems rather obviously synonymous with that of god.
That explains nothing about the actual workings of the universe. Whether you want to describe thunder with science or myths, that's something else entirely.

I've said that the universe itself IS the awe-inspiring, "loving," creative force that ultimately exists, a definition that seems rather obviously synonymous with that of god. That explains nothing about the actual workings of the universe. Whether you want to describe thunder with science or myths, that's something else entirely.

You explain the unexplainable (creation of the universe)
The fact that it is loving, is comforting.

Your concept of God still fits into my definition:
Explaining the unknown/unexplainable to bring comfort.

You explain the unexplainable (creation of the universe)
The fact that it is loving, is comforting.

Your concept of God still fits into my definition:
Explaining the unknown/unexplainable to bring comfort.

Where have I explained the creation of the universe?
I haven't. Perhaps you're right in that THAT is unknowable or unexplainable, but the fact that there exists a universe is all that required by my definition.

"Loving" is a stretch. It is only so in an objective, roundabout way... More like a general positivity as I've described in an earlier post. This doesn't show anything about the universe that isn't true whether you equate it with god or not.

The comforting issue, isn't an issue.
This is what has become of several thought experiments of mine and has only been done as a sort of intellectual exercise. The reason I've not done this before now is that I have a hard time giving a shit about this kind of thing. I don't need anything of the sort to comfort me about life, I already understand it as much as is needed to live a pleasant life. This wasn't an idea arrived at out of a desperation to legitimize some sort of god such that I could keep something like that. I'm reluctant to use the word "god," and hesitate every time I type it. I never use it in speech, as what is going to be understood is almost certainly what I would be trying to communicate.
If anything, I find that the idea of god is uncomfortable more often than not.


My definition of "god" doesn't explain that the universe exists to make us feel comfortable and fuzzy inside.

Where have I explained the creation of the universe?.

You did here:

I've said that the universe itself IS the awe-inspiring, "loving," creative force that ultimately exists, a definition that seems rather obviously synonymous with that of god.

I will not nitpick very much with you over the semantics of CREATIVE FORCE. You said creative force and I have to ask, what did it create to get that adjective in front of it's name?

You can CHANGE your definition to avoid having it fall into my definition if you wish. Like you are trying to do here:

"Loving" is a stretch. It is only so in an objective, roundabout way... More like a general positivity as I've described in an earlier post. This doesn't show anything about the universe that isn't true whether you equate it with god or not..

Even general positivity or even ambigious force in the universe is more comforting than absolutely NOTHING or a negative force.

My definition of "god" doesn't explain that the universe exists to make us feel comfortable and fuzzy inside.

Your definition as you wrote it lists a loving creative force. This definition falls within mine. Feel free to change your definition so it does not. As it stands it QUITE obviously does.

You explain the unexplainable (creative force of the universe)
The fact that it is loving, or even just generally positive is comforting.

Your concept of God still fits into my definition:
Explaining the unknown/unexplainable to bring comfort.

You did here:
...
I will not nitpick very much with you over the semantics of CREATIVE FORCE. You said creative force and I have to ask, what did it create to get that adjective in front of it's name?

Unlike the other things here, this "creative" aspect hasn't been expounded on much at all. All I have said was that the universe is creative, only in the sense that things are created. I don't mean to imply that things are sprouting into existence magically out of the air, but rather that simple ingredients can tend towards spontaneous organization. One of the scientific mysteries that seems to hold the explanation to the beginnings of simple life.
Likewise, simple organisms come together to form complex systems, some of which even cement themselves into new, more complex, organisms (as is the case with the mitochondria within our cells) and the bacteria [mixotricha paradoxa] within the stomachs of termites). In my usage, I've only put forth that the universe is "creative" inasmuch as it seems to allow chance for growth and development of complex systems. If you find problem with that, fine, it has nothing to do with my definition.

You can CHANGE your definition to avoid having it fall into my definition if you wish. Like you are trying to do here:
Not at all.
The ideas "loving," and "creative" are not part of my definition, at all. Those were interesting aspects I found myself yielding in my response to ArmsMerchant. Perhaps you should re-read that to get a better idea of what was actually being communicated.

Even general positivity or even ambigious force in the universe is more comforting than absolutely NOTHING or a negative force.
What I stated before was that:
"The fact that anything exists in the universe at all is evidence that the universe is not a net-destructive-forced thing. The fact is, the universe tends towards positivity, that is growth and organization of complex interacting systems, therefore, we complex systems get to sit around and talk about it."
If you don't understand that as I've intended, then it's a just problem of communication. In the end though, it doesn't really matter because this isn't an issue found anywhere in my definition. So feel free to correct me if this idea is untrue.

Your definition as you wrote it lists a loving creative force. This definition falls within mine. Feel free to change your definition so it does not. As it stands it QUITE obviously does.
No. My definition does not.
If you'd like to argue against the logic used in getting to my responses to those separate points in my reply to ArmsMerchant, that's fine, but what you're arguing against is not my definition.

You explain the unexplainable (creative force of the universe)
The fact that it is loving, or even just generally positive is comforting.

Your concept of God still fits into my definition:
Explaining the unknown/unexplainable to bring comfort.
You're taking advantage of a minor side issue, separate from my actual definition, as the key reason my definition is flawed.
Perhaps you didn't read the reply that these ideas arose in, if so, then your misunderstanding is completely understandable. You'd only be understanding the words as they're generally used. I'm not using them so directly though. That's why I've been trying to keep an absurd amount of "quotation marks" around everything of that sort.
Unless you need additional clarification, I believe my usage is adequately defined in that reply.

Ancient Theosophists claimed, and so do the modern, that the infinite cannot be known by the finite -- i.e., sensed by the finite Self -- but that the divine essence could be communicated to the higher Spiritual Self in a state of ecstasy.

Thumbs up!

The interconnection of all things echoes the Hindu teachings on the maya, or the illusion of reality in which we all seem separate yet are all one.

*Claps*

Thumbs up!

*Claps*

( : quite.

Explaining the unknown/unexplainable to bring comfort.

This is the simplest answer to the question of defining ALL gods,and it DOES answer that.

So you do believe in god.
Wouldn't that make you an agnostic?

So you do believe in god.
Wouldn't that make you an agnostic?

I'm pretty sure (correct me if I'm wrong BP) that he is referring to the belief people hold in God, not the God-concept itself.