Definition of God

  • Thread starter Thread starter Almost-there
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A

Almost-there

Guest
I define God as:
The Ultimate Point of Reference.
Jews, Christians and Muslims personify that Ultimate Point of Reference into a Living Being, who has attributes by which they measure morality. To them that Ultimate Point of Reference is Perfect, Complete and Immutable.
Atheists keep that Ultimate Point of Reference abstract, the equivalent of point Zero by which they measure the attributes of morality. Their Ultimate Point of Reference is Relative and changes with time.
So n either case God exists because both believers and atheists have this point of reference. The only way God does not exist for you is if you do not have an Ultimate Point of Reference by which you live your life and measure attributes such as Good and Bad.
Is this a valid definition?
 
Last edited:
Almost-there said:
I define God as:
The Ultimate Point of Reference.
Jews, Christians and Muslims personify that Ultimate Point of Reference into a Living Being, who has attributes by which they measure morality. To them that Ultimate Point of Reference is Perfect, Complete and Immutable.
Atheists keep that Ultimate Point of Reference abstract, the equivalent of point Zero by which they measure the attributes of morality. Their Ultimate Point of Reference is Relative and changes with time.
So n either case God exists because both believers and atheists have this point of reference. The only way God does not exist for you is if you do not have an Ultimate Point of Reference by which you live your life and measure attributes such as Good and Bad.
Is this a valid definition?
Click to expand...
I don’t think this is a very good or helpful definition of God.

God is, as St. Anselm asserted: that which nothing greater can be conceived.

Another one I like is: God is an infinite mind, undivided.
And this is the best one, IMHO: God is the necessary, eternal, infinite, transcendent, immaterial, omnipotent, omniscient creator of the Universe
 
God is VERY personal & is mostly concerned with interpersonal
love relationships
 
We must therefore continually purify our language of everything in it that is limited, image-bound or imperfect, if we are not to confuse our image of God–“the inexpressible, the incomprehensible, the invisible, the ungraspable”–with our human representations. Our human words always fall short of the mystery of God.

(The Catechism).
 
This is no completely satisfactory definition of Gd, because, by definition, to define means to put limits on something or someone, and Gd has no limits. According to Judaism, if Gd must be defined, it is better to define Gd by means of what He is NOT rather than by who He is.
 
Almost-there said:
Atheists keep that Ultimate Point of Reference abstract, the equivalent of point Zero by which they measure the attributes of morality.
Click to expand...
I know atheists who don’t see it this way, but say morality is an evolutionary construct and in the big picture it has no role to play as everything comes to cosmic dust in the end.
 
Dan_Defender said:
I know atheists who don’t see it this way, but say morality is an evolutionary construct and in the big picture it has no role to play as everything comes to cosmic dust in the end.
Click to expand...
I find this position very bizarre. That was not always the case, but now i see that in a world made up of only blind natural processes, following no plan, going nowhere and having no purpose, it’s very strange that we should find experiences such as love and guilt and a sense of justice. Even more strange is that we should have a mind about anything and act towards meaningful ends like survival, because all these things presuppose goal-direction or teleology or purpose.

We should not find these things in a meaningless world with activity that has no goal or purpose.
 
Last edited:
Almost-there said:
I define God as:
The Ultimate Point of Reference.
Click to expand...
Hello Almost-there. If this is just another way of saying that God is the objective standard of moral truth, then that is correct.

But not everyone believes that.

God bless and welcome to the forum.
 
Last edited:
Almost-there said:
The Ultimate Point of Reference
Click to expand...
That is a member of a set, and even if it is a unique member, or the greatest member, it is one of many, and less than the set, therefore no, that can’t be God.

Welcome, and keep those fresh ideas coming!
 
Last edited:
Thank you Beryllos for your masterful response.
 
Last edited:
PRmerger said:
God is, as St. Anselm asserted: that which nothing greater can be conceived.
Click to expand...
Could God love each and everyone one of us as he loves himself?

Could God do anything greater?

Are we given the greatest commandments because they first had a greatest meaning for God?
 
If you define God, then what you define cannot therefore be God.
 
Before the creation of the universe began, imagine God the Father, Son and Holy spirit looking out into the vast empty void of space. They are thinking, we have the power to create anything we want, what is the greatest good thing that we can create?

God could create all the stars and planets and be the supreme builder. He could create plants; and be the unsurpassed gardener. God could create the animal kingdom; and be the best farmer. God could create children in his own image and be the greatest father. Can God create anything greater than children in his own image?

Could God love each and everyone of his children as he loves himself? Could God love us more than he loves himself?

Could there be any greater purpose for God to create the universe and life?

We are given the greatest commandments to love as God loves, can we do anything greater?

If God loves each and every one of us as he loves himself, are we given the commandment to do the same?

This is just a collection of words to challenge the mind to think.
 
@IWantGod
Thank you very much for your warm welcome and God Bless you too.
 
Last edited:
  1. There are six W’s, or 5 W’s and 1 H, which are used in seeking to understand reality. “Who?”, “What?”, “When?”, “Where?”, “How?”, and “Why?” are the six queries.
I find with You there is one answer to all six concerning Yourself:
  • I ask, “Who are You?” You answer, ‘I AM’.
  • I ask, “What are You?” You answer, ‘I AM’.
  • I ask, “When are You?” You answer, ‘I AM’.
  • I ask, “Where are You?” You answer, ‘I AM’.
  • I ask, “How are You?” You answer, ‘I AM’.
  • I ask, “Why are You?” You answer, ‘I AM’.
If I seek to go further, asking, “Who is the one answering, ‘I AM’?” (The Name | SoftVocation) “What is that one? When? Where? Why? How?” Were I to investigate in that way, I would be seeking to know you at a distance, as third person, examining You as if you were an experiment, as in the OP questions.

Cogitation versus Contemplation
  1. In the third person consideration of You, cogitation, I am not in your presence, but I am analyzing You as an impersonal object, thinking “about You without You”.
But in contemplation I am before You, face to face, eye to eye, and simply “look at You looking at me”.

Somewhere a poet of questionable repute [Lord Byron: Childe Harold’s Pilgrimage: CLVIII] wrote that our spirits dilate to the size of that they contemplate (or is it active rather than passive?) I consider that we also seek to shrink You to the size of a thought when in cogitation about Your being and meaning. Might be this why You sent your Son, who sent Apostles, and then their Successors, instead of a treatise? In person, do our spirits grow infinitely large to participate in all of You? Cogitate or Contemplate – You shrink or we grow.

John Martin
 
Eric_Hyom said:
God could create the animal kingdom…
Click to expand...
As some guy called Dawkins once said:

"The total amount of suffering per year in the natural world is beyond all decent contemplation. During the minute that it takes me to compose this sentence, thousands of animals are being eaten alive, many others are running for their lives, whimpering with fear, others are slowly being devoured from within by rasping parasites, thousands of all kinds are dying of starvation, thirst, and disease.”

Good design you say? Bradskii raises a quizical eyebrow.
 
Last edited:
Even Jesus suffered, and more than any of us can imagine. Maybe he knows the reason.
 
I think the overwhelming majority of all living creatures, since life first began, would (given the choice) collectively choose to have their time over again.

Yes, with suffering.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top