Thread: How do you define God?

Well, I have defined Nature as GOD. It promotes a multiple God system.
The major civilizxations such as the Hindu's of India, the Greeks and the Romans all had multiple God systems.

Since the bible has such a great influence on our lives, I will try to define the Jewish deity as I has derived it by using 'subliminal psychology'.
He is referred to as Yahweh or YHWH(?) and portrayed as an inner voice/spirit that inhabited Moses and others(?)

So when I looked at the Jewish names and their meanings, I noticed that the caption for my name is 'who is like God?. I had already assumed that my name associated with 'milk'. Ha ha. My name represents a 'substance'? Then I concluded that their Yahweh is white.
It dawned on me then that if Yahweh is white and a male also, how did they discover that Yahweh is white? Well this would be obvious since we young males discover this after 'masturbating'. Ha ha.

So the Jews are wrong to portray the females as sinners since their males also masturbated to have made this discovery.
So the bible here is wrong in portraying females as sinners.
This is another example of their chauvinism.

NS

You fail to see the forest for the trees: God is not something that says, "hey, thanks for defining me.....hey, now you must believe in your own creation of definition". You DON'T define God. Think about that. You DON'T DEFINE GOD. What "is" God? Playdough?

God exists in as many ways as is necessary to keep us within the confines of God's reality. The moment you try to DEFINE God, you pidgeon hole something you presume to have references from all other texts of faith. Take a look at the world: those who try to DEFINE GOD get into a LOT of trouble. Don't fall into that trap.

If I can quote p360 from a download at the below website link:

This is a theory that science has left to what is termed the “transcendental” (a 19th century term highlighting the then and current “impossible” numbers, coined by Ferdinand Lindemann). The theory, the mathematics, also accepts that the "concept" of God is valid. It doesn't explain what God is: for the theory, it is way too difficult to explain “everything”, “all things”, “God”. This theory is the science of “impossible numbers” that provides a platform from which to understand, to view, the reality of space-time. This theory is not a “summary” of “all things”, of “God”. Reality is a thing some argue as a thing God “perfects”: this is a theory, I believe, that will require “perfect application”……the use by a Godly and God-fearing, people……a people who respect their own power and ability. This theory proposes a reality the mind of God could exist within.

No matter how intricate the theory, God will always rest with religion, with our fascination with “possibilities”. There is no way I would explain God, and it has nothing to do with bravery. The theory is, in saying that, not "anti-God", but a "reassurance" that there can exist a mathematics "favorable" to faith/religion. I wouldn’t have done it otherwise. This theory does not talk about matters of the spirit or the afterlife, matters of God. This theory does not go beyond what can be explained with our very perception. This theory, like any science, aims to do the right thing by God, by our faiths.

God, I gather, using simple historical perspectives, is our ability to see patterns in history, themes, of shit hitting the fan, of things that incorporate not just natural disasters, but social disasters as well. On another level, God inspires "visionaries" and prophets through various diverse ways to see that haneous reality approaching before it hits, to warn people. To define God as nature, or anything else, is to of course either have a faith in nature or already know it complete. If you have a faith in nature, "sleep with lions", OR, maybe you already know that nature as can God "bite". God though is the one thing we are all trying to avoid happening to ourselves, "death".......hence most religions specify a God that became death and yet has conquered death, just to really have everyone know the extreme difficulty of "knowing all things". It is interesting, namely all the great faiths tell of features related to God that we "cannot explain"........like that's what the concept of God is for, the things we "can't explain"............like why would anyone challenge the current laws of physics (and my point here is that what we get wrong, with science, in a perfect world, is always challenged by "something" associated to that which we leave for the too hard basket)?

I've commonly heard (and largely think myself) that God is an infinite being. So by definition I do not think God could be defined. To define something is to say what it is and by extension what it is not, this is to make something infinite finite and thus God cannot exist once defined.

Originally Posted by Flip McWho

I've commonly heard (and largely think myself) that God is an infinite being. So by definition I do not think God could be defined. To define something is to say what it is and by extension what it is not, this is to make something infinite finite and thus God cannot exist once defined.

I also very much believe in an infinite God. But we use the word "infinite" out the context of mathematics and so we should say what it means. I understand it to mean that God is without limitations. However I am not sure that this means that you cannot say what God is not. We can say God is not finite, for isn't this is no different than saying that God is infinite?

To be sure the idea of infinity involves paradoxes and a failure of definition, even in mathematics. For example, what do you get when you subtract infinity from infinity? This is undefined. Naturally, one encounters such paradoxes and the failure of definition when you discuss or try to understand an infinite God.

Personally I think it is our nature to try and define God. Are we not doing exactly that when we call Him infinite? This is how we try to understand things. So I can hardly find fault with people for trying to define God, when it is clear that I do so myself. So the way I limit myself and prevent this from going to far, is to never allow myself to use a definition of God to declare what God can or cannot do. I think this is crossing the boundary between understanding and manipulation. Our definitions can always be thought of as finger pointing to something that we do not really understand. But when we use the definition to say what God can or cannot do, I think we are no longer looking in the direction that the finger points but looking at the finger itself. (does this remind anyone of "Enter the Dragon" LOL)

Lets get real, ultimately "God" is a word and whatever reality we may be trying to talk about, the word does nothing unless the word is given some kind of definition.

Which is why God as defined by any one concept can't exist, because that is placing limits on what God can or cannot do/be.

For example if I believed in a theistic conception of God I can enter into a personal relationship with God but I cannot become one with God because God is his own transcendental being using a theistic concept of God.

I say God is infinite to mean that God is uncomprehensible to us, though it is in our nature to try to understand God and we do this by using terms that have and give meaning to the concept for us, as individuals or as a community.

Simply put, Gods are anything you want them to be.

I'll make God a virus, somewhat like the computer variety.

How do you define God?

Simple, you don't.


Definition belongs to that which can be studied and observed using scientific measures. Think of God as a work of art. It is something you feel, express or interpret - not define.

I define him as a prick cos hes supposed to be the only one who can clean all contamination on violence crime and evil and he hasnt done it.

What if he showed you everything, via your entire body, and then compared you to his own self-understanding, and then found someone more worthy of self-appreciation.....including your mind.....you know, like you were dumb because you made the decision to be stupid....on account of labelling some source of intelligence "wrong"?

I think you should talk to a Priest.........before anyone else.