How do you define God

Can God even be defined? How do we know it is only one person?

These are the definitions found online:

-a spirit or being believed to control some part of the universe or life and often worshiped for doing so
-the being who made the universe and is believed to have an effect on all things
-the being that created and rules the universe, the earth, and its people

How do you define God? Create your own definition.

a reply to: revolutionaryawareness

God to me is an anagram.

If God is a creator, how do we know there is only one? Couldn't multiple "beings" create the world/universe we live in? What is outside of the universe? Where is the universe?

God is love, that’s the simplest definition
God gave us freewill
God allows us our own sovereignty

God is the personification of the universal creative force.

originally posted by: Raggedyman
God is love, that’s the simplest definition
God gave us freewill
God allows us our own sovereignty

Could God be both good and bad? You define him as love, yet there is so much evil.

My defintion was compiled in reposnse to a similar request, and later became a thread in its own right;

“The Creator.
That which is not the Universe, but the originator of the Universe.”

Eight years ago, a philosopher on this forum invited Christians to volunteer their own definitions of God. The question of “proof” was going to be postponed for a later thread (which never happened).
I took two bites at the cherry. The opening statement here was my first attempt. In a second post, I expanded the proposed definition as follows;

God is a Creator
God is one who Communicates
God is one who becomes Incarnate

God is a Creator

I see this view as distinct from both Monism and Dualism.

As I understand the difference;
Monism resolves everything to one point of origin.
Dualism resolves everything to two points of origin, distinct and independent.

Creation theory falls short of being genuine Monism, because the created universe is understood as distinct from God.

Creation theory falls short of being genuine Dualism, because the created universe is understood as dependent upon God.

My private theory is that Creation teaching ought to be called "One-and-a-half-ism", but I don't suppose it will catch on.

As far as I can see, this involves the traditional teaching of "ex nihilo" ("out of nothing") Creation.

Because if God is "creating" using pre-existing raw material, then the material is not genuinely dependent upon him- this has become Dualism.

Or if God is producing the material of the universe "out of himself", then the material is not genuinely distinct- this has become Monism.

"Ex nihilo" is the only logical alternative, which is presumably why the teaching was developed in the first place.

God is one who Communicates

This assumption is built into Biblical religion.

In the first place, the Bible is believed to contain examples of communication (as reported, for example, by the prophets).

Furthermore, the Bible is believed to reflect a policy of communication.
It is said that God is using the Bible to "reveal himself", and so Biblical religion used to be described as "revealed religion".

The belief that "God is one who Communicates" links back with the belief that "God is one who Creates".

In the first place, some of the content of the communication points to God as Creator.

The proper Biblical answer to the question "Why do you believe your God made the universe?" is not really "Because that's the only way to account for the universe."
The truly Biblical answer is "Because he says he did, and I believe him."

But I think the very act of communication also points to God as a Creator.

Any act of communication necessarily implies a distinction between the communicator and the other party.
I've already said the Biblical understanding of Creation involves a distinction between God and the universe.

An act of communication implies the existence of a "will" in the communicator, or at least some sort of analogy of one.
But the same could be said, surely, of an act of "Creation".

Finally, a God who creates a universe thereby sets up a relationship between himself and the universe.
The effect of communication is to set up a relationship between himself and individuals (or even a group of individuals) within the same universe.

I assume that a purely monistic deity would not be communicating with, or setting up a relationship with, parts of itself.

My point is that
The idea of the God who Creates
and the idea of the God who Communicates
are very akin to one another.

The kind of God who would Create would also be the kind of God who could Communicate.

God is one who becomes Incarnate

I could hardly, really, leave this out of a definition of the Christian God.

The understanding is that the Incarnation is a more direct presence of God within the created universe.

If this is true, it's the ultimate form of Communication, as the author of Hebrews points out;
"God spoke of old to our fathers by the prophets
but in these last days he has spoken to us by a Son".

But it's also the ultimate form of "establishing a relationship";

Because the doctrine of the Incarnation is that the Creator and his creation, divinity and humanity, are bound together within the person of the Son.
The bond is understood to be irrevocable.
It's impossible for a relationship to get any closer than that.

Anyone who tries to understand the church's teaching about the Incarnation will discover that it's all about finding the right "balance".

On the one hand, the distinction between the divinity and the humanity must not be exaggerated, to the point that the unity disappears.
O the other hand, the unity between them must not be exaggerated, to the point that the distinction disappears.
The correct position is somewhere halfway between the two extremes.

But this is exactly what I said, at the beginning of this piece, about Creation;
That it occupied a halfway position between Monism and Dualism.

So it seems to me that the "balancing act" which Jehovah's Witnesses love to mock, when it comes in the teaching about the Incarnation, is also inherent in the very doctrine of the Creation itself.

The kind of God who would Create is also the kind of God who could become Incarnate.


I began by naming the Christian God as
The one who Creates
The one who Communicates
The one who becomes Incarnate.

I now suggest that these three ideas are akin to one another.
They belong together, naturally.

Whether you can believe them or not, they all belong to the same kind of God.

The God of the Bible is arguably the most unpleasant character, jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.”

A pretty good description don’t you think?

“To be fair, much of the Bible is not systematically evil but just plain weird, as you would expect of a chaotically cobbled-together anthology of disjointed documents, composed, revised, translated, distorted and 'improved' by hundreds of anonymous authors, editors and copyists, unknown to us and mostly unknown to each other, spanning nine centuries”

a reply to: revolutionaryawareness

Without trying to be a troll or baiting the theists/deists on the thread...

I define God as what people use to explain the unknown or our ignorance (non inflammatory use!) of the world and universe we live in.

Some refer to God as love and kindness and a creator. I don’t see that.

- I love my children, my family, my friends and humanity without the need of (a) God
- We have an every evolving, increasing breadth of knowledge of how the universe started, what it is and where it’s going, without the need of (a) God.
- I love life and every moment I’m lucky enough to be alive to enjoy it. I know it’s precious and for this super small, microscopic amount of time that I’m alive in it, and never will be again, I am incredibly grateful, without the need of (a) God
- Humanity has its issues, its problems, its fears and angers, its violence. But we have so much potential and spirit. I know our species has the capability of amazing things, all without the need of (a) God.

So maybe, my definition of a God is ‘us’. People.

And no hate/anger being thrusted at anyone here. Just an atheist point of view

originally posted by: Raggedyman
God is love, that’s the simplest definition
God gave us freewill
God allows us our own sovereignty

Love, freewill and sovereignty are in no way exclusive to god.

You are trying to own a definition that will always be open to personal interpretation.

God seems to be the opitomy of ignorance, fear and denial, and a lack of responsibility, accountability and truth.

Did god offer the freewill not to believe in him without fear of punishment?

The bible was perhaps written by the first politicians.

Just as Jesus stated I and my Father are ONE, every person has within them an ability to
come to a "knowing" condition of awareness, that they also can make the same
statement. Some view this as "in the spirit", this awareness gives evidence that you
are in unity with the ONE. Unfortunately preconceived ideas via religion has misled
millions from the fact that the Kingdom of God is within, and therefore they fail
to recognize the nature of God. An unfolding of conscious awareness of this fact is
available to everyone.

And ye shall seek me, and find me, when ye shall search for me with all your heart. Jeremiah 29:13

originally posted by: revolutionaryawareness
Can God even be defined? How do we know it is only one person?

Is God a person???

What if God is being all that is?
Can 'all that is' be defined?

originally posted by: revolutionaryawareness

originally posted by: Raggedyman
God is love, that’s the simplest definition
God gave us freewill
God allows us our own sovereignty

Could God be both good and bad? You define him as love, yet there is so much evil.

I don’t think so
God is also justice
Love is just,it must be

If people have freewill then the evil is not Gods responsibility, the evil is on those who instigate that evil
Jesus said, love and forgive, no violence. Jesus is God, Jesus is God in human form teaching love and how to live and express love.

God allows evil, I think to a point, for that evil there will be a day of judgement

originally posted by: revolutionaryawareness

originally posted by: Raggedyman
God is love, that’s the simplest definition
God gave us freewill
God allows us our own sovereignty

Could God be both good and bad? You define him as love, yet there is so much evil.

Good and bad are concepts......what actually is, just is.

'What is' has no opposite....nothing to compare it to......it arises without condition....it is unconditional (love).

a reply to: noonebutme

But

You live in a society based on the reformation
Go live in China or Russia, in a communist state, live where humanity without God has no value.

You are saying how great atheism and disbelief is, within a society that is based on christian values. You live in a society that has its roots, it’s very foundation on treating people as created, valued, loved, beings in relationship with God and then say you and we are all animals.

a reply to: revolutionaryawareness
"God" with a capital G is the word we use to define that which we do not comprehend and have no explanation for.

"God" in that sense IS the definition.

originally posted by: nerbot

originally posted by: Raggedyman
God is love, that’s the simplest definition
God gave us freewill
God allows us our own sovereignty

Love, freewill and sovereignty are in no way exclusive to god.

You are trying to own a definition that will always be open to personal interpretation.

God seems to be the opitomy of ignorance, fear and denial, and a lack of responsibility, accountability and truth.

Did god offer the freewill not to believe in him without fear of punishment?

The bible was perhaps written by the first politicians.

Did you read the op, the question, what was asked of me?
Should I have answered the question based on your opinion?
Would that have been better?

You have freewill not to believe, don’t, not forcing it on you.
Don’t believe, moan at me, I didn’t force anything
I offered my opinion

As for judgement, justice, a reckoning, I am all for that, answer for your crimes.
Justice is important to me. No excuses, no half measures
God is fair and just, i am happy with that

a reply to: revolutionaryawareness
What you are seeking is...what is seeking!!
Find the seeker and the game will be up.

Or as Francis of Assisi said:
'What you are looking for is what is looking.'

All seeing, all knowing and ever present.

a reply to: Raggedyman
If there is no separate things and all is one......how can any thing have volition?

originally posted by: revolutionaryawareness
Can God even be defined?

I've 'bumped into him' on occasion. This was after I was 'shown' what to look for. You can't see God, but you can see what is happening in his presence. You can 'feel' him (after you've been shown). He can talk to you.

How do we know it is only one person?

It's not. There are more than one.