Muslim provoked thoughts on God, gods - God is not a deity?

[samiam1611]

My boyfriend is nominally Muslim. His occasional, inconsistent practice of his religion amuses me and ignited this teeny tiny desire to make him see how pointless it is to do it at all bc God does not exist (IMO). or at least not the god he believes in.

So sometimes we have light discussions on God and religion. His beliefs are remarkably similar to yours. Practically everything he says is something I could’ve read on this forum, written by a Catholic.

I came across a thread on here the other day that had the most ridiculous OP. I read it to him but he did not share my opinion that it was ridiculous. It said something along the lines of God’s existence being obvious; self-evident. What I said to him was, which god? What are this god’s attributes? It is laughable to suggest “God” is obvious bc you haven’t said anything substantial on what God is. What is the meaning of the word God?

He said bc the earth, the universe, could not have created itself, it must be have been created by someone outside the universe. (Hmmm where have I heard that before? )
I responded that it doesn’t seem possible - it is quite a stretch, hence, not obvious - that something immaterial could create the universe (made of matter).
I said is it obvious God is good? Intelligent? Personal? :nope:

He attempted to correct my errors; I will be the first to admit I lack understanding on what exactly it is y’all believe about God despite conversing with you folks for 2 years and doing some reading of my own to further my understanding for more productive dialogue. Of course I do not want to [mis]characterize the God you all believe in but I call it like I see it. From my perspective, you all ascribe person-like qualities to either nature or non-existent, imaginary things (i.e. souls). What you believe about God comes across as very anthromorphic. According to my bf, I misunderstand what God is. I said you believe God is a deity, right? (As opposed to like pantheism) He stopped me right there and said God is not like a deity like how I am probably thinking of it. He said, isn’t a deity like what the ancient Greeks believed in? [Note, English is not his first language.] I said yep, and they belived in numerous gods, aka deities. You believe in one god, aka one deity.

He objected to this, saying his God is not a deity in the same sense that the gods of mythology/polytheism are. Ok technically I know that, but it is hard to wrap my brain around the concept given the language you guys use (i.e God created the universe. God loves you. God hears your prayers and answers them how He sees fit).

So I am posing the question to you all. Help me understand what you believe about the nature of God. How is your God not like the deities of polytheism only all wrapped up into one? What is the qualitative difference between the One God and those other imaginary beings known as gods?

 

[polytropos]

I came across a thread on here the other day that had the most ridiculous OP. I read it to him but he did not share my opinion that it was ridiculous. It said something along the lines of God’s existence being obvious; self-evident. What I said to him was, which god? What are this god’s attributes? It is laughable to suggest “God” is obvious bc you haven’t said anything substantial on what God is. What is the meaning of the word God?

I would not say that the existence of God is obvious (I think the number of nonbelievers would attest to that).

He said bc the earth, the universe, could not have created itself, it must be have been created by someone outside the universe. (Hmmm where have I heard that before? )
I responded that it doesn’t seem possible - it is quite a stretch, hence, not obvious - that something immaterial could create the universe (made of matter).

Well, for those who agree that material things are contingent (ie. do not have their reason for existing in themselves), it follows that there would have to be something that is not material and not part of the material universe if the universe exists (which it does).

Now, understandably, someone could take issue with the premise that all material things are contingent, but from what I gather that would not be the point of this thread. It should also be noted that this argument does not prove attributes of God; it just argues for an immaterial uncaused cause.

I said is it obvious God is good? Intelligent? Personal? :nope:

I again would not say it’s obvious. Having been an atheist for several years, I am often skeptical of rigorous proofs for these qualities, although some theists do use arguments by design to argue for intelligence, goodness, etc. I tend to justify these more through Revelation and history.

From my perspective, you all ascribe person-like qualities to either nature or non-existent, imaginary things (i.e. souls). What you believe about God comes across as very anthromorphic.

etc…

Well, the Catholic God is personal and not deistic. Jesus also became man and was fully man - and so had human qualities (anthropomorphic). God forgives and is interested rather than disinterested in human activities.

There is no Jesus in the Muslim understanding of the God of Abraham, so the Muslim God could be said to be less anthropomorphic than the Christian God, I would say. But neither of them are very anthropomorphic compared to the Greek gods, which were almost always depicted as humans, had very human interests, etc. They are largely physical beings in the real world - although depicted from Olympus. They are not eternal; they are born like humans.

I’m not sure you can say they were all rolled up into the One God - you would be hard pressed to find Dionysus in there, I think. Perhaps Jesus at the wedding at Cana.

 

[meltzerboy]

My boyfriend is nominally Muslim. His occasional, inconsistent practice of his religion amuses me and ignited this teeny tiny desire to make him see how pointless it is to do it at all bc God does not exist (IMO). or at least not the god he believes in.

So sometimes we have light discussions on God and religion. His beliefs are remarkably similar to yours. Practically everything he says is something I could’ve read on this forum, written by a Catholic.

I came across a thread on here the other day that had the most ridiculous OP. I read it to him but he did not share my opinion that it was ridiculous. It said something along the lines of God’s existence being obvious; self-evident. What I said to him was, which god? What are this god’s attributes? It is laughable to suggest “God” is obvious bc you haven’t said anything substantial on what God is. What is the meaning of the word God?

He said bc the earth, the universe, could not have created itself, it must be have been created by someone outside the universe. (Hmmm where have I heard that before? )
I responded that it doesn’t seem possible - it is quite a stretch, hence, not obvious - that something immaterial could create the universe (made of matter).
I said is it obvious God is good? Intelligent? Personal? :nope:

He attempted to correct my errors; I will be the first to admit I lack understanding on what exactly it is y’all believe about God despite conversing with you folks for 2 years and doing some reading of my own to further my understanding for more productive dialogue. Of course I do not want to [mis]characterize the God you all believe in but I call it like I see it. From my perspective, you all ascribe person-like qualities to either nature or non-existent, imaginary things (i.e. souls). What you believe about God comes across as very anthromorphic. According to my bf, I misunderstand what God is. I said you believe God is a deity, right? (As opposed to like pantheism) He stopped me right there and said God is not like a deity like how I am probably thinking of it. He said, isn’t a deity like what the ancient Greeks believed in? [Note, English is not his first language.] I said yep, and they belived in numerous gods, aka deities. You believe in one god, aka one deity.

He objected to this, saying his God is not a deity in the same sense that the gods of mythology/polytheism are. Ok technically I know that, but it is hard to wrap my brain around the concept given the language you guys use (i.e God created the universe. God loves you. God hears your prayers and answers them how He sees fit).

So I am posing the question to you all. Help me understand what you believe about the nature of God. How is your God not like the deities of polytheism only all wrapped up into one? What is the qualitative difference between the One God and those other imaginary beings known as gods?

Judaism prefers to “define” G-d in terms of what He is not, rather than what He is. IOW, G-d is NOT limited by time or space, He is NOT the same as His creation, He is NOT the same as nature, He is NOT corporeal, and so on. Not a precise definition, but if we had a precise definition of G-d, then we would not be speaking of G-d and we would ourselves be gods.

 

[UntimelyBourn]

To borrow from Paul Tillich, God is not a deity, but Deity itself. God is. (Which by the way is what the Tetragrammaton means). The difficulty of proving the the existence of God is that God is the very act of existing. Hope that helps.

 

[F_Ferdous]

The definition of the Islamic God, or the God of Abraham as we call Him, comes from chapter 112 of the Qur’an, Surah Al-Ikhlaas.

Qul huwa Allahu ahad
Allahu 's-samad
Lam yalid wa lam yulad
Wa lam yakul lahu kufuwan ahad

Translation:

Say: He is God the One
The Absolute, The Eternal
He begets not, nor is He begotten
And there is none like unto Him

So, the difference between God and gods is that the God of Abraham is Absolute and Eternal with no limitations. The elemental deities we see in pagan religions are limited to certain in terms of personal attributes: some have control over fire, some have control over water, some have the power to bestow wealth, some have the power to bestow curses and plagues. But God has no such limitations. His Dominion is anything and everything that exists.

Next, the pagan gods are all seen to beget and in terms many of them are begotten. This is a biological act. God doesn’t do this. Lemme explain to you why. See, as per the very many demonstrations of Bear Grylls, human beings are capable of living in the wild using crude means such as eating raw hearts of polar bears or drinking one’s own urine but we don’t do that because, well, we’re humans. Our abilities extend far beyond that so we’re over such method of living. God isn’t limited by anything so it doesn’t say He cannot beget but simply that He does not. And He Himself in turn was not begotten. He has always been in existence forever and we cannot understand this because our own understanding of the universe is limited by our mortal perception. Think of it as a dog trying to understand Shakespearean prose. He simply can’t. His mind is limited in comparison to ours. And our mind is limited when it comes to understanding God and thus we must rely on Him to explain Himself to us as He sees fit.

And the final Verse of the Surah: There is none like unto Him. This basically goes back to the last point I made above. There is nothing existence that resembles Him. His Eyes, Hands, Feet are not like those of us or other creatures. Nothing we have ever seen or will ever see will be of the likeness of Him but He Himself. Once again, to reiterate my point, He is Eternal and beyond our mortal perception. On the other hand, the pagan gods were more anthropomorphic in appearance and emotions. God is not.

 

[mek42]

I don’t know that the folks here would consider me one of them, so keep that in mind as you read this.

I recently had cause to definitively decide whether I believed in a supreme being. I was raised RC, went through an atheist stage in early HS and ended up practicing Free Methodism in late high school and early college before settling into a comfortable agnosticism where I just kind of turned off spirituality.

In order to answer my question, I turned to integral calculus. I reflected on my past year and assigned +1 to days I was reasonably certain there was a God, 0 to days I wasn’t sure and -1 for days when I definitely thought there was nothing. Well, it turns out I was never at -1 and was sometimes at +1, so that allowed me to honestly answer in the affirmative.

How did I decide I had +1 days? Well, first there are sometimes when I experience what some religious folk might call providence, but what can easily be written off as pleasant convenience so we won’t consider that in this conversation. To really appreciate the big reason for me, you need to know a little about my background. Specifically I used to be a chemist, specifically a small molecule chromatographer for big pharma. I’ve also got a little physics, but biology is not my thing at all - evolution seems quite reasonable to me, but I am nowhere near an expert.

What I do know is that I really do not like the idea of random spontaneous natural synthesis of bio-molecules. You see, proteins are BIG! Really, really BIG! And very specific and ordered, especially in chirality. If opposite chirality amino acids were naturally prevalent, it would be a big deal in support of a no God beginning of life, but they are not. So for me, it is much more likely than not that something non-random got life started. As a scientist I can’t argue for a literal take on Genesis, but it is my scientific opinion that that first archeobacterium needed help to get started.

As for the nature of God, I don’t want to say too much, at risk of misleading you should I be grossly wrong, but the most important part of that nature as I understand it is that God cares for us no matter who we are or what we do. Writing this, I wonder whether the actions Catholics refer to as sin damage our ability to care for others and that it is this damage that causes the primary reduced ability to interact with God.

I hope this little bit was useful. Best of luck with your journey, no matter where it leads. I don’t how much Bible you have, but if you’ve read any of the “not sure about marrying this person” threads here you’ll have heard about being unequally yoked. That is a concept just as important for someone not religious as for someone who is. By the time I had gotten married I was very inactive religiously and spiritually, but I knew I did not want to get involved with someone who was regularly active in that way as I knew it would lead to marital strife.

 

[F_Ferdous]

New Yorkers come up with the best answers.

 

[mek42]

New Yorkers come up with the best answers.

Even you downstaters are ok.

 

[F_Ferdous]

Even you downstaters are ok.

New York for the win!

 

[F_Ferdous]

youtube.com/watch?v=M0_S62E2ylY

 

[samiam1611]

Well, the Catholic God is personal and not deistic. Jesus also became man and was fully man - and so had human qualities (anthropomorphic). God forgives and is interested rather than disinterested in human activities.

There is no Jesus in the Muslim understanding of the God of Abraham, so the Muslim God could be said to be less anthropomorphic than the Christian God, I would say. But neither of them are very anthropomorphic compared to the Greek gods, which were almost always depicted as humans, had very human interests, etc. They are largely physical beings in the real world - although depicted from Olympus. They are not eternal; they are born like humans.
I’m not sure you can say they were all rolled up into the One God - you would be hard pressed to find Dionysus in there, I think. Perhaps Jesus at the wedding at Cana.

Pardon my lack of clarity. I did not mean quite so literally that God contained all the characteristics found in Greek mythology. I mentioned it (well technically, my bf mentioned it) as a definition (example) of deities, to make sure we were on the same page, language-wise.

To borrow from Paul Tillich, God is not a deity, but Deity itself. God is. (Which by the way is what the Tetragrammaton means). The difficulty of proving the the existence of God is that God is the very act of existing. Hope that helps.

This helps differentiate God from gods in that it is not an anthromorphic description, but it really doesn’t explain anything. How can one get “God is a personal god” from “God is the very act of existing.” You can’t even get a deistic God from “God is the very act of existing.” It tells me nothing.

Judaism prefers to “define” G-d in terms of what He is not, rather than what He is. IOW, G-d is NOT limited by time or space, He is NOT the same as His creation, He is NOT the same as nature, He is NOT corporeal, and so on. Not a precise definition, but if we had a precise definition of G-d, then we would not be speaking of G-d and we would ourselves be gods.

If your religion does not define what God is, how can you know what to believe? What is in your mind’s eye when you think about God? I know God is invisible but you know what I mean.

Say: He is God the One
The Absolute, The Eternal
He begets not, nor is He begotten
And there is none like unto Him

That is a nice and succinct definition.

So, the difference between God and gods is that the God of Abraham is Absolute and Eternal with no limitations. The elemental deities we see in pagan religions are limited to certain in terms of personal attributes: some have control over fire, some have control over water, some have the power to bestow wealth, some have the power to bestow curses and plagues. But God has no such limitations. His Dominion is anything and everything that exists.

But this is kind of like saying God is the gods all rolled into One. God does have control over fire and water, God can bestow plagues, etc.

Can you explain what you mean by God is Absolute?

And the final Verse of the Surah: There is none like unto Him. This basically goes back to the last point I made above. There is nothing existence that resembles Him. His Eyes, Hands, Feet are not like those of us or other creatures. Nothing we have ever seen or will ever see will be of the likeness of Him but He Himself. Once again, to reiterate my point, He is Eternal and beyond our mortal perception. On the other hand, the pagan gods were more anthropomorphic in appearance and emotions. God is not.

How do you have any inkling of what He is or what He resembles? How do you perceive him if He is beyond perception? And if He is beyond perception, is it proper to use the word “exists” as in “God exists?”

 

[UntimelyBourn]

This helps differentiate God from gods in that it is not an anthromorphic description, but it really doesn’t explain anything. How can one get “God is a personal god” from “God is the very act of existing.” You can’t even get a deistic God from “God is the very act of existing.” It tells me nothing.

!

I think a few distinctions might be helpful here. God is only a personal god in the sense that this is a useful way for us to think about Him. In His goodness He has chosen to reveal Himself to us in ways that we can understand, even though in His essential nature He is beyond our understanding. This is why it is appropriate to say that God is our father, or that He is our king, or that He is the bridegroom of the Church. The only things we can say about God are descriptions of how He relates to us.

In and of Himself God is not in any way anthropomorphic. In this sense we can say nothing about Him. Even using the male pronoun would be inappropriate. God cannot be described by human language. To define God in human language would be to say that God can be contained within certain limits.

You’re quite right to say that this way of speaking about God doesn’t explain anything. That is exactly the point I am trying to make. Realizing that God cannot be explained is the closest we can ever come to an explanation. :whacky:

 

[RobbyS]

To borrow from Paul Tillich, God is not a deity, but Deity itself. God is. (Which by the way is what the Tetragrammaton means). The difficulty of proving the the existence of God is that God is the very act of existing. Hope that helps.

My recollection of Tillich is that he said that God is the ground of Being. I suppose that meant of all contingent things.

 

[RobbyS]

Pardon my lack of clarity. I did not mean quite so literally that God contained all the characteristics found in Greek mythology. I mentioned it (well technically, my bf mentioned it) as a definition (example) of deities, to make sure we were on the same page, language-wise.

This helps differentiate God from gods in that it is not an anthromorphic description, but it really doesn’t explain anything. How can one get “God is a personal god” from “God is the very act of existing.” You can’t even get a deistic God from “God is the very act of existing.” It tells me nothing.

If your religion does not define what God is, how can you know what to believe? What is in your mind’s eye when you think about God? I know God is invisible but you know what I mean.

That is a nice and succinct definition.

But this is kind of like saying God is the gods all rolled into One. God does have control over fire and water, God can bestow plagues, etc.

Can you explain what you mean by God is Absolute?

How do you have any inkling of what He is or what He resembles? How do you perceive him if He is beyond perception? And if He is beyond perception, is it proper to use the word “exists” as in “God exists?”

God is not all the gods rolled into one, because he is the creator. The Greek gods and the Titans are creatures, more like our notion of angels. But they like everything just somehow emerged from chaos, and like everything else are immortal. Plato and Aristotle did not believe in the Olympian gods, but did see the order in things. as convergent on a certain “point” as it were, which as a light beam must have a source. Of course, one can just suppose that things “pop”into existence, are self-creating and last until they “unpop.” The Hindu ised that nothing “exists,” has a certain plausibility, since if we examine matter, it does just sort of disappear into a swirl of atoms, which themselves seem likewise to disappear into swirl. The “particles.” we hear so much about are like so many mathematical entities that leave their traces in the sands of time but which we cannot fix in wax.

 

[meltzerboy]

Pardon my lack of clarity. I did not mean quite so literally that God contained all the characteristics found in Greek mythology. I mentioned it (well technically, my bf mentioned it) as a definition (example) of deities, to make sure we were on the same page, language-wise.

This helps differentiate God from gods in that it is not an anthromorphic description, but it really doesn’t explain anything. How can one get “God is a personal god” from “God is the very act of existing.” You can’t even get a deistic God from “God is the very act of existing.” It tells me nothing.

If your religion does not define what God is, how can you know what to believe? What is in your mind’s eye when you think about God? I know God is invisible but you know what I mean.

That is a nice and succinct definition.

But this is kind of like saying God is the gods all rolled into One. God does have control over fire and water, God can bestow plagues, etc.

Can you explain what you mean by God is Absolute?

How do you have any inkling of what He is or what He resembles? How do you perceive him if He is beyond perception? And if He is beyond perception, is it proper to use the word “exists” as in “God exists?”

We know what to believe because G-d has revealed Himself to the whole nation of Israel at Mount Sinai by means of giving us his eternal Law (Torah) through Moses, His greatest prophet, and we believe those first five books of the Hebrew Bible were divinely inspired. By means of G-d’s Word, we know what He expects of us and have an idea of His nature.

 

[samiam1611]

God is not all the gods rolled into one, because he is the creator. The Greek gods and the Titans are creatures, more like our notion of angels. But they like everything just somehow emerged from chaos, and like everything else are immortal.

I think most if not all pantheons have a creator deity.

!

I think a few distinctions might be helpful here. God is only a personal god in the sense that this is a useful way for us to think about Him.

Admittedly maybe I have the wrong idea of what personal god means. I take Personal God to mean a god who takes an interest in human affairs (interacts with humans), and who has some similarities with humans, such as intelligence and love.

This as opposed to someone who thinks God=nature or is a lifeforce, that sort of thing. Technically if God=nature, God interacts with us, but not in a personal way.

Do you disagree with my description of what is meant by Personal God? Does the God you believe in fit that description?

In His goodness He has chosen to reveal Himself to us in ways that we can understand, even though in His essential nature He is beyond our understanding. This is why it is appropriate to say that God is our father, or that He is our king, or that He is the bridegroom of the Church. The only things we can say about God are descriptions of how He relates to us.

In and of Himself God is not in any way anthropomorphic.

Can God be personal without being anthromorphic? I have trouble accepting that if that’s what you are saying and would welcome further explanation.

In this sense we can say nothing about Him. Even using the male pronoun would be inappropriate. God cannot be described by human language. To define God in human language would be to say that God can be contained within certain limits.

You’re quite right to say that this way of speaking about God doesn’t explain anything. That is exactly the point I am trying to make. Realizing that God cannot be explained is the closest we can ever come to an explanation. :whacky:

Interesting admission.

I have a side question. This may be nonsensical. If/when humans were not around, would God have the same characteristics? I know God is unchanging but consider this: was God personal before people existed?

Feel free to ignore that last question but I do look forward to continued discussion with you on the nature of God bc I find your responses somewhat unique and interesting.

 

[Aloysium]

God is Beauty, Love, Truth, eternal and unchanging.
He is existence itself, and out of that existence He created and maintains the universe.
When you consider that you actually exist, all the complexity that it entails, and that there are how many billions of other persons, each their own irreplaceable, one-and-only “me”, and that, whatever else is going on, there are billions of suns and galaxies; it’s pretty awesome. That feeling of awesomeness happens as you start approaching Him.
He fills the universe, all time. Every time you choose something, you are participating in His creative moment.
Every time you are tempted to stray, but choose to do good, you are doing His will of bringing love into this world.

 

[UntimelyBourn]

Glad to here it samiam! Keep asking questions!

Admittedly maybe I have the wrong idea of what personal god means. I take Personal God to mean a god who takes an interest in human affairs (interacts with humans), and who has some similarities with humans, such as intelligence and love.

I think we’re on the same page about what being a personal god means. Being a Christian, I hold that God is in fact so personal that we can even say that He is a person (or, to disagree even more so with our Jewish and Muslim friends, three persons who eternally love and beget and are begotten of one another) as long as we understand that by saying this we do not mean that He is a person in the same way we are. He is a divine person, that is, He is the very meaning of personhood. We are only persons by virtue of being like Him.

Can God be personal without being anthromorphic? I have trouble accepting that if that’s what you are saying and would welcome further explanation.

In a certain sense of using these words, yes. We can say that God is personal (meaning that we can relate to Him as a person), but we cannot say that being personal (anthropomorphic, i.e. like a person) is what God is. That would be getting it backwards. As humans we are defined as persons because we are created in the image of God, who is a person. Our personhood is contingent. God’s personhood is intrinsic.

If/when humans were not around, would God have the same characteristics? I know God is unchanging but consider this: was God personal before people existed

Yes and yes!!!

 

[CompSciGuy]

His occasional, inconsistent practice of his religion amuses me and ignited this teeny tiny desire to make him see how pointless it is to do it at all bc God does not exist (IMO). or at least not the god he believes in.

Frankly… if there is no God, no objective morality or objective meaning to life then who are you to say that his religious devotion is pointless? Can you really say that it is any more pointless or frivolous than the things that you do with your free time?

 

[Paddy_Walker]

…
I have a side question. This may be nonsensical. If/when humans were not around, would God have the same characteristics? I know God is unchanging but consider this: was God personal before people existed?

Feel free to ignore that last question but I do look forward to continued discussion with you on the nature of God bc I find your responses somewhat unique and interesting.

well, if he wasn’t personal before people existed then he would be personal after people existed. which would sort of beg the question how could he create people if he was not personal.
so i’d say that given we exist as people then it took a being that could understand the human person to create a human person. and to create one and understand one the idea of a human person must have existed in his mind before we were created.