What characteristics are necessary for an entity to be considered or called a "god?"

Are you referring to god as in the Greek, Norse, etc. gods... or the god of Christianity or Islam. I'm not necessarily saying there should be differences - but it seems to me that the stories imply differences. Or are we trying to get to a single definition by which we can measure all the various deities?

I gues I would say a conciouseness that transends physical limitations.


Or a really long white beard.

I was asking what constitutes the "god" category of entity. The minimal requirements by which we can look to any entity and determine if it is a god. If we find something that meets these criteria (assuming that they can be made sensible), then we can further examine it to determine what particular type of god entity it is, in exactly the same way that we can determine if an animal is a mammal, then upon further examionation determine what kind of mammal it is.

Kren,

Given Cartesian dualism, which is a common belief, each of us, that is to say our own consciousnesses meet that description. Since I assume that we are in agreement that neither you nor I are gods, can you elaborate as to what you have in mind so as to exclude us but capture the would be god-entities?

This post was last modified: 11-20-2006 12:17 PM by TXStorm.

Ok, here is one idea: A god would be present everywhere in all things.

I tried to think of other, more specific characteristics, but they did not make sense. A god that knows all would contradict free will. A god that is all powerful (but refused to alleviate suffering) would be evil. A god that is good (but unable to alleviate suffering) is impotent.

At this point I am not sure that contradictions with reality are a problem (especially since the very notion of a god is contrary to reality).. However the concise refutation of standard god notions would have come up at some point certainly..

As for being present in everywhere in all things, can we then conclude that atoms are gods?

Well... let's just say I wanted to get those 'standard god notions' out of the way as soon as possible then! ;-)

As for your question about atoms... each individual atom is not present in all things. I was thinking about god being present everywhere in all things at the same time. Individual atoms do not have this characteristic...

It's tough for me because I don't think as humans we have the intelligence (yet) to describe God, but sure I'll try.
I first neglected the words "all powerful", which probably should be included.

Aside from that, I'm not really sure.

Well, technically, the "all-powerful", "all-knowing" or "all-good" tags aren't necessary. I believe they weren't that common until Judaism (I could be wrong, though).

Many older cultures believe in gods that weren't all-powerful (they mostly kept to a part of the world, such as "the sea" or "thunder"), omniscient (could be deceived by other gods, and even us mere mortals sometimes) or all-good (were vengeful, proud, demanded sacrifice; in some cases, the best you could do was not to get their attention, instead of "praying" to them).

Many comic books, such as those from Marvel Comics, show "gods" as simply another race, more powerful and long-lived than us humans, who were worshipped by our ancestors by mistake, but these days aren't. It doesn't happen in reality, because we don't know of a "superior" race of beings that is to us as, say, we are to apes. If we did, would we worship them as gods? Maybe not now, but we would sure have in the ancient past.

In a way, that isn't much different from worshipping more advanced aliens as gods.

Of course, these days, when you say "god", you really mean something like the Judeo-Christian-Muslim god.

This post was last modified: 11-20-2006 08:02 PM by Pedro Timóteo.

The definition is tough. It's like answering "what shape does water have?" to me.

Advanced aliens rock, we need to give them our wonder tonic.

The old Gods are always interesting. I wonder who actually decided the idea of one God, and why.

Kren,

Are you saying that no gods exist? After all water itself has no shape, it merely takes on the shape of the container it is in..

TX,

Yes, but that's a very powerful attribute for water to have. It's shape is not defined, yet it can have shape. So what I'm saying is that to me, God doesn't have a defined existance, yet it can exist. The properties of said Gods existance can change. Much like someones mind can change the way it works to get around different kinds of problems.

Water is still definable, but you seem to be arguing that no notion of "god" can exist since "god" would be undefinable...

Yes. As an ant probably has a hard time defining a human, (not SURE, but probably) humans would have a hard time defining a God.

It's an issue of perspective, during Roman times, the gods had an address, because that address, to the Romans, was impenetrable and unknowable, try climbing mount Olympus in a toga. In todays world, its entirely possible to climb mountains, even space, while offering a new frontier, is considered conquerable. So we made up this idea of a completley untouchable God, living in a world where he can contact us if we want. But we can't really see, hear or touch him.

Kren: A ant might have a hard time, if they could think for themselves.

Good point.

I wouldn't say COMPLETELY untouchable though. Of course anybody who claims to have "seen", "Heard" or "fealt" such a thing can be called crazy, or at least can be told that they were witnessing an illusion, or delusion. Yet what happens after death, is a very large part of most theist religions.

Okay, so if a god is completely inconceivable (which is necessarily what is being argued for) then how can any claim about the existence of a god be meaningful? For the term/label/word "god" to have meaning it must be definable, and if it as has been suggested undefinable necessarily, then clearly we cannot utter meaningful assertions about any such entity, which is a long winded way of pointing out that this approach that says that "god" is an undefinable, undescribable notion, forces claims asserting that a god exists to be meaningless in the same way that the following claim is nonsensical:

"I alkjjh hsu347nm* klasyu 9(677nmll ! "

A further problem, one more specific to this thread is that if there is no description that can be offered of what constitutes a "god" there can necessarily never be any entity which could possibly meet the criteria, making "gods" impossible in principle...

Maybe it is not up to us to decide what is and what is not a god. Maybe the best that we can hope to say is that "a god is." That does not really give us any criteria to judge what is and what is not a god, but maybe that is the point.

If a god is unknowable, then maybe there could be one (or many) in principle, but practically speaking it is inconceivable. Just a thought.

Jim,

Would you accept that approach in principle? So in other words if I claim that there is a great flying spagetti monster, you would accept that claim as also necessarily true?

Or worse yet, if I were to claim that the earth is necessarily flat you would also accept that claim as necessarily true?

What then of evidence? What then of the law of non-contradiction? Do we simply abandon all reason?

Or to cut to the chase, why on earth would we set aside all reason, and institute at least double standards when it comes to the notion of some "god?"

Please don't take my speculation as reflective of my beliefs. If (again, that speculative 'if') I were to say that such a god is unknowable and unconceivable then yes, I would have to remain open that it is the flying spaghetti monster as well.

Absence of proof for is not the same as proof against something. If 'god' were truly this inconceivable and unknowable then just because I can't prove it does exist does not mean that it necessarily doesn't.

However, at this point I have to concede Occam's Razor and agree that all things being equal it is far more likely that no such god exists.

I second TXStorm, if your going to say
"A God is"
or
"God has always been there"
Then I can easlily counter with
"The Universe has always been here"
"DNA has always existed"

You can't say that something IS, unless your saying that it EXISTS, I can say that a TABLE "IS" but thats not a definiton, simply stating a point.

Some people simply say, "God is Love." and anybody can say "But Love doesn't make sense."



The reason why people would set aside reason is the fact that we reach for more when it comes to everything. As humans we crave for more abilities. The ability to live past 20, to talk to someone a hundred miles away, to fly, to go beyond what our bodies limit us to, to understand and transend, everything. Including death. We also crave for "justice". Yet we've all seen horrible people living much better lives when it comes to things like love, financial security, even inteligence. The only way for that "Justice" to happen would be if something on the other side of life offered it.
A lot of us also get this feeling of connectedness during prayer, and understand that feeling as a portion of God.
And then some people just simply think that the entire universe couldn't possibly start with nothing. Something that it looks like did happen. (reffering to the big bang)

The evidence offered with that theory would be the universe itself. Some people would say humanity is the evidence. Some people would say that "other people have said they saw Angels, or ghosts, or even jesus."
The non-contradiction thing couldn't really apply. Isn't it electrons that can be in two places at one time? I'm not sure really, it could be photons... but the point being that one single thing being in two different places at one time is a contradiction, but it happens all the time all around us.

Kren,
There was a study, which I can't find on the net, rather unfortunately, it was in a Readers Digest. Where they discovered that prayer/meditation actually causes certain chemicals to be released into the brain, creating a weird feeling, which is often felt as being closer to a higher power.

Kren,

There is no contradiction in that aspect of quantum mechanics. A contradiction is X = Not X. The example you offer is X has Y characteristic and X has Z characteristic. While it may be difficult for us to grasp, this is not a contradiction.

As for "god is love" then can we meaningfully say that "god" is the emotion I feel towards a specific few persons in my life? If so how do we reconcile this with the uses of the term "god" which assume some sort of entity?

Jim,

The questions were posed essentially of the claim/argument itself, regardless of anyone actually believing it. The point o fthe questions was to demonstrate that the argument at best leads us no where, since it does not necessitate the conclusion.

TX-
My mistake.
And as far as God being love, that was just an example.

I would say an entity or a person who somehow transcends this world - ergo, not physical - and to whom people can pray for guidance, support or good things in general. Whether this said god is all-powerful or not, it really does not matter much. It can be a god of agriculture to whom a farmer would pray for good crops, it can be an almighty god to whom one would ask to look after his or her loved ones in the afterlife.

I believe that our race is still unable to understand the true concept of God...

Well, as far as I'm concerned, there may be one or more gods. Yes, there may be a flying spagghetti monster, an invisible pink unicorn, Pinky - the giant toe, the fetid twin gods of destruction - Dogar & Kazon, the Force, the Schwartz, Eternity or what/whoever you care to name.

Unfortunately, science will be a very limited tool in either proving or disproving any theory concerning divine entities. Why? Wouldn't beings wielding all that power be experts at concealing themselves if they wish to? How can we say for sure that the black hole in the middle of the Milky Way isn't the Eye of Atlantroutis, the glorious spotted fish, made into a black hole with a wave of his almighty fin?

True, science states it is highly unlikely that such is true (and science is all we have at the moment) but before saying "That's an extremely dangerous line of thought!", please remember it ONLY works for supenatural beings. You won't find me saying that dragons did exist, and the only reason we haven't found any traces is because they liked to keep a tidy lair and, due to their draconic cloaking ability, have been living among us for centuries and their skeletons vaporize instantly when in direct contact with the atmosphere. Why? Because, as plotty a plot that might be, it requires an absurd ammount unseemly facts to be true.

What makes something godly? Well, here are a few simple ideas:

• Vast supernatural powers (over weather, magnetism, badgers, etc.);
• Immortality usually comes with the job;
• Invulnerability is known to occasionaly happen;
  

"Disproving" something is kind of impossible. That's why the burden of proof is on the side that says something exists... whether it's a god, a supernatural creature, or even a "natural" creature that hasn't been seen yet (cryptozoology), such as a yeti.

As to what qualifies as "a god", the problem is that we humans don't know of any race more advanced than ourselves (except for the dolphins and the mice ). If there was one - much like the Asgardian gods in Marvel's comics -, I believe a large number of people would worship them as gods.

Answering Kanzentia's argument in general, one of the things that MOST annoys me about society to day (bear with me this will take a second) is how they treat religion as something that simply cannot be tested, it's to personal to be put under scientific scrutiny.

No.
A particular incident a few months ago when I was speaking about Jesus, the moment it got too "intense" i.e. The ideas I was presenting where too much of a diversion form the "Christian" belief, a girl chimed in with this gem: "Well I believe in all that Jesus stuff so shut up Timmy."
What exactly does that prove?

If people are going to state that a God or gods exist, we must treat it like a scientific claim like everything else. And because of this there is a SMALL probability that there is a God, however not only is it extremely unlikely, there is also NO evidence, the Bible is not fact, it is primarily fiction, hell, even we can't agree on what a "God" is, don't we have our own personal gods? People who we love so much we're blind to their faults? How can we possibly hope to make a scientific claim when the religions of the world can't even come up with one definition.

Until we have that definition, until we have some evidence (you're currently sitting on %0.1 Christianity), then there is no reason to believe in god.

Thank you
PS: We need more smilies.

This post was last modified: 11-24-2006 11:48 AM by XTimmy.

Actually Pedro, it is quite easy and common to disprove existence of something, when it is well defined. Take the case for the judeo-xn notion of a god, it is absolutely impossible, therefore we can in fact prove that it does not exist. Similarly it is possible to disprove claims about the existence of square circles, invisible blue unicorns, living dead, etc..

There is a degree of irony here in that I was trying to get those who choose to believe to offer up some definition of what they believe the term "god" means or points to so that we might be able to examine it, but as we have seen, this has not been offered. Perhaps even believers realize that the judeo-xn god* simply cannot exist?

*and virtually every if not every other conception of a god entity..

It's simple to "prove" someone is wrong when they say... "I think something I can't explain exists."... and then ask them to explain it.

I never said I could explain it... I gave it a shot though. Can you explain somehting you THINK is real but not proven? (in uncontradictoral detail)?

If you cannot explain it, if "he" is beyond your knowledge, indeed, beyond anyone's knowledge so all the gospel writers could not of known him.

Why do you worship "him"?

Timmy,

Worshipping equals acknowlegement.

Some people take it far, but in principle, ether we acknowlege the fact that without our specific parents (being together) on a specific occasion, we wouldn't be alive, or we don't.

Some people worship for anything... even more fucking money. Praying for forgiveness of ones acctions however, has nothing to do with money.

"I'm sorry... didn't mean to make that mistake... forgive me?"

IS this so wrong?

Yet they worship.

We pray to say (mostly) thanks for letting me exist. And we don't think that NOTHING is the reason FOR our existance.

Considering prayer, I often find it, in a way, mildly offensive when people say "I will pray for you" or "let us pray this will happen". Not because it conflicts directly with most of what I see around me. But more because it achieves nothing for anyone but the person who prays.

I say to people who pray about me, trying to prevent me from going to hell. I say go and do something to help someone else, if you think I need help, send me to a psychologist, but if you really care you will not pray, you will go and help an old lady cross the street, you will donate to a charity. As much as you can say "It's the thought that counts" if there is no gift, then there is no thought.

On this thought, why pray for forgiveness? WHY? If you feel guilty then don't do it again, it has not harmed "God" in anyway. If you feel you deserve punishment then that feeling is punishment enough. If you are truly sorry, then you have served your sentance (outside of the justice system, of course) .

Actually Pedro, it is quite easy and common to disprove existence of something, when it is well defined. Take the case for the judeo-xn notion of a god, it is absolutely impossible, therefore we can in fact prove that it does not exist. Similarly it is possible to disprove claims about the existence of square circles, invisible blue unicorns, living dead, etc..

There is a degree of irony here in that I was trying to get those who choose to believe to offer up some definition of what they believe the term "god" means or points to so that we might be able to examine it, but as we have seen, this has not been offered. Perhaps even believers realize that the judeo-xn god* simply cannot exist?

*and virtually every if not every other conception of a god entity..

TXStorm, I see what you mean. I thought in terms of, say, "proving werewolves don't exist", which, in a way, you can't (though I certainly don't believe they exist). However, you're talking about self-contradictory beings, like square circles, and, yes, they can't exist.

I believe you mean the judeo-christian god can't exist due to, among other things, the omnipotence paradox, right? Omnipotence can't exist (because it must include, for instance, being able to do something you can't undo, but if then you can't undo it, you're not omnipotent), so an omnipotent entity can't exist either.

Kren,

I cannot offer any suck explanation because I do not hold the sort of baseless belief which you describe. Rather than hold onto a belief without evidence, or worse yet in direct contradiction to the evidence, I abandon or avoid such beliefs. The key here is perspective, do you choose to see the belief as absolute and above all possibility of criticism, or do you accept that reality alone determines truth and accept reality even when, or perhaps especially when it conflicts with some belief?

Pedro,

Yes I am speaking in part of the omnipotence problem, though the judeo-xn god notion has many others which are also fatal to t