Believers, what is your logical definition of god?

[Oliver]

Since there is no evidence for a God whatsoever, what are the believers logical definitions of God besides obviously manmade [and thus: stupid] scriptures? :)

[Oliver]

Oh, I see... :p

[Ethnikos]

Since there is no evidence for a God whatsoever, what are the believers logical definitions of God besides obviously manmade [and thus: stupid] scriptures? :)
Psalm 97:2 Clouds and darkness are round about him: righteousness and judgment are the habitation of his throne.
John 1:18 No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.

God is not directly accessible. We do not have any way to define God. God is only known as revealed by Jesus.

[joobz]

God is not directly accessible. We do not have any way to define God. God is only known as revealed by Jesus.
Although, based upon your own definition, you can't know that god is only known through Jesus. Afterall, he is not directly accessible.

[seayakin]

White man in a long gray beard hanging out in the clouds. (Don't the Mormons have a very specific image?)

[Freethinker]

God is not directly accessible. We do not have any way to define God. God is only known as revealed by Jesus.

So the Old Testament doesn't talk about your god?

[Ethnikos]

Although, based upon your own definition, you can't know that god is only known through Jesus. Afterall, he is not directly accessible.God raised Jesus from the dead. If Jesus was lying, that would not have happened. Jesus can speak to us through the Holy Spirit to assure us that he is real.

[Ethnikos]

White man in a long gray beard hanging out in the clouds. (Don't the Mormons have a very specific image?)
I am not qualified to speak for Mormons but I have been told they think of Jesus in a way similar to Jehovah's Witnesses, where Jesus is created. What that does is lower God to the level of where a divine Jesus would be. That requires God to be a visible being, which God is not.

[joobz]

God raised Jesus from the dead. If Jesus was lying, that would not have happened.
evidence?
Jesus can speak to us through the Holy Spirit to assure us that he is real.
I see. So voices in your head claiming to be Jesus convince you that he is the only way?
What about people who claim to know god through other means...

Are they lying?

[Pardalis]

Oh, I see... :p

Oliver, it's because you wrote the word "logical" in your question that you didn't get any responses from theists. You scared them away. ;)

[Ethnikos]

So the Old Testament doesn't talk about your god?Jesus was taking the part of God, which he is allowed to do, since he is divine. Before Jesus was Jesus, he was The Word, and was the same as God. Jesus became an individual person when he became flesh. Before that, he was the visible aspect of God, and the working manifestation of God. Being the manifestation of God did not make him not God.
One way of looking at it is an example I can think of in my county. People think it is strange and are not exactly inclined to just take my word for it that it is true. There is a county court house in the county seat. The county is big and is a little geographically remote, from one end to the other. So they made a County Courthouse annex. To make it actually part of the original, they drew a boundary for the court that is a narrow path that goes all the way up the highway and then wraps around the annex. So, legally, it is not really an annex at all but part of the same court house. Seems bizarre, but it happened. So, when Moses saw God, he was really seeing The Word, but The Word, though a manifestation of God, could not be said to not be God.

[Z]

OK, here's my (decidedly non-Christian) interpretation of God:

1) The sum total of all matter and energy that is reality, which has a sentience beyond our comprehension, and which either barely notices or barely cares that man has formed on one of its billions of subatomic particles;

2) A supreme being whose death released all matter and energy in a Big Bang - perhaps a leftover element from a prior reality;

3) The total universal sentience who, in order to experience something, created reality, and fragmented itself into all the sentient and semisentient beings within that reality, in order to take part in and learn about its own creations.

4) The author or architect of our reality, whose sole job was to encode the rules we call the 'laws of physics', and set the matter-energy singularity to erupt, creating reality. Having done his job, he no longer takes part in our reality, and is in fact spending his paycheck on a remote island resort in his own reality, alternating between drinking Ginnan Tonix and worrying about what his reality's God might be.

[Pardalis]

Jesus was taking the part of God, which he is allowed to do, since he is divine. Before Jesus was Jesus, he was The Word, and was the same as God. Jesus became an individual person when he became flesh. Before that, he was the visible aspect of God, and the working manifestation of God. Being the manifestation of God did not make him not God.
One way of looking at it is an example I can think of in my county. People think it is strange and are not exactly incline to just take my word for it that it is true. There is a county court house in the county seat. The county is big and is a little geographically remote, from one end to the other. So they made a County Courthouse annex. To make it actually part of the original, they drew a boundary for the court that is a narrow path that goes all the way up the highway and then wraps around the annex. So, legally, it is not really an annex at all but part of the same court house. Seems bizarre, but it happened. So, when Moses saw God, he was really seeing The Word, but The Word, though a manifestation of God, could not be said to not be God.

OK, now you've given me a headache.

[joobz]

One way of looking at it is an example I can think of in my county. People think it is strange and are not exactly inclined to just take my word for it that it is true. There is a county court house in the county seat. The county is big and is a little geographically remote, from one end to the other. So they made a County Courthouse annex. To make it actually part of the original, they drew a boundary for the court that is a narrow path that goes all the way up the highway and then wraps around the annex. So, legally, it is not really an annex at all but part of the same court house. Seems bizarre, but it happened. So, when Moses saw God, he was really seeing The Word, but The Word, though a manifestation of God, could not be said to not be God.

The will of god as explained through gerrymandering.
:dl:

[seayakin]

Straight from the LDS site:

"God the Father is the Supreme Being in whom we believe and whom we worship. He is the ultimate Creator, Ruler, and Preserver of all things. He is perfect, has all power, and knows all things. He "has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man's" (D&C 130:22).

The Father of Our Spirits

One of life's great questions is "Who am I?" A beloved Primary song helps even little children answer this question. We sing, "I am a child of God, and he has sent me here." The knowledge that we are children of God provides strength, comfort, and hope.

We are all literally children of God, spiritually begotten in the premortal life. As His children, we can be assured that we have divine, eternal potential and that He will help us in our sincere efforts to reach that potential.

The Supreme Creator

Heavenly Father is the Supreme Creator. Through Jesus Christ, He created heaven and earth and all things in them (see Moses 2:1). Alma said, "All things denote there is a God; yea, even the earth, and all things that are upon the face of it, yea, and its motion, yea, and also all the planets which move in their regular form do witness that there is a Supreme Creator" (Alma 30:44).

The Author of the Plan of Salvation

Our Father in Heaven wants us to dwell with Him eternally. His work and glory is "to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man" (Moses 1:39). In order to make this possible, He prepared the plan of salvation. He sent His Beloved Son, Jesus Christ, to loose the bands of death and atone for the sins of the world: "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life" (John 3:16). This sacrifice is the greatest expression of our Father's love for us."

http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.js...004d82620aRCRD

"Spiritually begotten in the premortal life" always kills me because god in the cosmology is on a planet having soul babies (us) with his wife. They don't advertise this part of their theology much.

[seayakin]

OK, here's my (decidedly non-Christian) interpretation of God:

1) The sum total of all matter and energy that is reality, which has a sentience beyond our comprehension, and which either barely notices or barely cares that man has formed on one of its billions of subatomic particles;

2) A supreme being whose death released all matter and energy in a Big Bang - perhaps a leftover element from a prior reality;

3) The total universal sentience who, in order to experience something, created reality, and fragmented itself into all the sentient and semisentient beings within that reality, in order to take part in and learn about its own creations.

4) The author or architect of our reality, whose sole job was to encode the rules we call the 'laws of physics', and set the matter-energy singularity to erupt, creating reality. Having done his job, he no longer takes part in our reality, and is in fact spending his paycheck on a remote island resort in his own reality, alternating between drinking Ginnan Tonix and worrying about what his reality's God might be.

This was more or less my definition when I was a theist and hadn't given up the ghost yet. I still find it the most plausible of any definition although I no longer buy into it.

[Trantor]

My personal definition of what God is to me: Whatever it was that created our Universe(and possibly others) and is beyond my understanding. It seems to have put things in motion, but does not(or is not capable) of active manipulation after the creative event.

[Freethinker]

Jesus was taking the part of God, which he is allowed to do, since he is divine. Before Jesus was Jesus, he was The Word, and was the same as God. Jesus became an individual person when he became flesh. Before that, he was the visible aspect of God, and the working manifestation of God. Being the manifestation of God did not make him not God.
One way of looking at it is an example I can think of in my county. People think it is strange and are not exactly inclined to just take my word for it that it is true. There is a county court house in the county seat. The county is big and is a little geographically remote, from one end to the other. So they made a County Courthouse annex. To make it actually part of the original, they drew a boundary for the court that is a narrow path that goes all the way up the highway and then wraps around the annex. So, legally, it is not really an annex at all but part of the same court house. Seems bizarre, but it happened. So, when Moses saw God, he was really seeing The Word, but The Word, though a manifestation of God, could not be said to not be God.

The court house part makes sense. The rest doesn't.

[Whirligig]

It has been said that ‘to define is to limit’ and so if God is an infinite being then that Being can’t be reasonably defined. But here are some aspects of my understanding of what God might be:

- an infinite Power that transcends the physical universe
- an eternal spiritual Being that is universal, eternal and unchanging
- the ultimate Truth behind all things that we all need to find
- a universal Self that is the essence of all life and goodness, and that we are all called to be a part of
- a Force that is not threatened by free-thinking, scepticism and alternative points of view; the followers of many fixed belief systems may actually be thwarted from approaching a closer understanding of the Truth by their belief they are not permitted to search and question beyond certain faith-defined parameters
- not an anthropomorphic God that is subject to emotions like anger, impatience, jealousy and wrath; nor one that judges or punishes mistakes
- and not a patriarchal Father of the tribes who has favourites to reward (eg a Chosen Race, the Elect, the Saved) or enemies to punish

[Ethnikos]

It has been said that ‘to define is to limit’ and so if God is an infinite being then that Being can’t be reasonably defined. But here are some aspects of my understanding of what God might be: I hope you don't mind, but I took your statement and turned it around, since it seems to be the opposite of how I would define God.

-A God Who chooses to not transcend the physical universe although He could, since He created the universe. God has the power to do things that would be reckoned by mortals to be impossible.
-God never forgets what He says, making him a keeper of oaths. God will not fail for lack of ability, to fulfill a promise. God is the self defined One who is not held to a standard outside of Himself as to what he can be or who He can be or in what form He may appear. He can change on a whim and no one can judge him for it.
-God creates the ultimate truth.
-God creates reality by His saying that it is real. By always existing, God is the guarantor that what he makes real will never cease to be real. God created the essence of life and gives it to whoever he chooses to. God is the judge of what is good. We are to strive for the goodness in ourselves that God will be constantly defining for us, as we progress towards that which is held before us as our example.
-God is in command of all the forces that exist. God is not overwhelmed by any degree or amount of negativity that may arise within His creation. God lays out the truth in all its stark objective glory. Those who reject the truth wonder from the path of light and ultimately die.
-God is cognizant of what happens within His creation. God has and is a fully functional mind, capable of all, and every emotion. God has chosen to recuse Himself from judgment, so as not to appear arbitrary. He created a court of justice for the universe.
-Man has fallen away from the true government of God, and has devised false idols of their own making, being the separate nations of the world. The “nations” are in rebellion against God. If one man subjected himself to God in a whole sort of way, God blessed that man and promised him to be made a nation. That nation is the one true nation that God intended for man to live in, in the first place. All other nations that remain in rebellion and do not join the Kingdom of God, will be utterly destroyed.

[Whirligig]

Sorry, but I see these as limiting perceptions about God based on conventional religious depictions about how the God and humanity interact. A Being that is considered to all Perfect cannot be subject to change. Change is a feature of the material world (ie time is a measure of changes in matter) and therefore God doesn’t make choices, doesn’t have changes of emotions nor makes decisions to answer prayers.

But this does not mean that prayers are not answered. Prayer does not change God (which may be compared to an infinite life-giving Sun) but rather changes the one who does the praying, just like a flower that opens to the sunlight benefits from its own actions rather than any change on the part of the sun. It ongoing survival depends upon it remaining open to the sun. In the Gospel where people experience miraculous cures through Christ it is made clear in the scriptural text that their own faith has cured them. The power to cure them may have come through Christ, but the decision to be cured was dependent upon their own act of faith. When Christ visited His home town and was rejected (‘a prophet is never welcome in his own town’) its states He could work no miracles there because they didn’t have faith in Him. And how often did Christ say to the healed: ‘Go in peace, your faith has saved you’?

Similarly, good and evil behaviour result in good and evil consequences, not because of am active decision by God to reward or punish people, but as a consequence of the behaviour itself. If I harm somebody either recklessly or maliciously, I will suffer the consequences of my destructive behaviour. Even if I rationalise my crime and so bury my conscience for years, that conscience with its basic understanding of right or wrong will still exist to eventually taunt me with the knowledge of what I have done (hopefully I will come to my senses an make some constructive reparation to the person or community I harmed). We might say in a figurative way that the judgment of God is contained in our physical surroundings and in the scientific laws governing all matter. If I foolishly put my hand into a fire it will be burnt, or if I jump off a high building my body will crash to the ground and suffer terrible and probably fatal injuries. If God created the universe then surely this could be considered to be part of God’s judgment, but those injuries I suffer will be due to my own reckless behaviour rather than any decision from God to punish me.

Too often God is described in human terms as a parental figure, which can be a comforting and positive thing for simple folk living in limited circumstances who have had limited educational opportunities to develop their thinking abilities. But the concept still accepted by some fundamentalist believers, that man was literally made in the physical image of God, seems illogical. We need our eyes, ears and other senses to pick-up the necessary sense data to interact and survive in our limited terrestrial environment. And we rely on our arms and legs to give us the mobility and means to utilise the physical resources around us for our survival. However, we cannot reasonably believe that an omnipotent Being such as God to be limited by such apparatus. It would seem to be a fairly vain or naïve attempt by our ancestors to recreate God in our own image. When the scriptures say man is made in the image of God, it would more likely mean that humans have a soul or spirit, just as God is spirit, that being not composed of matter is eternal and indestructible.

[Ethnikos]

Sorry, but I see these as limiting perceptions about God based on conventional religious depictions about how the God and humanity interact. A Being that is considered to all Perfect cannot be subject to change. Change is a feature of the material world (ie time is a measure of changes in matter) and therefore God doesn't’t make choices, doesn't’t have changes of emotions nor makes decisions to answer prayers. I am assuming that you are commenting on my response to your post. If I am correct in my assumption, you appear to me to be contradicting yourself. It sounds like you are of the opinion that, because I subscribe to a particular religion, I have an understanding of god that, if true, would limit God. Then you go ahead and make statements that say god can not do one thing or another. Do you not notice that?
God is unchangeable in that God is always God. That would be the only limitation to God. He can not just leave his position and, for example, become a mortal.
The power to cure them may have come through Christ, but the decision to be cured was dependent upon their own act of faith.
"Cure my disbelief." is a prayer that would require a very tiny amount of faith.
Similarly, good and evil behavior result in good and evil consequences, not because of an active decision by God to reward or punish people, but as a consequence of the behavior itself. This may be true in this lifetime in a limited way. Regardless of how we live, we all eventually die. Whether you go on to another life is where judgment comes in.
But the concept still accepted by some fundamentalist believers, that man was literally made in the physical image of God, seems illogical. We need our eyes, ears and other senses to pick-up the necessary sense data to interact and survive in our limited terrestrial environment. And we rely on our arms and legs to give us the mobility and means to utilize the physical resources around us for our survival. However, we cannot reasonably believe that an omnipotent Being such as God to be limited by such apparatus.I would not put it beyond the capability of God being able, if He wanted, to have a physical body. I would call that the Son of God, who is the representation of God in this physical existence that I would assume may be the best way to enjoy a limited terrestrial environment.

[Oliver]

Here's my definition:

God is whatever you feel in your heart. Thus, any other explanation in scripture or pupular culture is irrelevant.

[Whirligig]

I am assuming that you are commenting on my response to your post. If I am correct in my assumption, you appear to me to be contradicting yourself. It sounds like you are of the opinion that, because I subscribe to a particular religion, I have an understanding of god that, if true, would limit God. Then you go ahead and make statements that say god can not do one thing or another. Do you not notice that?
God is unchangeable in that God is always God. That would be the only limitation to God. He can not just leave his position and, for example, become a mortal.

Thanks for your comments. Sorry, I didn't mean to offend your beliefs but needed to state some points to try and convey my understanding of God as effectively as possible. And I don't think that because you subscribe to a particular religion you are necessarily bound by the limiting views of that or any other religion. I belong to an established congregation but see certain things differently to many others who are part of that same congregation. Both you and I have gone beyond the merely routine practice of faith by being willing to exchange ideads in a forum like this which is both positive and challenging. I feel that the topic of faith is best served by constant questioning and searching and in that respect skeptics are a gift to any quest to approach a better understanding of the Divine.

At the same time the use of reason brings to light certain apparent contradictions with conventional thinking about God. For instance, it is said in the scriptures that nothing is impossible to God. We might test that assertion with questions like "Can God stop being God?" or "Can God do evil?" And there is of course the perennial question of free will verses determinism: how free is a person in their choice between good and evil, since we are all conditioned by so many factors that made us how we are and shaped our attitudes and thinking? If a person isn't truly free in making their choices, how does this reflect on the concept of Divine justice?

[leafman91]

God:
He is not on earth (either that or He's marauding as a sales clerk)
He is really old ( But you'd never tell by looking at him :p)
He has more power than us human beings (Or we'd have found him now)
He decidedly likes us human beings (So long we're not too disgusting)

Anyone want to build upon that?

Who wants to bet that He actually gets slightly annoyed at us spelling 'him' and 'his' with a capital letter every time we refer to Him?
:D:golf:

I'm going to abuse smilies for a few seconds
:wave1:wave1:psmurf:psmurf:psmurf:psmurf:tank::tan k::bounce2:bounce2:bigclap

[Paulhoff]

What is a so-called god, to most people is an answer to a question that has none, SO FAR that is. It is a very very very poor answer to any unknown, because it still answers nothing.

I'm so tired of hearing "Science has no answer", you would think science has been around for thousands of years the way they talk. After thousands of years of religion, still the same answer, NONE.

Paul

:) :) :)

"So-called god did it", that that to the bank and see what good it does you.

[Ethnikos]

Thanks for your comments.Always happy to contradict someone. Sorry, I didn't mean to offend your beliefs but needed to state some points to try and convey my understanding of God as effectively as possible. You don't have to say you are sorry and if I was worried about being offended, I would not be on this forum, or any other forum. And I don't think that because you subscribe to a particular religion you are necessarily bound by the limiting views of that or any other religion. I would have a sort of self imposed limited view, by subscribing to the idea that the Bible, correctly translated and interpreted is a gift from God and not to be ignored. What I was pointing out was that being religious or not religious does not necessarily determine how capable you think God is. I belong to an established congregation but see certain things differently to many others who are part of that same congregation. To me, a congregation is who meets in a particular building for worship. I don't know how people in my whole congregation feel about certain religious issues. I go to sabbath school class before the main worship and discuss things there. The main reason I go at all is so I can go to class and contradict people. If they all agreed with me, I would not feel especially inclined to going. They probably think I am crazy or something, just for asking questions.
Both you and I have gone beyond the merely routine practice of faith by being willing to exchange ideas in a forum like this which is both positive and challenging. I had a woman just last class, ask me if I have cast out demons. She was wondering how effective my prayers were for healing people. Would that be a practice of faith? Exchanging ideas is a way of testing them, otherwise better to keep them to yourself, it they do not hold up to the slightest scrutiny.
I feel that the topic of faith is best served by constant questioning and searching and in that respect skeptics are a gift to any quest to approach a better understanding of the Divine.God wants us to test Him. If He claims something, we should call Him on it. People fall because they want to claim things. (as in actual material things)
At the same time the use of reason brings to light certain apparent contradictions with conventional thinking about God. For instance, it is said in the scriptures that nothing is impossible to God. We might test that assertion with questions like "Can God stop being God?" or "Can God do evil?" And there is of course the perennial question of free will verses determinism: how free is a person in their choice between good and evil, since we are all conditioned by so many factors that made us how we are and shaped our attitudes and thinking? If a person isn't truly free in making their choices, how does this reflect on the concept of Divine justice?I don't think questioning God is an especially productive pursuit. Questioning ourselves may be ok in some instances. Concern for others is a good way to make use of your mental capacities. Knowing God is something to do, to be more like Him, and to be better at being of use to people who need to find God. Giving a false presentation of what a godly person should be, is a stumbling block to our brother humans. Not judging others as being unsavable, and acting as if he could, may be more useful than having absolute knowledge of the mechanism of salvation. No one can be saved without God giving that person the desire to seek Him.

[Ethnikos]

Who wants to bet that He actually gets slightly annoyed at us spelling 'him' and 'his' with a capital letter every time we refer to Him?I use a couple of conventions when writing about Jesus and God, otherwise it could be confusing. Who is he? Jesus, if it is lower case. Capital H for God, as in the Father of Jesus.
Son of God gets a Capital S if it means Jesus.

[Pardalis]

Here's my definition:

God is whatever you feel in your heart.

That's your logical definition? So god could be a coronary?

[dahduh]

what are the believers logical definitions of God besides obviously manmade [and thus: stupid] scriptures? :)

$$G(x) \iff \forall \phi[P(\phi) \rightarrow \phi(x)]$$

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gödel's_ontological_proof)

[Beerina]

Oh, I see... :p

11:09 AM - 10:22 AM = 47 minutes, give it a rest! People aren't scanning around all the time for new stuff!

:p

[Beerina]

Straight from the LDS site:

...

The Author of the Plan of Salvation

Our Father in Heaven wants us to dwell with Him eternally. His work and glory is "to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man" (Moses 1:39). In order to make this possible, He prepared the plan of salvation. He sent His Beloved Son, Jesus Christ, to loose the bands of death and atone for the sins of the world: "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life" (John 3:16). This sacrifice is the greatest expression of our Father's love for us."


Nah. The best thing to do would be to grind the whole thing to a halt, resurrect everyone dead, heal everyone's physical wounds, and put them up in comfort and style and then have a huge party where he apologizes profusely for the whole failed, triple-patched experiment.

[boyntonstu]

God is the shape of a wrist watch.

That is why we buy so many watches as a means of showing our love to God.

Instead of wearing something around our necks, God's Word showed use the way to worship her on our wrists.

As we look at our watches, God is telling us that our lives are ticking away.

BoyntonStu

[Oliver]

That's your logical definition? So god could be a coronary?


My point was that what you feel in your heart is more factual than what anyone else [such as in scriptures] said about God. You disagree given your personal opinion about the definition of God?

BTW: What is your personal definition of God then? :confused:

[Beerina]

BTW: What is your personal definition of God then? :confused:


An ass. And it's an observation, not a definition.


Oop, you weren't talking to me. Sorry.

[Pardalis]

My point was that what you feel in your heart is more factual than what anyone else [such as in scriptures] said about God. You disagree given your personal opinion about the definition of God?

BTW: What is your personal definition of God then? :confused:I don't have one, it's not my assumption.

What you are describing are "emotions" and "feelings", these are already defined and labelled, there is no reason to call them "god", just like there is no reason to call "nature" "god" either, since the word "nature" already exists.

[JoeTheJuggler]

My personal definition of what God is to me: Whatever it was that created our Universe(and possibly others) and is beyond my understanding. It seems to have put things in motion, but does not(or is not capable) of active manipulation after the creative event.

This at least comes close to being a logical definition, as does Z's, but the stuff offered by Ethnikos isn't remotely a logical definition.

A logical definition is a list characteristics sufficient to include in a class what you mean and to exclude what you don't mean.

Defining God as the thing that caused the universe includes what most people who use the term "God" mean, but it fails to include a lot of other concepts that most people don't mean when they use the term "God". (I think this is why the Deist redefinition of "God" is problematical--it goes against the conventional use of the word.) The Big Bang (or the initial conditions), or an intelligent super-alien, Yahweh, Vishnu or whatever all fit in the class.

Oh yeah---the class "cause of the universe" could also be an empty class--one with no members at all. I doubt very much that anyone uses the term "God" to refer to nothing.

[Patrick_R]

For those who are not sure, here is "Do-It-Yourself-Deity" and you can build your own god

http://www.philosophersnet.com/games/whatisgod.htm

[Greatest I am]

Since there is no evidence for a God whatsoever, what are the believers logical definitions of God besides obviously manmade [and thus: stupid] scriptures? :)

Man made is not always stupid. All replies made here are man made and I have read them all but if they are all stupid then I have to wonder why you post in the first place. But on to the question.

God, at the end of the day, is represented by His philosophy.

I know that man has made God into a miracle working super God but that one seems to be an absentee God so all that we have to work with is His words. His philosophy.

The writers of scripture seemed to know this thus God is called the word quite early in scripture. It is foolish people that consider the WORD to be God. They idol worship the WORD. Rather stupid since they are reading interpretations of interpretations of verbal stories passed on over time.

Man, I think, has two basic natures. The political one that looks after the needs of the body and Secular governments are a product of this nature.
His other nature is the spiritual one that wants to discover the meaning of life and what, if anything, comes next.

Political Gods offer a philosophy for life.
Religious Gods do the same.

The larger battle between these two is what has caused most of man's problems.

The archetypal Jesus was quite right when He said, give to Caesar what is Caesar's and give to God what is God's.

It is unfortunate that the religions have not done so and have tried to make their Gods the God of the state.

We all follow some kind of Religious God or Political God and His/It's philosophy and in that sense, we are all believers.

All we need do now is judge our Gods be they religious or political and follow the best with the idea that we can change affiliation without remorse if a better God/Philosophy comes along.

Regards
DL

[Yahya Sulaiman]

Since there is no evidence for a God whatsoever...[rest of the question]

I've lost track of how many times I've had to say this at this forum in just a handful of days, but I'll answer the question as soon as you unload it.

[Robin]

$$G(x) \iff \forall \phi[P(\phi) \rightarrow \phi(x)]$$

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gödel's_ontological_proof)
So, in other words, God is an entity that has every attribute that could not in any circumstance be a non-positive attribute.

And if that is a null set then we are all God

[Robin]

I've lost track of how many times I've had to say this at this forum in just a handful of days, but I'll answer the question as soon as you unload it.
How about this (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4949888#post4949888) then?

[Oliver]

That's your logical definition? So god could be a coronary?


Yes and yes. It's the most logical definition since following a random scripture is less logical than coming to a personal conclusion that isn't based on some traditional or neo-religious teaching.

An ass. And it's an observation, not a definition.

Oop, you weren't talking to me. Sorry.


Well, as long a God exists, of course. Calling something that doesn't exist an ass doesn't make much sense anyway.

I don't have one, it's not my assumption.

What you are describing are "emotions" and "feelings", these are already defined and labelled, there is no reason to call them "god", just like there is no reason to call "nature" "god" either, since the word "nature" already exists.


Of course there is no reason to call emotions, feelings and nature "God". However, it is more logical to listen to your own emotions and factual observations than listening and believing in a random scripture some humans obviously made up anyway to have the better, more tempting religion in contrast to the competing, old ones.

Man made is not always stupid. All replies made here are man made and I have read them all but if they are all stupid then I have to wonder why you post in the first place. But on to the question.


Well, "man made" is stupid in case of a bunch of scriptures that oppose each other since none of them provide any evidence that they are the only truth about God/Gods.

God, at the end of the day, is represented by His philosophy.


I guess you meant by "his/her/it's/their philosophies". But I'm curious, what is God's philosophy accoring to the random scripture you chose to follow?

I know that man has made God into a miracle working super God but that one seems to be an absentee God so all that we have to work with is His words. His philosophy.


And which scripture would represent "his" philosophy then?

The writers of scripture seemed to know this thus God is called the word quite early in scripture. It is foolish people that consider the WORD to be God. They idol worship the WORD. Rather stupid since they are reading interpretations of interpretations of verbal stories passed on over time.


Again, which WORD/'s from which religious scripture?

Man, I think, has two basic natures. The political one that looks after the needs of the body and Secular governments are a product of this nature.
His other nature is the spiritual one that wants to discover the meaning of life and what, if anything, comes next.


What about having something to eat, finding a partner, getting children, having sex in general, enjoying some entertainment, having a job, etc. No basic natures?

Political Gods offer a philosophy for life.
Religious Gods do the same. The larger battle between these two is what has caused most of man's problems. The archetypal Jesus was quite right when He said, give to Caesar what is Caesar's and give to God what is God's.


Uh, if Jesus actually existed and ever said that, something a rational mind doubts in light of a range of scriptures that aren't about Jesus.


It is unfortunate that the religions have not done so and have tried to make their Gods the God of the state. We all follow some kind of Religious God or Political God and His/It's philosophy and in that sense, we are all believers.

All we need do now is judge our Gods be they religious or political and follow the best with the idea that we can change affiliation without remorse if a better God/Philosophy comes along.

Regards
DL


Could you give some examples for "political Gods" and "religious Gods"?
Or did you refer to political and religious prophets as well?

What about Jesus, Krishna, Buddha, Thor, Muhammad, David, The Olympus God-Clan, Ra, Aaron, etc. : Religious or political characters?

I've lost track of how many times I've had to say this at this forum in just a handful of days, but I'll answer the question as soon as you unload it.


I see the faith is strong in you. ;)

[HghrSymmetry]

Since there is no evidence for a God whatsoever, what are the believers logical definitions of God besides obviously manmade [and thus: stupid] scriptures? :)

The word "logical" pretty much causes the question to be still born.

Meaningless terms are not logical.

[Greatest I am]

Duplicate

[Darth Rotor]

Since there is no evidence for a God whatsoever, what are the believers logical definitions of God besides obviously manmade [and thus: stupid] scriptures? :)
A talking, burning bush.

What's yours?

[Greatest I am]

Well, "man made" is stupid in case of a bunch of scriptures that oppose each other since none of them provide any evidence that they are the only truth about God/Gods.



Of course they oppose each other. They are meant to. The Bible is set up for you to seek both the Christ and the Antichrist.


I guess you meant by "his/her/it's/their philosophies". But I'm curious, what is God's philosophy accoring to the random scripture you chose to follow?


I do not see them as random and I do not so much follow as use. Most have a logic trail.



And which scripture would represent "his" philosophy then?




It, like the men who interpret it, evolves over time. You would need to be specific.


Again, which WORD/'s from which religious scripture?


The scripture or book does not mater to the one that believes it is the actual words of God and not Constantine or Mohamed..



What about having something to eat, finding a partner, getting children, having sex in general, enjoying some entertainment, having a job, etc. No basic natures?




Of course. It is generally part of your political nature because it serves the body.

Uh, if Jesus actually existed and ever said that, something a rational mind doubts in light of a range of scriptures that aren't about Jesus.


I see an archetypal Jesus but here, the quote makes logical sense.
Jesus as a Rabbi only is not bad. I do not give him divinity because that would tarnish his image by tying him to the genocidal God. Yuk.




Could you give some examples for "political Gods" and "religious Gods"?
Or did you refer to political and religious prophets as well?

What about Jesus, Krishna, Buddha, Thor, Muhammad, David, The Olympus God-Clan, Ra, Aaron, etc. : Religious or political characters?




;)


Prophets, Gods Presidents and kings.

Religious Gods abound and or their prophets.
The names you wrote will do.
Political Gods are Liberals, Conservative, Democrat and Republican.
They all offer a philosophy of life.
Secular god’s presently have better laws than thr Religious one’s.
They will likely win the hearts of the faithful over time.

Regards
DL