What is a god?

Author: keithprosser

Posts

Total: 52
Topic's author
#1
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
What are the attributes something has to have to count as 'a god'? I don't mean capital-G God, but a member of the class 'gods'.
For example, does a god have to be immortal or unkillable?   Many myths invovlve entitities that have powers that fall well short of omnipotence, omniscience and omnipresence, but still get called 'gods' or 'godesses'.
Does a god have to be conscious or sentient?  Must he/she/it be able to plan ahead and delibately act to bring about their desired goal?

As an atheist, obvuously I don't believe in capital-G God, but really I don't believe there is any thing 'god-like'.  Mopac says God is 'ultimate reality', I'not quite sure what the differene between 'reality' and 'ultimate reality' is, but I do belive in reality!   But does an atheist have to dispbelieve in reality because Mopac calls reality a god?

#2
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@keithprosser
What are the attributes something has to have to count as 'a god'? I don't mean capital-G God, but a member of the class 'gods'.
For example, does a god have to be immortal or unkillable?   Many myths invovlve entitities that have powers that fall well short of omnipotence, omniscience and omnipresence, but still get called 'gods' or 'godesses'.

You're referring to demi-gods/incarnations. There are many of them and they rule as overlords within divisions of the created worlds including this one. I would say status, knowledge , power and ability is what classifies a being as a god or demi god. There exists a hierarchy of the manifestations of the Creator each one being more stepped down than the one before it, and there are the correlating realms stepped down as well being more limited than the one before it and the physical being the outer most layer.
 So basically you have the god of the lower created division which is the physical and astral worlds,  again a demi god of the very next planes higher up which would be the causal and mental, then the etheric layer which is the upper mind division and even then once you leave the lower grand division of creation altogether you have the upper pure conscious realms and so on. BTW all beings and all created souls are immortal including yours so that's a given.
What happens is the first Source needs an embodiment to channel Its power, energy and creativity and It does so through these spiritual beings however these entities develop their own personalities they are not all the same...in form nor in conduct. These beings are permitted to control and or rule each layer, the reason they are considered gods by humans is pretty obvious. Their status, knowledge and abilities FAR exceed any humans however even the human soul is of the very same nature only the human soul is way far down the pecking order. It's not a hierarchy of tyranny though, it's just a natural process and progression of creation and for each individual soul. Basically you're on a journey that you couldn't even comprehend the span of as well as all other souls.

Does a god have to be conscious or sentient?  Must he/she/it be able to plan ahead and delibately act to bring about their desired goal?

In my opinion yes. I don't see how anything unconscious could manifest/act anything at all. Could be wrong maybe, perhaps if you were to provide an example of something unconscious that could produce conscious results? I'm going to go with my first answer.

As an atheist, obvuously I don't believe in capital-G God, but really I don't believe there is any thing 'god-like'.

Obviously lol, but then again you are limited by your own perceptions and form unless you exercise those abilities you have spiritually speaking. I believe that you believe in the things that you accept because you've never observed anything and I respect that, but "spiritually" based things (inner based things) and higher conscious experiences are acquired as opposed to the outer experience which would be your physical perceptions and all you have to do is look around there's not much to it. But the spiritual and inner experienced is a trained progression like with anything you wish to study and master, it's a little more complex than just looking out and seeing everything around you that's not how spirituality, the inner experience operates. The physical perception alone must be transcended and this requires activity and your participation.
Anybody can excel in this area but it depends upon the individual and what they're willing to do and or accept. And no I don't mean blindly accept because spirituality is an observation not a belief but it's also a cultivation. 
.

#3
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
Source is Merriam-Webster

God

Full Definition
  • 1 capitalized : the supreme or ultimate reality: as 
    a : the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe 
    b Christian Science : the incorporeal divine Principle ruling over all as eternal Spirit : infinite Mind
  • 2 : a being or object believed to have more than natural attributes and powersand to require human worship; specifically: one controlling a particular aspect or part of reality
  • 3 : a person or thing of supreme value
  • 4 : a powerful ruler

Atheism towards God is absolutely foolish and there can be no serious debate that this is not a self defeating and stupid position. Atheism towards gods? Well, a King can be defied and overthrown. The value of a person or thing can be questioned. A being or an object believed to have more than natural attributes can be disbelieved.

So these little g gods have no real permanence or lasting authority. Their distinguishing characteristic is that they are created.

Capital G God is true and authoritative no matter what anyone thinks, is eternal, and NOT created.


#4
Stronn
Stronn's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 511
2
2
4
Stronn's avatar
Stronn
2
2
4
-->
@Mopac
1 capitalized : the supreme or ultimate reality: as 
a : the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe 
b Christian Science : the incorporeal divine Principle ruling over all as eternal Spirit : infinite Mind
You always leave out the (a) part of definition 1.

#5
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@Stronn
I do this for several reasons.

The first is that according to the instructions on how to use the dictionary, something followed by a colon and an "as" are examples are not essential to the definition.

The second is that people are too superstitious about what the words mean here, so it would add further confusion. As an example, people to think of a "being" as some type of anthropomorphic entity rather than qhat the word actually means... Existence. Also, people tend to see "good" as something that conforms to their own personal aesthetics or idea of what is right rather than what it actually means... True.


So why? To make the argument I am using simpler and easier to understand. It has nothing to do with guile of any sort. It is actually quite the opposite, my intention here is to demystify and educate, not deceive and confuse.


People are very confused about this subject, and the proof of this is that people actually deny that God exists, which is a ludicrous position to take.





#6
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@Mopac
Capital G God is true and authoritative no matter what anyone thinks, is eternal, and NOT created.

I think he gets that, which is why he made the distinction in the OP. He was specifically referring to gods with a lower case, which would be a demi-god/incarnation.
#7
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@EtrnlVw
I think the dictionary definition I posted clears things up pretty good.

#8
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@Mopac
Weren't you on DDO as Mopac?
#9
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@EtrnlVw
No, but I'd wager that they probably got their name the same way I got mine.



#10
Stronn
Stronn's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 511
2
2
4
Stronn's avatar
Stronn
2
2
4
-->
@Mopac
People are very confused about this subject, and the proof of this is that people actually deny that God exists, which is a ludicrous position to take.
It's ludicrous only if people use the same definition as you, but they don't. You are in the minority in defining the word as merely a synonym for reality. Most people use the word "god" to mean something closer to definition 1(a) than just 1 by itself.

I haven't yet seen you address the difference between "supreme" or "ultimate" reality and other types of reality. Do other types of reality even exist? If so, what distinguishes them from "supreme" or "ultimate" reality? If not, why apply an adjective at all?
#11
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@Stronn
You think that 1(a) is ludicrous, but that doesn't mean it is. There is certainly a superstitious interpretation of that definition, but there is also a proper interpretation that is sound theology. 


But now...


Supreme Reality

Ultimate Reality

Supreme Being

The Truth


Means the same thing.

An example of a reality would be that Donald Trump is Zthe president of The United States. This is true. Before he was president, this was not true. After he leaves office, it will not be true. So a reality is a contingent existence. It is true in a context.

To contrast, The Supreme Reality is eternally true, always true, and the foundation for any truths.

A reality may become unreality.. or a truth may die, but The Truth does not die with a truth's death.



So really, the adjective is for precision.


But no, it is a ludicrous thing to deny God, and it also isn't helpful. More useful would be debating about the nature of God rather than debate God's existence. God obviously exists.

And there are many different traditions that believe different things about God.


So better than throwing out God and adopting the foolish position of denying reality, use that skeptical mind to embrace God and debate for the sake of truth, edification, and removing of superstition.


Believing God exists. Does not imply that you believe anything other than The Truth exists. Believing that God exists doesn't imply that you accept Jesus, Mohammed, Moses, Tge Pope, Brahman or any of that stuff. How can you believe what you don't know? How can you believe what doesn't make sense to you? How can you believe something you can't have faith in?

At the same time, someone who truly loves The Truth knows that it isnwiser to say, "I don't know" than to lean on one's own understanding.

Those are three of my favorite words. I don't know.

But I am certain of one thing, and that is that God exists, and everyone should be certain of this as well, and they can be too, if they believe that The Truth is God.


And if you disbelieve God because you love The Truth, here is the good news... Your doubts are actually motivated by a love of God.

And that is the freaky turn around that I pray many of the atheists here who truly do believe God without knowing it come to realize.




#12
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@keithprosser
Given the ambiguity and or incoherence of the term "god", the question of the existence of such a being is meaningless. 

[...]does an atheist have to dispbelieve in reality because Mopac calls reality a god?

No, of course not! Reality exists. Calling it "ultimate reality" is nothing more than an attempt to build unevidenced things/beings into what is evident and verifiable.

#13
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@SkepticalOne
It is certainly not meaningless to believe that The Truth exists.

Making the distinction between "reality" and "ultimate reality" is not an attempt at guile, but clarification.

 I addressed this issue in post 11. 

The point of identifying God is to make clear what relationship with God means. If your relationship with God is LOVING THE TRUTH, all good things come from that. 

That is the standard, and there are certain obvious effects that follow from The Truth being The God you love with everything. It will make you. 


Your aversion as an example, will keep you ignorant and predispose you to stubbornly rejecting things you don't understand. This doesn't come from a love of The Truth, it comes from pride in one's own understanding.
The Truth is greater than your understanding, so you think it is meaningless, not realizing that loving The Truth is beneficial towards making you a more rational person with a greater depth of understanding.



#14
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@Mopac
I like the way you argue. Your logic structure is solid. And you don't let atheists and their unbelief faze you. I enjoy your posts.
#15
drafterman
drafterman's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 5,653
3
6
9
drafterman's avatar
drafterman
3
6
9
-->
@keithprosser
What is a God?
I don't know, but I have it on good authority that if someone asks if you are one, you say: "Yes".
#16
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@drafterman
Yes to god.

#17
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@ethang5
It amazes me more people don't use this argument, because it is not a new argument. This is an argument that is thousands of years old. I think apologists should abandon their overly complicated and academic arguments in favor of this one along with a spirit of charity. They would find more pagans and atheists abandoning their superstitions.

It's not that these academic arguments are all bad, it's simply that they aren't simple enough. The argument I'm using is not only easy ti understand,  but it is irrefutable. It seems like most of the atheists on this forum have already admitted that God exists, even though they refuse to acknowledge God as God. 

Of course, scriptures make it plain that people will do this when they worship the creature rather than the creator. The atheists are blind to the fact that not only is God absolutely and without question sovereign over their life, but in their hearts they are bowing down to false gods all the time. The atheist is an idol worshipper in denial. If they were to honestly look at the things that give their life meaning and value, they would see clearly.

So what are the gods of the atheist or the pagan? What is it that motivates and gives life meaning to you? Money? Videogames? Movies? Food? Family? Nation? Drugs? Yourself? When these things are shown preference to The Truth, or The Truth is always seen in relation to these values, they are gods or idols to the one who is controlled by them.

So it isn't my hope that the unbeliever has to suffer any longer or be condemned to suffer in the future. It is my desire that they throw aside their useless idols, abandon their superstition, and come to a sincere relationship with The Truth in order that they be saved from this world of vanity that they live in and find true everlasting peace in God. It is my desire that they use the knowledge they've gained by recognizing The Truth as God in order to be beacons of light in a world of darkness.

Spread the good news. The Truth is God. The Truth sets you free. The Truth is Salvation.




#18
Deb-8-a-bull
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,249
3
2
3
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Deb-8-a-bull
3
2
3
-->
@Mopac
How did you choose your religion ?

#19
mustardness
mustardness's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,979
2
2
3
mustardness's avatar
mustardness
2
2
3
-->
@SkepticalOne
@Mopac
No, of course not! Reality exists.
If by "Reality" we mean 3D + time then, Jacob Bekenstien, and Leaonard Susskind would have us believe that we live in a holographic Universe that is 2D + time.

Kieth appears to accept the premise of identifying concepts with various ways of presenting them. Ex god or God. I would and do go further and present "G"od as synonym of "U"niverse/"G"od and give clear definitions.

god = demi-gods ex pharaoh or king etc.

God = Universe ergo occupied space 

0} "G"od/"U"niverse =,
.....01} spirit-1 { spirit-of-intent }, metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/concept ex concept of space, God, Toyota's etc,

------conceptual line-of-demarcation---------------------

......02} metaphysical-2, macro-infinite non-occupied space, that, embraces/surrounds the following,

.......03} finite, occupied space God/Universe.

Italics emphasize mind/intellect/concept.

Capitals emphasize cosmic whole integrities.

Mopac a : the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe 
There exists no rational, logical common sense or evidence for "infinite mind" nor any "being" that is perfect, unless we consider Universe as a "being" --like human being--- and I do not.

We do find there exist finite limits and we only discover --via mind/intellect--  a finite set of cosmic laws/principles.

We know there can only exist five and only five regular/symmetrical and convex polyhedra of "U"niverse/"G"od.

Sure there exists no reason for an infinite set of differrent polyhedra to exist in conceptually, however, if we live in a finite occupied space Universe, then we can say there cannot exist and infinite set of occupied space polyhedra within any finite period-of-time. I.e infinite set can only correlate to an eternal existence beyond finite periods-of-time.

Mopac 2: a being or object believed to have more than natural attributes and powers and to require human worship; specifically: one controlling a particular aspect or part of reality

So your God is not natural?  Is a black hole not natural? Is access to more complex metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/concepts ---ex mathematics--  not natural? Of all biological creatures we know on Earth, only humans have this access. For only 6 billion creatures to have this access to the more complex mind/intellect/concepts not natural?

If your God is beyond the concept of nature then I dont see any rational, logical common sense to even begin to explore that which is beyond nature, ergo beyond Universe or Cosmos etc.

..."Nature, in the broadest sense, is the natural, physical, or material world or universe. "Nature" can refer to the phenomena of the physical world, and also to life in general. The study of nature is a large, if not the only, part of science."...




#20
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@mustardness
If it is reality that the universe is a hologram, reality still exists.
You do not need to know The Ultimate Reality to know that it exists.

#21
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
I believe it was certainly predestination.



#22
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@Mopac
Spread the good news. The Truth is God. The Truth sets you free. The Truth is Salvation.
So has a theist reached the end of the journey? Is simple belief in God the answer?

#23
mustardness
mustardness's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,979
2
2
3
mustardness's avatar
mustardness
2
2
3
-->
@Mopac
You addressed none of the questions I asked you.  Why? Cause you have no valid responses? That is my best guess.

Reality for most people and scientists is 3D + time, not 2D plus time.

You dont seem to grasp the diffferrence or address valid questions posed to you. Why?
#24
mustardness
mustardness's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,979
2
2
3
mustardness's avatar
mustardness
2
2
3
-->
@Mopac
The Truth sets you free. The Truth is Salvation.

Somehow I dont think you much interested interested in truth. At least in the regards Ive presented to you.

The truth exists for those who seek it, those who don't and those who scoff at it.
#25
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@mustardness
It seems to me that you are confusing gods with God. Note the first definition has "capitalized" at the start of it.

But it might be that I don't understand your questions, so if you could help me in that regard, I will do the best I can.






#26
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@ethang5
This has always been what the faith was truly about.
#27
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
"Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning. Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures."

#28
mustardness
mustardness's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,979
2
2
3
mustardness's avatar
mustardness
2
2
3
-->
@Mopac
It seems to me that you are confusing gods with God
No I'm not an was not only very clear in those regards but also with my questions posed to you.

When you actually want address my questions --in simple English-- as posed to you, please do.

You have not any valid responses and that is why you play dumb. You have no shred of desire for truth in regards to any of my comments, as stated.

The truth exists for those who seek it --not you-- for those who do not ---thats you--- and for those who scoff at it.  Soon to be you if not already you.

#29
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@mustardness
That is not very charitable of you.



#30
Stronn
Stronn's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 511
2
2
4
Stronn's avatar
Stronn
2
2
4
-->
@Mopac
You think that 1(a) is ludicrous, but that doesn't mean it is. There is certainly a superstitious interpretation of that definition, but there is also a proper interpretation that is sound theology.
No, I think there is no evidence for 1 (a), therefore one ought not believe in its existence.



An example of a reality would be that Donald Trump is Zthe president of The United States. This is true. Before he was president, this was not true. After he leaves office, it will not be true. So a reality is a contingent existence. It is true in a context.

To contrast, The Supreme Reality is eternally true, always true, and the foundation for any truths.

A reality may become unreality.. or a truth may die, but The Truth does not die with a truth's death.
The statement "Donald Trump was a president of the United States" will be true forever, and so it eternal. Therefore is it part of The Truth?

But no, it is a ludicrous thing to deny God, and it also isn't helpful. More useful would be debating about the nature of God rather than debate God's existence. God obviously exists.
Again, denying God is ludicrous only if you define God as "that which is always true." But that is not how most people define God. Most people's definition of God includes attributes like omniscience, omnibenevolence, omnipresence, a desire to be worshipped, a system of reward and punishment, and intervention in day to day human affairs through such things as answering prayers, causing natural disasters and helping to write one of our books.

When atheists deny God, it is the existence of a being with these attributes they are denying. Plugging in "The Truth" for "God" is just equivocation.

So better than throwing out God and adopting the foolish position of denying reality, use that skeptical mind to embrace God and debate for the sake of truth, edification, and removing of superstition.
Again, equivocation. No one is denying reality. 

Believing God exists. Does not imply that you believe anything other than The Truth exists.
Yes it does. See what I said above. In every monotheistic religion, God is described as much more than just truth. When someone says "God exists," 99.9% of the time they mean a conscious being, not merely eternal reality.

Believing that God exists doesn't imply that you accept Jesus, Mohammed, Moses, Tge Pope, Brahman or any of that stuff. How can you believe what you don't know? How can you believe what doesn't make sense to you? How can you believe something you can't have faith in?
For most people, believing God means exactly that. You will have to ask them how they can believe what they don't really know.