What is the best way to define god/deity?

[Erebus]

Over the years, I've noticed a very common source of disagreement on this forum. Two perfectly articulate people will argue about gods while holding different views on what a god actually is. The result is that many of the points each person raises will fail to apply to the other's concept of deity. At times, it can even mean each person's points come across as entirely nonsensical to the other.

If the source of the misunderstanding is noticed at all, another common occurrence is for one or both parties to insist that their definition of "god" is the correct one. The implication (or outright accusation in some cases) is that the other person is twisting words to suit their argument. At that point, people cite various dictionary definitions, definitions arising from cultural backgrounds and so on. The debate goes nowhere and everybody leaves feeling frustrated.

For a while now, I've advocated for people making it clear early on what the word means to them. I still think this is the best way to approach debates about gods but I'm curious about how people on RF understand and use the term.

With that in mind, what do you personally think is the best way to define god/deity? What positives and negatives do you see with your definition? Why did you pick that one and reject other definitions?

 

[Erebus]

(Note: I decided to post my own views as a separate response. I wanted to keep the questions I posed clearly visible and avoid the dreaded wall of text.)


Speaking for myself, I've settled on defining a god as "something deemed worthy of worship by a person or culture."

This definition, or variants of it, seems relatively common among the various contemporary Pagan and occult groups. It's a more personal definition that accounts for the notion that what one person/group considers a god might not be viewed that way by others. Godhood then is akin to an honorific, applied to something deemed especially awe-inspiring.

For me, another advantage of it is that it mostly eliminates a common flaw I see with stricter definitions, namely that they often result in atheists who believe in and worship something they call a god. For example, if god is defined as the omnipotent, omniscient creator of the universe then that eliminates a whole host of polytheistic deities. So how do you describe the people who follow those deities? Strictly speaking, what they worship wouldn't be deities at all. If they don't believe in the omnipotent creator god, they therefore must be atheists.

Now some theists do make precisely that argument about those who worship "false gods." To me though, it comes across as entirely paradoxical. If you worship a god you're a theist, regardless of whether or not that god is deemed real or worthy of worship by another.


There are flaws to my definition though. It fails to account for people who worship something they don't consider to be a god, such as ancestor worshippers. It also hinges on that word, "worship" which is in many ways as difficult as the word "god" itself. My understanding of worship may be subtly or entirely different to a Muslim's, which may be different to an atheist's and so on.

 

[WalterTrull]

The beginning

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Speaking for myself, I've settled on defining a god as "something deemed worthy of worship by a person or culture."

I would say that this is a pretty good baseline definition. My own would be "an intelligent agency responsible for the creation and/or maintenance of the Universe and/or some aspect of the Universe", but even this definition has issues that crop up in debates now and then.

I find whenever an impasse is formed over the definition of a particular thing in debate, the most productive thing to do is exchange definitions, decide on a shared definition strictly for the purpose of debate, and then to debate the concept being defined rather than focussing on the definition itself. Too many debates have been rendered fruitless out of the gate by people disagreeing what the "proper" definition of a word is, without acknowledging that the definition - for the purpose of discussion - is of secondary or less importance than the concept being discussed.

 

[BSM1]

(Note: I decided to post my own views as a separate response. I wanted to keep the questions I posed clearly visible and avoid the dreaded wall of text.)


Speaking for myself, I've settled on defining a god as "something deemed worthy of worship by a person or culture."

This definition, or variants of it, seems relatively common among the various contemporary Pagan and occult groups. It's a more personal definition that accounts for the notion that what one person/group considers a god might not be viewed that way by others. Godhood then is akin to an honorific, applied to something deemed especially awe-inspiring.

For me, another advantage of it is that it mostly eliminates a common flaw I see with stricter definitions, namely that they often result in atheists who believe in and worship something they call a god. For example, if god is defined as the omnipotent, omniscient creator of the universe then that eliminates a whole host of polytheistic deities. So how do you describe the people who follow those deities? Strictly speaking, what they worship wouldn't be deities at all. If they don't believe in the omnipotent creator god, they therefore must be atheists.

Now some theists do make precisely that argument about those who worship "false gods." To me though, it comes across as entirely paradoxical. If you worship a god you're a theist, regardless of whether or not that god is deemed real or worthy of worship by another.


There are flaws to my definition though. It fails to account for people who worship something they don't consider to be a god, such as ancestor worshippers. It also hinges on that word, "worship" which is in many ways as difficult as the word "god" itself. My understanding of worship may be subtly or entirely different to a Muslim's, which may be different to an atheist's and so on.

Once you define a "god" then you haven't; you've simply validated your position. "God", to me, is the known and the not known. It is also the knowing and the not knowing.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

With that in mind, what do you personally think is the best way to define god/deity?

With a list of gods. That's the only way I can see to do it.

There's just too much overlap in characteristics between things that are definitively gods and things that definitively aren't (e.g. angels and ghosts). I mean, I haven't been able to come up with any objective criteria that would allow divine messenger Mercury to be a god but divine messenger Gabriel not to be.

What positives and negatives do you see with your definition?

The positive: it can reflect actual usage. It doesn't create the awkward situation of having to tell someone that the gods of their pantheon aren't actually gods.

The negative: it makes it difficult to talk about gods in the general sense.

Why did you pick that one and reject other definitions?

I haven't found any other that reflects usage.

 

[Thief]

what do you personally think is the best way to define god/deity?

Almighty

a self explanatory term

 

[syo]

With that in mind, what do you personally think is the best way to define god/deity? What positives and negatives do you see with your definition? Why did you pick that one and reject other definitions?

Immortality, beyond time. In fact, gods started time. Gods always are. Gods are life. A river was born and it will die. The river-god is the immortal cause of the mortal river. Immortal river-god is timeless. the mortal river is in time.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Almighty

a self explanatory term

So you think that polytheists are atheists?

 

[Spirit of Light]

Over the years, I've noticed a very common source of disagreement on this forum. Two perfectly articulate people will argue about gods while holding different views on what a god actually is. The result is that many of the points each person raises will fail to apply to the other's concept of deity. At times, it can even mean each person's points come across as entirely nonsensical to the other.

If the source of the misunderstanding is noticed at all, another common occurrence is for one or both parties to insist that their definition of "god" is the correct one. The implication (or outright accusation in some cases) is that the other person is twisting words to suit their argument. At that point, people cite various dictionary definitions, definitions arising from cultural backgrounds and so on. The debate goes nowhere and everybody leaves feeling frustrated.

For a while now, I've advocated for people making it clear early on what the word means to them. I still think this is the best way to approach debates about gods but I'm curious about how people on RF understand and use the term.

With that in mind, what do you personally think is the best way to define god/deity? What positives and negatives do you see with your definition? Why did you pick that one and reject other definitions?

Often when someone try to describe God/deity the reason different views and understanding arise, i that people are on different level of wisdom of the truth. Meaning that for someone who been study/cultivated a spiritual path for 20 years will have a different view of God then a person only studied 5 years. But that does not mean anyone of them are wrong, It only means they see the truth from different level of truth

 

[metis]

With that in mind, what do you personally think is the best way to define god/deity?

I don't even try as "My Faith Statement" at the bottom of my posts indicates. I have a couple of "leanings" but that's about as far as I'll take it.

 

[David T]

Over the years, I've noticed a very common source of disagreement on this forum. Two perfectly articulate people will argue about gods while holding different views on what a god actually is. The result is that many of the points each person raises will fail to apply to the other's concept of deity. At times, it can even mean each person's points come across as entirely nonsensical to the other.

If the source of the misunderstanding is noticed at all, another common occurrence is for one or both parties to insist that their definition of "god" is the correct one. The implication (or outright accusation in some cases) is that the other person is twisting words to suit their argument. At that point, people cite various dictionary definitions, definitions arising from cultural backgrounds and so on. The debate goes nowhere and everybody leaves feeling frustrated.

For a while now, I've advocated for people making it clear early on what the word means to them. I still think this is the best way to approach debates about gods but I'm curious about how people on RF understand and use the term.

With that in mind, what do you personally think is the best way to define god/deity? What positives and negatives do you see with your definition? Why did you pick that one and reject other definitions?

A myth with a thousand faces. What is gravity but one of the thousand faces.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

For me, another advantage of it is that it mostly eliminates a common flaw I see with stricter definitions, namely that they often result in atheists who believe in and worship something they call a god. For example, if god is defined as the omnipotent, omniscient creator of the universe then that eliminates a whole host of polytheistic deities. So how do you describe the people who follow those deities? Strictly speaking, what they worship wouldn't be deities at all. If they don't believe in the omnipotent creator god, they therefore must be atheists.

Now some theists do make precisely that argument about those who worship "false gods." To me though, it comes across as entirely paradoxical. If you worship a god you're a theist, regardless of whether or not that god is deemed real or worthy of worship by another.

This made me think of something, so I'm going to throw it out for discussion:

How much of a link is there (or should there be) between the definition of "god" and the definition of "theist" (or atheist)?

I've always approached this by assuming that the thing a theist believes in is necessarily a god, but I suppose there are other approaches.

For instance, if we consider a theist to be "someone who believes in something that they consider a god," then this leaves room for a difference between what they consider a god and some "correct" definition of "god."

 

[WalterTrull]

A myth with a thousand faces.

That'th mythter to you buthter.

I know, I know (head buried in hands)

 

[BSM1]

Often when someone try to describe God/deity the reason different views and understanding arise, i that people are on different level of wisdom of the truth. Meaning that for someone who been study/cultivated a spiritual path for 20 years will have a different view of God then a person only studied 5 years. But that does not mean anyone of them are wrong, It only means they see the truth from different level of truth

And everyone has to find their own truth.

 

[Spirit of Light]

And everyone has to find their own truth.

Yes truth does look different from person to person, and one reason is different perception of what is seen/understood

 

[David T]

That'th mythter to you buthter.

I know, I know (head buried in hands)

Myther rogers damn it.

 

[Erebus]

I find whenever an impasse is formed over the definition of a particular thing in debate, the most productive thing to do is exchange definitions, decide on a shared definition strictly for the purpose of debate, and then to debate the concept being defined rather than focussing on the definition itself. Too many debates have been rendered fruitless out of the gate by people disagreeing what the "proper" definition of a word is, without acknowledging that the definition - for the purpose of discussion - is of secondary or less importance than the concept being discussed.

Well said! I agree wholeheartedly.

This made me think of something, so I'm going to throw it out for discussion:

How much of a link is there (or should there be) between the definition of "god" and the definition of "theist" (or atheist)?

I've always approached this by assuming that the thing a theist believes in is necessarily a god, but I suppose there are other approaches.

For instance, if we consider a theist to be "someone who believes in something that they consider a god," then this leaves room for a difference between what they consider a god and some "correct" definition of "god."

You pose an interesting question here and it's honestly one I hadn't considered before.

I always went by the commonly used definition that a theist is somebody who believes in one or more gods. However, this seems to raise the very issues I wanted to avoid in my definition of god. If a theist is somebody who believes in one or more gods, then it's presumably necessary to know what a god is in order to determine whether or not somebody is a theist.

Perhaps then some degree of separation between the definition of a god and the definition of a theist is the better approach. If my definition of god doesn't cover all the bases* and I want to avoid creating those paradoxical atheists, the second option you provide (someone who believes in something that they consider a god) would be more suitable.



*Which it doesn't. Thinking more on this, there's another flaw in that there are some people who believe in gods that they actively detest. This is the inverse of the ancestor worship problem, a god that's deemed unworthy of worship rather than a non-god deemed worthy of worship. My definition also fails to account for them.

 

[Thief]

So you think that polytheists are atheists?

no.....

but the term Almighty points to One

 

[Looncall]

Yes truth does look different from person to person, and one reason is different perception of what is seen/understood

This looks to me to be a good indication that nothing real is being considered.