What defines a god?

[sserafim]

I have a question. What defines a god? For something or someone to count as a god must it be omnipotent? I think if something has a consciousness but not a physical presence can count. If someone speaks to you but you can't see them people would assume you're crazy. But if you say that this voice is the one of god it suddenly seems reasonable. Does this mean that a god can only exist when perceived collectively? Or is it more a case of that collective acknowledgement giving it credibility while other god-like creatures exist beyond what level of consciousness we can consider human? Are schizophrenics communicating with godly entities we just don't know about? Is sensory deprivation the closest you can get to communicating with them?

 

[Dr Iron Arc]

It depends on what mythology you choose to draw from. In Christianity and the other Abrahamic religions there really is only one true God with maybe some elevated beings like angels and prophets but they still make it pretty clear that only one guy gets to be god.

Greek mythology basically had the gods be extra powerful trolls whose only purpose was to control aspects of reality. Even these Gods were technically lesser than the Titans though.

In the Marvel Cinematic Universe, gods are just beings with powers beyond most of humanity. Thor and Loki can be killed but they still live way longer and are way more powerful than average sentient beings.

 

[Forever Sleep]

That's a really interesting question. I suppose- to be widely accepted as a God, a group of people have to believe in roughly the same thing.

Interesting though, because I suspect those who do believe have their personal take on what their God is like. Some seem to see them as a loving, parental teacher. Others, the more fire and brimstone type to be feared.

Weirder still in a way that in cultures like Ancient Egypt, the Pharohs were considered partly divine. I suppose in cults, if enough people believe, the leader is seen as somewhat divine.

Really though, I suppose individually, we can decide ourselves to worship whatever we want. I thank the God of hand tools all the times I have a near miss and just avoid hurting myself.

 

[Pluto]

I think the simple answer is that god is just a word. It could mean:

1) People or animals of highly elevated status,
2) A cosmic entity or entities that some people believe in, or
3) Brahman, which in Hinduism is the sum total of all existence, including us. By this definition, we are all God.

 

[Havnis]

What adults content themselves with has to be sacred, God is sacred, God can be the sun, moon, air, rock, nature phenomenon, person, relationship, etc. God has to be love, meaning it is a reflection of the human psyche.

 

[derpyderpins]

To me, instinctively, I think of a god as:

1. A being of a noticeably different nature than those what would refer to it as a god;
2. Something with complete dominion and control over the lesser beings which refer to it as god.

So, if you have some hamsters in a cage at your house, you are essentially their god. You have complete control over the realistic bounds of their cage and are a being outside their understanding. But a very powerful person, like a dictator, is not a god because they are just more powerful versions of the people they would claim to be god of. (Apologies to little rocket man). This would include beings without a physical form so long as they can affect the physical world or area they are a god of.

I think omniscience, omnipotence, and omnipresence are options but not strictly necessary. Doesn't matter so long as you have complete control.

The fact that I play so many jrpgs, where killing "god" is a regular theme, may be influencing this answer. I don't think a god has to be perceived to exist. If something with complete control of me outside my body is making me type this right now, it could still be a god imo.

As to your statement about schizophrenics, I am open to the idea of "spiritual" entities (which I personally would not call a god) we cannot perceive, but it would only be speculation. Fascinating topic, though. Doesn't have to be ghosts or magic, just the idea that there is something beyond our comprehension amongst us.

 

[Havnis]

To me, instinctively, I think of a god as

1. Something with complete dominion and control over the lesser beings which refer to it as god

That is, anthropomorphic gods's features are more likely to have been created in the anthropocentrist epoch, which projects human characteristics onto gods like dominance, control, love, anger, etc. Other forms of definition negate that definition, like pantheism and Spinoza's God.

And I think instinctively isn't the right word here since the belief in some definition of god is not genetically inherited but it have been created by cultural surroundings and personal experiences, genetics can influence tendencies or predispositions toward belief in a higher power, rather than directly determining those beliefs.

 

[obligatoryshackles]

In what sense are you asking that question?

If we look at tradition and well accepted ideas of gods, we mainly look at what are now generally considered mythologies and then the Abrahamic faiths.

Ancient mythologies and polytheistic religions in general tend to ascribe natural phenomena to gods, giving a human personality - essentially something more personally relatable - to various things like storms, the sunrise, travel, knowledge, death, etc. It was a device to humanize concepts which were typically beyond human control.

The Abrahamic faiths instead assign all power to a singular God, who is generally worshipped as a source of social order, providing the laws and cultures to follow in order to make a functional society. Through various means, such as promise of salvation or organized charity work, these religions are ultimately far more successful at being an organized religion than the pagan religions. God here is essentially the invented source to which ultimate authority on what is right and wrong is ascribed. A justification for a way of life and a moral system.

In both, gods were invented as a device, either to cite as an authority on something or to explain something beyond human control.


If you're looking for an answer to what qualifies as a god, then the answer becomes pretty subjective.

Must a god be known and worshipped? If so, do we assign an arbitrary number or percentage of humans who need to be worshippers for qualification? And then we have to also question the existence of gods in certain pantheons that just don't really get "worship" despite being recognized in the same class of entities as gods who do get worshipped consistently.

Then also comes the problem of nomenclature. "God" is an English word with a lot of connotations and cultural associations with what the English speaking world generally recognizes a god. But there are a lot of cultures that have ideas similar to gods but don't call them as such. How do we pick and choose what entities within such systems count as gods? There isn't a simple way to distinguish, for example, beings like minor gods from named angels if neither are explicitly called gods or non-gods.


Since all that is pretty subjective and basically impossible to answer, let me just give my own personal thoughts, even if it doesn't provide a satisfying answer:

No matter what, a god is something born of a human mind. By the most all encompassing definition, a god is anything anyone wants to believe is a god. Since we cannot satisfactorily assign some arbitrary qualification for how many people worshipping it are needed to call something a god before it's real, only one person should need to believe in it.

Thus, as long a single person at any point in time genuinely believes something is a god, it is a god - at least to that person in that time.

 

[_AllCatsAreGrey_]

Super interesting question OP. It's difficult to answer definitively, as many traditions have various notions of what gods are.

I'd like to add to the mix the idea of the "god of the gaps". Some thinkers have postulated that humans develop gods to fill in the gap of our understanding. With our logic we're able to trace out a series of cause and effects, but due to our limitations of understanding we reach a wall where we cannot figure out the cause. Gods fill this gap of understanding.

 

[Mirrory Me]

I'm quite a layman when it comes to matters of faith, but I believe that god or gods live e.g. somewhere in the recesses of the subconscious collectively. I would describe it, for example, as a "library" (like from Harry Potter, computer, etc.) where there are all the events, knowledge, and ideas in the universe (and perhaps gateways/portals), and it would be managed and supervised by some directors and guardians.

Akashic records - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[falling_snow]

i think a god is human, or at least irrational. not omnipotent, but at least loving. that would make a god. a loving person, that has love for others and themself is a god. but people never have pure love, they suffer greed, ignorance, lack of empathy,... We aren't perfect, and cannot be able to love purely, as a god. that is what i would define as a god. a loving entity.

 

[leavingthesoultrap]

A god is an entity that can't die or be killed. Operates beyond our physical realm. Has certain powers. Might be worshipped by groups of humans.
Hmmm

 

[theboy]

omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent

 

[Slough Walker]

The New Testament Book of Hebrews chapter 11 answers this question unintentionally yet eloquently. "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." Substitute "faith" with "god", and you have a reasonably concise answer to the question. God is "the substance of things hoped for" - created by human worship and perpetuated by human faith. God also is "the evidence of things not seen" - the evidence of that which can't be evidenced, the evidence of that which can't be demonstrated as true. In other words, God is entirely a creation of human minds and only exists in human minds.

 

[red24]

There is a Russian saint called Serafim of Sarov, if my memory still works,... who said something like that, approximately, "God is not great, God is not good, God is not just". Meaning of this being, one cannot talk about God in human terms because human logic, psychology, values, philosophy, language even, does not apply to God. Because there is a class gap. Is not like trying to judge an awkward 3 rd grade kid's football skills by UEFA Champions League standards, is not even trying to judge a monkey's reasoning skills by human standards, it is way beyond that. Is not that that God is not in the same category, but is not in the same book, or actually, He is not in any book whatsoever. So my answer, sir, is that one cannot define a God. At all.
The Greeks gave human attributes to Gods because they were trying to define Gods from a human POV. That is why their gods look so human, so entertaining, so childish, and so primitive.

 

[sserafim]

I'm quite a layman when it comes to matters of faith, but I believe that god or gods live e.g. somewhere in the recesses of the subconscious collectively. I would describe it, for example, as a "library" (like from Harry Potter, computer, etc.) where there are all the events, knowledge, and ideas in the universe (and perhaps gateways/portals), and it would be managed and supervised by some directors and guardians.

Akashic records - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

How do you access your Akashic records?

 

[LONE WOLF.]

I have a question. What defines a god? For something or someone to count as a god must it be omnipotent? I think if something has a consciousness but not a physical presence can count. If someone speaks to you but you can't see them people would assume you're crazy. But if you say that this voice is the one of god it suddenly seems reasonable. Does this mean that a god can only exist when perceived collectively? Or is it more a case of that collective acknowledgement giving it credibility while other god-like creatures exist beyond what level of consciousness we can consider human? Are schizophrenics communicating with godly entities we just don't know about? Is sensory deprivation the closest you can get to communicating with them?

If when someone is speaking to you and they end the sentence with Amen then it's almost certain you're a God ..............

 

[Superdeterminist]

Good question. I think that omniscience and omnipotence are essential properties for a being to qualify as a god. By omnipotence I mean having authorship over all things; nothing in existence can be beyond their will. I don't think omnibenevolence is essential property for a god, but I do think it is an essential property in order for a god to be worthy of worship. In my view, the presence of suffering in our reality suggests that the god of our universe does not possess omnibenevolence. He is god, but not worthy of worship.​

 

[enduringwinter]

Parents are god. They bestowed life when they wanted to, bestowed the circumstances, development and largely fate of these intelligent beings. They had the final authority on intelligent life created on earth. That's god to me.

 

[pyx]

a god is usually prescriptive insofar as he originally contributed to our explanatory power before the rise of naturalism. i mean that the features which determine the powers of a god usually preserve some kind of logical relation so as to not fall into contradiction. this is why omniscience, omnipresence, etc. are foundational. so any theological discourse rests on a closed system of conjectures, in which the onus is on the theist to show that his system is compatible with reality, while the atheist is merely required to work within this system to try to find some contradiction. things like creationism, however, take this relation and try to substitute the propositions with observational equivalencies, and then try to fall back on the previous features of god so as to justify their own case. 'through this series of entailment, god is thus proven real, or is at least sufficient for explaining the unexplainable.'

 

[deleted442]

Spirit that is omnipresent

 

[sserafim]

There is a Russian saint called Serafim of Sarov, if my memory still works,... who said something like that, approximately, "God is not great, God is not good, God is not just". Meaning of this being, one cannot talk about God in human terms because human logic, psychology, values, philosophy, language even, does not apply to God. Because there is a class gap. Is not like trying to judge an awkward 3 rd grade kid's football skills by UEFA Champions League standards, is not even trying to judge a monkey's reasoning skills by human standards, it is way beyond that. Is not that that God is not in the same category, but is not in the same book, or actually, He is not in any book whatsoever. So my answer, sir, is that one cannot define a God. At all.
The Greeks gave human attributes to Gods because they were trying to define Gods from a human POV. That is why their gods look so human, so entertaining, so childish, and so primitive.

Damn I didn't know that I was Russian nor did I know that I was a saint

 

[red24]

It is a slavic name at least in regards of its etymology. I believe that "serafim" is a category of angels in some theological classification. Well at least in Romanian language it is, cant vouch for the english terminology, I am not really into theology, at all, just that I read a lot of crap as a kid.

PS. Its etymology is only slavic in Romanian, because of Romanian history obviously, but for other languages, the word probably comes directly from Greek. (I mean for the common noun, not the name. For the given name the etymology is different for every language also.)

Cf. Wikipedia

Borrowed from Old Church Slavonic серафимъ (serafimŭ), from Ancient Greek σεραφίμ (seraphím)

 

[DarkRange55]

I've always thought it's important to have criteria differentiating a god from God. It would be funny if a supreme being came down and started throwing lightning bolts and causing storms but it turned out it was actually just an alien culture messing with us or a god but not necessarily the omnipotent/omniscient creator of the universe. Rather nebulous term. Thinking of demigods for example.

I think that the Omniverse itself is as close as we can get to God – all-powerful, everywhere that anything can be, and eternal, and containing all knowledge.

 

[LONE WOLF.]

I have a question. What defines a god? For something or someone to count as a god must it be omnipotent? I think if something has a consciousness but not a physical presence can count. If someone speaks to you but you can't see them people would assume you're crazy. But if you say that this voice is the one of god it suddenly seems reasonable. Does this mean that a god can only exist when perceived collectively? Or is it more a case of that collective acknowledgement giving it credibility while other god-like creatures exist beyond what level of consciousness we can consider human? Are schizophrenics communicating with godly entities we just don't know about? Is sensory deprivation the closest you can get to communicating with them?

Mother is the name for God upon the lips of all children. (Quote source 'The Crow')

 

[Blackoutchange]

I have a question. What defines a god? For something or someone to count as a god must it be omnipotent? I think if something has a consciousness but not a physical presence can count. If someone speaks to you but you can't see them people would assume you're crazy. But if you say that this voice is the one of god it suddenly seems reasonable. Does this mean that a god can only exist when perceived collectively? Or is it more a case of that collective acknowledgement giving it credibility while other god-like creatures exist beyond what level of consciousness we can consider human? Are schizophrenics communicating with godly entities we just don't know about? Is sensory deprivation the closest you can get to communicating with them?

In our world probably a money could define someone who can do everything, so basically a god

 

[Imagined_Euphoria]

The definition for a god is whatever the schizo that invented him likes it to be.