Define god

[pocaracas]

I hear people claiming they know god from the bible.
Well, my challenge is to get the definition of god, using your holy book (preferable) or not.

[Ben Davis]

*cue 'God can't be defined/God's ineffable' responses. Here's mine:

A supernatural deity(ies) who's properties cannot be distinguished from that which does not exist. Strangely, many people still insist on the existence of god/s and live their lives dependently on that premise.

[Ryantology]

God is whatever we do not know and cannot explain. God lives in the asymptote of ignorance, from which he will never be dislodged as long as people are afraid of what they do not understand.

[Norfolk And Chance]

An absolute twat.

[Akincana Krishna dasa]

[Ryantology]

There is a common atheistic argument that points to religious diversity as evidence that religion is untrue - I find this view quite mistaken.

A follower of Yahweh will insist that all other religions are untrue because their God said there are no others.

You did not present the atheist's argument properly. Religious diversity is evidence that many religions must be untrue because many of them insist on exclusivity and contradict one another. They cannot all be true. So, which one of them actually is? If we can't agree on which one is, why should we believe that any of them are?

In any case, I think many of the definitions of God I'll present here may be universally appreciated.

In the sense that your definitions represent the total ignorance of nature and physics necessary to take any of that seriously, I can agree with it.

[Akincana Krishna dasa]

There is a common atheistic argument that points to religious diversity as evidence that religion is untrue - I find this view quite mistaken.

A follower of Yahweh will insist that all other religions are untrue because their God said there are no others.

You did not present the atheist's argument properly. Religious diversity is evidence that many religions must be untrue because many of them insist on exclusivity and contradict one another. They cannot all be true. So, which one of them actually is? If we can't agree on which one is, why should we believe that any of them are?

It's true that the claim of authoritative exclusivity that exists in many religions can't all be true. Still, there may be all kinds of things in various religions that are still true besides that. Ever taken a history of religions class? The similarities that exist in many religious traditions are incredible.

It seems to me that religious diversity tends to support the truth of God. Lots of people, from lots of places, that never met or each other or even have a language in common are getting a similar idea about a supreme God. To me, that's interesting evidence for God, not against.

In the Bhagavad gita, Krishna reconciles things like this:

BG 4.11: As all surrender unto Me, I reward them accordingly. Everyone follows My path in all respects, O son of Pritha

So whether someone is worshiping the Muslim God or Christian God or Jewish God, whether an aborigine in the jungle is worshipping a totem pole out of respect for the powers of nature, or whether a scientist is trying to discover the laws of nature - in various ways, different people are respecting and trying to approach and understand the powers higher than us, according to our respective realizations.

---

In the sense that your definitions represent the total ignorance of nature and physics necessary to take any of that seriously, I can agree with it.

Specifically, do you feel those definitions contradict knowledge of nature and physics? Or are those definitions simply unsupported by science?

[Drich]

I hear people claiming they know god from the bible.
Well, my challenge is to get the definition of god, using your holy book (preferable) or not.

The word itself is a title that describes 3 deities. These deity describe themselves as: The Great I am. The Alpha and Omega. (The Beginning and end of all things)

[Minimalist]

God is a figment of the imagination of the clueless.

[Ryantology]

It's true that the claim of authoritative exclusivity that exists in many religions can't all be true. Still, there may be all kinds of things in various religions that are still true besides that. Ever taken a history of religions class? The similarities that exist in many religious traditions are incredible.

The propagation of a story says absolutely nothing about its credibility.

It seems to me that religious diversity tends to support the truth of God. Lots of people, from lots of places, that never met or each other or even have a language in common are getting a similar idea about a supreme God. To me, that's interesting evidence for God, not against.

The propagation of an idea says just as much nothing about its credibility.

Specifically, do you feel those definitions contradict knowledge of nature and physics? Or are those definitions simply unsupported by science?

As you are not actually asking two opposing questions, my answer is one 'yes'.

Why would a god boast about himself with such grandiloquence until we actually start trying to find evidence he exists? Shocking that now he only whispers to a very select few. And, it is not just one god affected by a sudden case of meekness, but all of them. All these many thousands of beings, many of whom claim the power to create the entire universe, have conspired, to the last, to vanish. Are we supposed to accept this? Are we supposed to believe that not a single one of this enormous pantheon doesn't feel the urge to shake the heavens and make it obvious they are there, when that is probably the defining behavioral trait of most deities?

If I didn't know any better, I'd say they are all terrified of humans and their science.