How do YOU define "God," "Spirit," "Divinity," etc.?

[Comicaze247]

I believe that "God," is a concept. In every occurrence of the word (that I've found), "God" guides those who follow it/him/her. So in reality, "God" is simply a tool for guidance.

When a Christian follows God, they look to him for the way they view and interact with the world.
When a Muslim follows Allah (God), they look to him for the way they view and interact with the world.
When a Jewish person follows Jehovah (God), they look to him for the way they view and interact with the world.
When a polytheist "follows" their gods, they look to them for the way they view and interact with the world.

All versions of "God" (that I have come across) have a set of rules and principles; ways in which to lead one's life; ways in which to see the world. By that logic, I believe that "God" is simply a lens that one chooses to wear.

In the same way, I would argue that Atheists that stress that science can explain everything also have a "God" concept, and that is science itself. It too, has a set of rules and principles; a way in which to see the world; and in a sense, ways in which to lead one's life (reason and hard evidence).

What do you think?

 

[Penumbra]

I believe that "God," is a concept. In every occurrence of the word (that I've found), "God" guides those who follow it/him/her. So in reality, "God" is simply a tool for guidance.

When a Christian follows God, they look to him for the way they view and interact with the world.
When a Muslim follows Allah (God), they look to him for the way they view and interact with the world.
When a Jewish person follows Jehovah (God), they look to him for the way they view and interact with the world.
When a polytheist "follows" their gods, they look to them for the way they view and interact with the world.

All versions of "God" (that I have come across) have a set of rules and principles; ways in which to lead one's life; ways in which to see the world. By that logic, I believe that "God" is simply a lens that one chooses to wear.

I observe that there are two main types of gods that are proposed: finite and infinite.

Finite gods are powerful conscious beings that have control over one or more aspects of nature. The downsides of this term is that it can be difficult to differentiate, say, a powerful alien from a god, or an angel or demon from a god. The character of Satan as proposed by some religions, for instance, show that he has qualities that surpass even some of the gods in the Greek pantheon in terms of power and influence, but is not normally called a "god". This definition is therefore somewhat culture-dependent.

Infinite god propositions involve some sort of infinite consciousness and usually include aseity (self-origination).


Using the word in other ways, to me, seems to lack value. For instance, when people say god = love, or god = the universe, or god = scientific methodology, I don't see why we can't just say love is love, and the universe is the universe, and scientific methodology is scientific methodology.

In the same way, I would argue that Atheists that stress that science can explain everything also have a "God" concept, and that is science itself. It too, has a set of rules and principles; a way in which to see the world; and in a sense, ways in which to lead one's life (reason and hard evidence).

What do you think?

No, I don't think atheists have a god concept. Explaining things, or having rules and principles, do not make a god.

Using god for everything dilutes the word even more than it already is. I prefer to keep language as concise as possible, and specifically avoid using a word where
a) Definitions are unreasonably vague or counter-intuitive
b) The word is extremely broad to the point of lacking meaning
c) It is misleading

 

[Boethiah]

God to me is the tornado feeling someone gets when they consider the complexity of everything around them and seek to understand the who's, what's, when's, where's, why's, and how's. Some seek this in God, some seek this in scripture, some seek this in science, some try to use a combination of these and many more to reach a conclusion that makes sense to them.

To me personally, I am no longer concerned what The Spirit is. I think there is a Spirit of some sort in the universe, and I choose to represent this spirit in different ways. What I am concerned with is things here on Earth. Looking towards God for guidance is okay sometimes, but I'd personally rather follow the Spirit in my own way to supplement my life rather than define it.

It is different for everyone. I don't think the way one sees God necessarily has much influence on how one sees the world. That is up to the individual believer. If I was a monotheist or a polytheist or a pantheist, I think my views of my God(s) might change. How I brush my teeth, eat my cereal, and plan my life choices wouldn't be so much. But, like I said, it is different for everyone.

 

[Nisou Kitsune]

To me, Gods are one of the many entities that we share our Universe with. They are beings with feelings, who may or may not interact with us, who have business they have to take care of. To me, They are beings who we can interact with and talk to on a personal level and have relationships with.

I dont necessarily look up to Them and base my life around what I think They would like. I live my life how I think I should, and move with purpose and meaning. My Gods are not perfect; They have attitudes, They play games, They have a different way of thinking and feeling than humans do, and most importantly, They are neither strictly good nor evil. They can be, and most of the time are, both. The Gods do not lie, but They do not give you everything you need to know, either.

However, I agree that the Gods can be used for guidance. They see things that we dont, much like a friend that looks on at your situation without a personal investment. And I also understand what you mean by atheists have a "God" concept, because for them, science is everything, and for most science is above everything else.

 

[Riverwolf]

Two types: Nirguna and Saguna.

Nirguna is beyond attributes/nature/categories/etc. This is beyond human reasoning to adequately understand, though it can be experienced as the Oneness of all things, and the Source from which all things come from, the power by which all actions are done, and the final place where all things will return.

Saguna is with attributes/nature/categories/etc. This is any God that has a form, and specific to a certain religion/sect.

To use an analogy, Nirguna is the white light, Saguna is the many colors broken by the prism of maya.

 

[zer0]

I will try to explain my idea of God as comprehensibly as possible.

As the creative force God is the single fluid action of creation. By this I mean that the idea that God created the universe and then never created anything else is preposterous because of the fact that creation is still happening. If God created everything and then just stopped, we would not be doing anything right now, we would be sitting still. However, I propose that God is the single fluid action of creation. That God is the action of creation rather than just the creator.

As the existence of God, the objective God, God is all that exists. By this I mean what God said in Revelations and how God is defined in the Mandukya Upanishad, I will quote them both in one quote because they say the same thing:

"The Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the ending, that which is and which was and which is to come."

God is summed up pretty well there. He is everything. He is all things. From the beginning to the end. He is that which is and which was and which is to come. What doesn't fall under that category? The Mandukya expands where John the Revelator does not and says "OM is this imperishable Word. OM is the Universe" OM is the equivalent of God. It is in the Mandukya referred to as "the omniscient" the "Lord of all"

Now onto the individual aspect of God. God the individual is you and I. As can also be drawn from the verses I mentioned above God is that which has been there since your birth, is there now, and will be there in the future. God is the ultimate self. When one has extinguished the flames of all phenomena except that experience which is being one has reached this individual aspect of God. In the Mandukya we also find the description of OM and the purest state of OM as being "the in-dweller" the "inner-controller" and further "Whose essentiality is awareness of the Self in its single existence, in Whom all phenomena dissolve" he is "The Self"

For those who will recognize this as only being the description what is called 'The Fourth' there is written this line

"Now this the Self, as to the imperishable Word, is OM: and as to the letters, His parts are the letters and the letters are His parts, namely, A U M."

So in summary God is the single fluid action of creation, the culmination of all which was created into existence, all existence currently in existence, and all existence yet to be created into existence; Finally God is the individual conscious awareness we all know, that awareness of our words and our actions, that observer behind our senses, and that thing which we call soul which has been there since we can remember and since we cannot remember.

In Christian terms: God is the Father who Creates, the Son which is his creation and the spirit which is God within you and I. Is that not comprehensible? I used two traditions, made in different times, by different minds, in different languages, in different locations thousands of miles apart and I showed how their definition of God can be seen as extremely similar. And I did not even break out the big guns.

 

[Twilight Hue]

God, spirit, divinity, or whatever term is used are just interpretations derived from experience of which can be representative, or outright embellished in face of whatever is actually transpiring.

 

[zer0]

*bump* Cause it DESERVES it

 

[1137]

Ein Sof - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[InformedIgnorance]

This is a very interesting topic, particularly for an Ignostic such as myself. The terms we use in whatever language we discuss may refer to numerous concepts, the same word can mean different things to different people (i.e. polymorphic) in different contexts and so forth.

For me personally, I do not use the term God to discuss the concept I hold as being potentially the origin of existence, because it is so far removed from the normal concept of 'God' as to be absurdly difficult for most people to understand. Instead, I use the term God only when discussing the issue with others, in which case I use their understanding of the word after attempting to determine what they believe it means - forming this understanding of the terms used is the single most important part of the Ignostic process. Therefore in one discussion I may use the term God to refer to a particular concept and in another discussion I may use god to refer to another concept entirely, I do this to avoid confusion within that discussion (though I know that such an approach can confuse those that have taken part in previous discussions with me and have developed an understanding of my own religious philosophy and positions).

I think it is generally the context in which the term is used that can ultimately provide the best guide as to the concept being discussed, still, I have seen many arguments break out because people were using the same term to refer to different concepts.

 

[Gjallarhorn]

God is a hollow word that stretches to fit any and all applications of it. God is light. God is one. God is life. God is good. God is Satan. God is illusion.

 

[swamplizard]

God is.

 

[zenzero]

Friend Comicaze,

How do YOU define "God," ?

God is a concept for an understanding THAT which includes every thing in existence seen or unseen including us.

Does it make sense?? If not, do ask!

Love & rgds