Define God

[steve_bank]

Buh buh but god is everywhere, and knows all things after all he created it

If god wanted to be detected by scientific instruments then god would be detected.

After all god spoke to Moses from a burning bush and waked with Abraham.


Uhhh ... god works in mysterious ways beyond our understanding, right?

 

[GenesisNemesis]

Christianity is not in direct opposition to science.

Naw, just some of the people that practice it.

Perhaps you're looking at it wrong, and looking in the wrong place.

Could be, where did you detect god?

Depending on whether or not the entire Bible is taken literally it's in direct opposition to science. Or depending on whether or not someone believes prayer can work to influence the outcome of events (it doesn't). Or if someone believes "conversion therapy" works. Etc.

 

[Swammerdami]

The majority of the time, it's the theists who are way more hostile and pretentious than the atheists.

You write "the theists" and "the atheists" as though these were homogeneous groups. I think they are not.

I'm an atheist (with a small 'a') myself, but I daresay many or most of The™ Atheists here are unusually hostile and pretentious.

Looking at thread title, I wonder if any definitions of God (or god) have been submitted for review. I assume we've improved on the peculiar "supreme or ultimate reality" we see in a popular dictionary:

god
noun
ˈgäd also ˈgȯd
plural gods

1 God : the supreme or ultimate reality: such as
a: the being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped (as in Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and Hinduism) as creator and ruler of the universe
Throughout the patristic and medieval periods, Christian theologians taught that God created the universe …—
Jame Schaefer
… the Supreme Being or God, the personal form of the Ultimate Reality, is conceived by Hindus as having various aspects.—
Sunita Pant Bansal
b Christian Science : the incorporeal divine Principle ruling over all as eternal Spirit : infinite Mind

2 or less commonly God : a being or object that is worshipped as having more than natural attributes and powers
specifically : one controlling a particular aspect or part of reality
Greek gods of love and war

3 : a person or thing of supreme value
had photos of baseball's gods pinned to his bedroom wall

4 : a powerful ruler
Hollywood gods that control our movies' fates

 

[GenesisNemesis]

The majority of the time, it's the theists who are way more hostile and pretentious than the atheists.

You write "the theists" and "the atheists" as though these were homogeneous groups. I think they are not.

I specifically said the "majority" of the time, implying an undetermined number of exceptions, so no, not really.

 

[southernhybrid]

How many times do I have to tell you people that there is only one type of god, although there are a lot of different species of gods.

 

[Osama S Qatrani]

Define God. Simple request. What is a god? Simple question, simple answers. Define what a god is. This should be pinned. to the top of this forum on Existence of God(s) IMHO.

You ask: “Define God.”
But definition never precedes reality — it follows from it. Humanity did not define the atom before observing its effects in reactions. We did not define gravity before watching bodies fall. We know invisible causes by their visible effects. That is the logic of science itself, and no rational mind rejects it.


If you want an operational definition — not a slogan but something testable — then start with what we all can see:

1. Law-like regularity: Nature runs on fixed, intelligible laws, describable with precise mathematics.
2. Fine-tuning for life: The fundamental constants of the universe lie within unimaginably narrow ranges that make atoms, chemistry, stars, and life possible.
3. Conscious awareness: Minds exist that not only function biologically but also understand, invent mathematics, and then discover that these abstract equations perfectly match the fabric of reality.

These are not theological slogans — they are public facts.


Now compare the two possible explanations:

• Blind matter: It slices these facts apart into three unrelated puzzles. Each is answered with temporary, fragmented guesses — “brute facts” for laws, speculative multiverses for fine-tuning, and vague reductionism for consciousness. No unifying principle ties them together.
• An organizing Mind (the Creator): One clear, simple explanation that unifies law, fine-tuning, and consciousness under a single intelligent cause.

By the very standards of science, the simpler and more unified model is to be preferred. If your worldview fragments reality into disconnected riddles, while mine ties them into one coherent account, which has the greater explanatory power?


So let me turn the question back:
Can you, as skeptics, provide one unified naturalistic model that explains — together — law-like order, life-permitting fine-tuning, and the rise of consciousness?


If your answer is silence, or “not yet,” or “we don’t know,” then you have not defeated the theistic explanation. You have only exposed the inadequacy of a matter-only framework. Denial is not an argument; “maybe someday we’ll know” is not an explanation.


Therefore, the rational definition of God is this:

The necessary, intelligent cause whose effects are visible in the regularity of natural law, the fine-tuning of the cosmos, and the emergence of conscious minds capable of understanding.

God is not a gap in knowledge. He is the unifying ground of knowledge itself — the One whose existence makes laws, life, and understanding possible.

 

[Osama S Qatrani]

The question for you is what does god mean to you as a 'bible believer' and what you think that god tells you what to do and then what you do.

An extreme example is Zionism in Israel. The land in and around modern Israel Gaza and the West Bank was given to Jews by a god so it is theirs by dive right.

Other extremes of religion the Islamic theocracies in Afghanistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and now Syria.

First: what you listed is not a definition of God, but an account of how people have used God’s name for their own agendas or politics. Yes, throughout history some have claimed God justifies conquest, others claimed He justifies authoritarian rule, abortion bans, or theocracy. But that says nothing about God’s reality. The misuse of something does not erase its existence. If doctors exploit medicine for profit, does that mean medicine itself does not exist?


Second: reducing God to a cultural projection or human imagination is a mistake. There is a difference between:

• Human images of God (which can vary, clash, and contradict),
• And the evidence for an organizing Mind behind reality (which does not change).

People may imagine God as a vengeful patriarch, or as pure love, or even mockingly as “barbecue.” These are mental pictures. But the rational evidence is not a picture — it is three objective facts: the law-like order of the universe, the life-permitting fine-tuning of its constants, and the emergence of consciousness that can understand it all. The real question is not “which cultural image of God do you prefer?” but “which explanation best accounts for these undeniable realities?”


Third: when you claim God is merely a reflection of culture, you fall into the same trap you criticize. You too are projecting your own interpretation. The rational method is simpler:

• Either you provide one unified naturalistic model that explains law, fine-tuning, and consciousness together,
• Or you admit that your account fragments into disconnected, patchwork guesses.

God is not the projection of human desires, nor a mask for politics. God is the necessary organizing Mind whose effects are evident in the regularity of nature, the fine-tuning of the cosmos, and the rise of minds that can grasp meaning. Human images may change, but the underlying reality remains: either you accept the unifying explanation, or you concede the failure of your alternative.

 

[pood]

This looks interesting,

 

[pood]

It is odd that most of the universe is a howling, empty vacuum of quantum fields. That there are innumerable planets, moons, and other physical bodies that are uninhabited and uninhabitable. That the universe seems mostly “fine tuned” for the creation of black holes rather than life. That the only life we know of is present on a tiny blue speck orbiting a nondescript sun on the outskirts of a standard-issue galaxy. Odd, that is, if you presume a creator, rather than just a naturalist account of stuff in which shit happens from time to time, including, rarely, life.

 

[No Robots]

There is as much of life in a grain of sand as in the whole of existence.

 

[WAB]

There is as much of life in a grain of sand as in the whole of existence.

Blake?

 

[DBT]

The God of the Gaps. An emotionally satisfying explanation for things unknown......

 

[steve_bank]

Nice post, but Osama's post is a prime example of the infinite capacity for theological/philosophical/mythical invention and creativity.

Greek and Roman gods have specific attributes.

I read that in Asia images of Buddha vary with the population physical features.

The mythical European Jesus is tall, white skinned, blue eyed, and blond haired. Not like a Jew from Palestine 2000 years ago.

The biblical Jews considered images of god blasphemy.

Christianity especially Catholics is riddled with images.

The bible god is obviously the Jewish tribal male patriarch.

 

[ideologyhunter]

The bible god is obviously the Jewish tribal male patriarch.

One third of him, anyway. Don't forget Junior and the Spook. And somehow, all 3 of 'em are...male. Whatever that means. But they have a whole pack of masculine personality tics. They can set fires, cause disasters, kill off their enemies, and knock up women from the back country.

 

[Osama S Qatrani]

Nice post, but Osama's post is a prime example of the infinite capacity for theological/philosophical/mythical invention and creativity.

Greek and Roman gods have specific attributes.

I read that in Asia images of Buddha vary with the population physical features.

The mythical European Jesus is tall, white skinned, blue eyed, and blond haired. Not like a Jew from Palestine 2000 years ago.

Thank you for your comment, Steve.
You are right that religions and cultures have produced different images and myths — from the Greek and Roman gods to European portrayals of Jesus or Asian depictions of Buddha. But this observation actually reinforces the core point of my argument: the images vary, yet the serious question is which model best explains the shared reality we all observe?


I am not referring to artistic depictions or cultural traditions, but to three public facts that anyone can recognize:

• Law-like regularity (L): nature is ordered in a way that allows science to operate with precise equations.
• Fine-tuning (F): the fundamental constants of the universe fall within narrow ranges that permit life.
• Consciousness (C): the emergence of a mind that thinks, understands, and even formulates those equations.

These are not myths but observable realities. The question is:
Can a “mindless matter” model give a single, coherent account of all three? Or does positing an organizing Mind provide the simpler and clearer explanation?


In other words, what I am presenting is not “mythical invention” but an explanatory test: which framework unifies (L+F+C) in one coherent story? The images may change across cultures, but the laws, the fine-tuning, and the rise of consciousness remain the same for everyone.

 

[Osama S Qatrani]

It is odd that most of the universe is a howling, empty vacuum of quantum fields. That there are innumerable planets, moons, and other physical bodies that are uninhabited and uninhabitable. That the universe seems mostly “fine tuned” for the creation of black holes rather than life. That the only life we know of is present on a tiny blue speck orbiting a nondescript sun on the outskirts of a standard-issue galaxy. Odd, that is, if you presume a creator, rather than just a naturalist account of stuff in which shit happens from time to time, including, rarely, life.

It’s true that most of the universe looks empty and hostile. But that observation doesn’t actually weaken the explanatory case for fine-tuning — it strengthens it.


1. Vastness ≠ meaninglessness.
The fact that the cosmos is mostly vacuum is exactly what modern physics predicts: stability requires low entropy on large scales. The same expansion and quantum fields that make most regions barren are also what allow any habitable islands to exist at all. The “emptiness” is a necessary backdrop for the small but critical zones of order.


2. Fine-tuning isn’t about abundance, it’s about possibility.
The constants of physics sit in extremely narrow ranges. A slight shift in the strong nuclear force, the cosmological constant, or the fine-structure constant — and not only would life be impossible, but stars, chemistry, and even black holes wouldn’t form. The fact that the same tuning permits both black holes and complex chemistry doesn’t erase the improbability; it underlines it.


3. Consciousness changes the equation.
Against all odds, matter not only self-organized into galaxies but also into minds capable of writing equations about galaxies. That “tiny blue speck” hosts observers who can comprehend the entire system. If the universe were only tuned for collapse into black holes, you wouldn’t be here to make the objection.


4. The decision rule remains.
So the real question isn’t whether the universe is big or mostly empty. The test is:

• Which framework better explains (L) law-like regularity, (F) life-permitting fine-tuning, and (C) the rise of consciousness?
• A naturalist “stuff happens” model gives no unified account.
• A model positing an organizing Mind explains why improbable fine-tuning yields not just black holes, but also life and minds that can grasp them.

Rarity does not negate design. Diamonds are rare; consciousness is rarer. What matters is that it exists at all — and the explanatory burden is to account for why.

 

[DBT]

There is abundant evidence that an incomprehensibly vast universe composed of matter/ energy exists, that matter energy has certain properties that enables complexity to emerge.

There is no evidence to suggest that the universe was created by an inexplicable entity, a 'God' - whatever that's supposed to be - but that events evolve naturally according to the properties of matter/energy/ gravity.

 

[steve_bank]

Well Osama, there is no sharing or shared space.

The religious tend to feel an exclusivity for their beliefs. The basis for a lot of the human history of conflict.

Don't know where you are, our Evangelicals reject Mormons and Catholics as not being true Christians

Christians, Jews, and Muslims all claim to have the same Abrahamic god. Yet the conflicts have been going on for a very long tie, well before I was born.

Modern Israel and Zionism has revived their bib cal roots and claim the land is theirs, god gave it to them.

The log running Hindu-Muslim conflict. Gandhi was assassinated by a Hindu nationalist.

Arab Islam versus Persian Islam. Iran clerics bent on toppling the Saudis. Iran clerics believe the Saudis are not true Islam. I believe apostasy still carries a death penalty in Sauidi Arabia.

To me it is all in our brains. There are no supernatural gods.

 

[bilby]

Diamonds are rare.

Not at all. The rarity of diamonds is strictly a local matter, and even here, is largely artificial.

On ice giant planets such as Uranus and Neptune it literally rains diamonds; And we know that similar planets are very common in other star systems.

 

[bilby]

Can a “mindless matter” model give a single, coherent account of all three?

Yes.

Or does positing an organizing Mind provide the simpler and clearer explanation?

Not at all; It fails to explain anything at all.

In the "mindless matter" model, we assume the spontaneous existence of nothing other than energy and some simple physics. The subsequent development of consciousness is a long and complex process, all of which is now well understood.

In the "organizing mind" model, rather than having a set of steps that explain complexity and how it arises from simple building blocks, we have a complexity greater than the most complex thing we know - the human mind - assumed as a starting condition.

The question "how do things like us - living, thinking, things able to reason - come to be?" cannot be answered by positing that an even more powerful thinking entity existed first.

It's like the old story of the lost motorist in rural Ireland, who stops a local and says "Can you tell me how to get to Dublin?"

The man thinks for a while, and answers "If I were you, I wouldn't be starting from here".

To respond to the question "How come we see such diversity and complexity as exemplified by our ability to reason and problem solve?" by suggesting some entity with even greater reasoning and problem solving powers, is not answering that question at all; It is making things even more inexplicable than they were to begin with.

We didn't know how to explain the origins of the universe we see; Now we invoke God, and are left with no explanation for the origins of God. Which helps not one tiny bit.

There are an infinite number of possible models for the beginning of the universe, and its subsequent development; But all those that do not START with something simple enough to plausibly occur spontaneously from nothing, are worse than useless.

If God knows all, then He is more difficult to explain than His creation, which his omnicognizance must encompass; And invoking Him gets us further from an answer to the question "Why are we here?" than we were to begin with.

To describe this counterproductive invocation of a deity as "the simpler and clearer explanation" is absurd and perverse; Nothing could be further from the truth.