Towards a Definition of God

[2ndRateMind]

So, the central contention here is that 'God is the most perfect being we can imagine, and since He is infinitely good, even better than that'.

The issue then, is not our disparate conceptions of God, which will inevitably differ according to our own capacities to imagine perfect goodness, but how to reconcile them all into something of a consensus we can all agree on, so that we are also agreed on how each individual ought progress spiritually towards that perfect goodness.

So, my question for the forum is; is perfect, infinite goodness a matter to be defined, and settled, or is it always going to be a matter to strive for and never to be reached, though the striving being a worthwhile endeavour of itself? Or, would you like to propose some other definition of God, for the purposes of discussion?

Best wishes, 2RM.

[ThePainefulTruth]

[Replying to post 1 by 2ndRateMind]

It's both, because God is Truth and Truth is God, no matter what that Truth is. Think about it.

[ttruscott]

So, my question for the forum is; is perfect, infinite goodness a matter to be defined, and settled, or is it always going to be a matter to strive for and never to be reached...

"perfect, infinite goodness" can be defined as GOD's basic attributes in reality...therefore they were defined, and settled before any creation took place.

[Mr.Badham]

I've said it before, but I'll say it again; Religion is placebo.
It makes sense when you think about it because it explains why there are almost as
many different ways to believe as there are people. It explains why each person can feel a special connection to it, even though they believe differently.

You religion does just what you want it to. It does just what you expect it to.

God could be defined as a sugar pill, or a saline injection.

[Divine Insight]

So, the central contention here is that 'God is the most perfect being we can imagine, and since He is infinitely good, even better than that'.

The issue then, is not our disparate conceptions of God, which will inevitably differ according to our own capacities to imagine perfect goodness, but how to reconcile them all into something of a consensus we can all agree on, so that we are also agreed on how each individual ought progress spiritually towards that perfect goodness.

So, my question for the forum is; is perfect, infinite goodness a matter to be defined, and settled, or is it always going to be a matter to strive for and never to be reached, though the striving being a worthwhile endeavour of itself? Or, would you like to propose some other definition of God, for the purposes of discussion?

Best wishes, 2RM.

As far as I can see, the only religious philosophy where "God" can be perfectly benevolent is in pantheism. A philosophy that many people simply do not understand. If they actually understood pantheism they would understand why a pantheistic God is perfectly benevolent no matter how horrible the world might appear to be.

Any religion that has God being totally separate from humans is necessarily faced with a God that cannot be perfectly benevolent. At least in terms of our actual world.

A "separate God" could potentially be perfectly benevolent if the world he or she creates is also perfectly benevolent. But clearly that's not the case in our world.

So the only way the creator of our world could be perfectly benevolent is if pantheism is true.

[McCulloch]

It is my belief that a coherent definition of the word God does not exist. Does God have personality? If so, how can God be perfect?

[Divine Insight]

It is my belief that a coherent definition of the word God does not exist. Does God have personality? If so, how can God be perfect?

Actually if you stop and think about this a pantheistic God cannot have a "personality". A personality basically describes how one person behaves relative to other people. But if a pantheistic God is all that exists, then it can hardly have behaviors that are defined by "other people".

Not only that, but can't even the personality of a human change over time? If so, then clearly the person is not their personality. Instead their personality is simply they way they are behaving at any particular time. And this is usually, if not always, defined by how they behave with respect to "other people".

Some humans even have unpredictable "personalities" where it's not even possible to predict how they might behave any any given point in time.

To think that we are our personalities is considered to be a misconception by pantheistic philosophies in any case.

Again, this boils down to not understanding what pantheism is actually saying.

A pantheistic God would neither "be" a personality, nor would it even "have" a personality. Personalities only exist in humans, and are basically nothing more than a description of how they are currently behaving. And no human even has a perfectly consistent personality (i.e. perfectly consistent behavior). Not even those who would like for this to be the case.

[Anomaly]

So, the central contention here is that 'God is the most perfect being we can imagine, and since He is infinitely good, even better than that'.

The issue then, is not our disparate conceptions of God, which will inevitably differ according to our own capacities to imagine perfect goodness, but how to reconcile them all into something of a consensus we can all agree on, so that we are also agreed on how each individual ought progress spiritually towards that perfect goodness.

So, my question for the forum is; is perfect, infinite goodness a matter to be defined, and settled, or is it always going to be a matter to strive for and never to be reached, though the striving being a worthwhile endeavour of itself? Or, would you like to propose some other definition of God, for the purposes of discussion?

Best wishes, 2RM.

[McCulloch]

[Replying to post 7 by Divine Insight]

You have highlighted one of the ignostic objections to theism. If God is perfect then God cannot have free will or a personality. If God always knows the best course of action because God is omniscient and God can always do the best thing because God is omnipotent and God will always do the best thing because God is good, then God cannot have any discression. Is it possible that a perfect entity can have will and personality?

[Divine Insight]

[Replying to post 7 by Divine Insight]

You have highlighted one of the ignostic objections to theism.

From Quora (see item #3 on that page also quoted below)

Ignosticism is the view that any religious term or theological concept presented must be accompanied by a coherent definition. Without a clear definition such terms cannot be meaningfully discussed. Such terms or concepts must also be falsifiable.

I hold that when it comes to a pantheistic view of "God" ignostics simply don't understand the basics of Pantheism.

If God is perfect then God cannot have free will or a personality.

Speaking of meaningful well-defined terms, what do you mean by "Perfect"?

I hold that your very notion of what constitute "perfect" may be misguided in pantheism as you are most likely going to judge "perfection" from a human perspective. Especially from a human perspective where it is already assumed that the human is NOT God. And obviously that already misses the entire context of pantheism.

If God always knows the best course of action because God is omniscient and God can always do the best thing because God is omnipotent and God will always do the best thing because God is good, then God cannot have any discression.

Pantheists do not hold this to be the case for reasons that should be obvious once the very idea of pantheism is fully understood. If God knows everything it's only because God is everything. But it doesn't follow from this there exists an "ego" that knows everything and can somehow act collectively on all of this knowledge simultaneously. In pantheism God has no ego.

Is it possible that a perfect entity can have will and personality?

In pantheism there is no need to assign a "personality" to God. In fact, the very idea makes no sense in pantheism.

It seems to me that you are basically demanding that the term "God" must be associated with an egotistical, and very human-like entity, that exists totally separate from human beings.

That's not the view of Pantheism. In pantheism when speaking of "God" we are told, "Tat Tvam Asi" from Sanskrit meaning "You are That".

So there is no separate egotistical Godhead in pantheism that has a personality and ego all its own.

And while "God" knows everything being that God is everything, there still does not exist an individual egotistical entity that is this "God" that could act independently based upon all this information simultaneously.

So to even speak of God having a "personality" in pantheism is to exhibit a total misunderstanding of pantheism entirely.