Can God be defined?

I find that after debating with many people, many don't have a definition of what "God" is. (For even when you go to a church many people have different definitions ; and not many have a "shared definition".) And I find that many people only list Gods, but (and correct me if I am wrong) that listing gods is just like listing various variations of Meats or dogs, you still haven't told me what a "dog" or a "meat" is! Or for that matter : What "God" is!
Also on the same matter, I am genially interested, what is the definition of "existence"?
Because these two issues are vital to the debate : "Does God exist?"
And I hope this question will be taken in good spirit, and that no offence is taken.

Image for post Can God be defined?
Jamess avatar Religion
0 19

God is a sock. Everyone knows this.

Image in content

An intangible, higher being that transcends reality, creator of the universe.

I live by the New Oxford American Dictionary so yes it easily can. Watch this!

God |gäd|
1 [ without article ] (in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.
2 ( god )(in certain other religions) a superhuman being or spirit worshiped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity: a moon god | an incarnation of the god Vishnu.
• an image, idol, animal, or other object worshiped as divine or symbolizing a god.
• used as a conventional personification of fate: he dialed the number and, the gods relenting, got through at once.
3 ( god )an adored, admired, or influential person: he has little time for the fashion victims for whom he is a god.
• a thing accorded the supreme importance appropriate to a god: don't make money your god.
4 (the gods) informal the gallery in a theater.
• the people sitting in this area.
used for emphasis or to express emotions such as surprise, anger, or distress: God, what did I do to deserve this? | my God! Why didn't you tell us sooner? | God, how I hate that woman!


I believe for God to be a supreme being that transcends reality, it must also be above the ability to be defined. Any definition would be made invalid by the very nature of its existence since it is also the opposite of the very definition it is given. To say it is everything that is would be incorrect, because it would also be everything that isn't. The moment we have the thought of what God is, or spoke the words, we are instantly made incorrect because we put a limitation on something that can't be limited. Even my own argument is essentially wrong by this same standard because God would also be the opposition of everything I said.

@ScottyD I believe for God to be a supreme being that transcends reality, it must also be above the ability to be defined...

Something can't be tangible and intangible at the same time. Can't be omnipresent and not at the same time. could be mentally retarded and genius at the same time maybe. But no, just because god created everything doesn't mean he is everything. Can't be everything that isn't either, because if it isn't, then it isn't, and if it was, even if it only existed in god, then you literally can't say that it isn't.

@Frank_n_Furter Something can't be tangible and intangible at the same time. Can't be omnipresent and not at the same time. could...

Take Brahman for example. He is the sum whole of reality itself. Everything that was, is, or will be, exists within him. He is everything all at once. It is possible for a God figure to simple be the creator and source of everything, and have full power over that domain; but if the subject is a supreme god that transcends reality, they must also exist apart from it. They must both exist and not exist within the confines of existence. Any limitation there-in challenges omnipresence and omnipotence. If they lose that, then they are still a God and beyond our comprehension in most aspects, but they can't move beyond that ceiling of power, and any limitation that can be placed on them instantly strips them of being an absolute being.

@ScottyD Take Brahman for example. He is the sum whole of reality itself. Everything that was, is, or will be, exists within...

I guess we just have different ideas about god then because I completely disagree but My reasoning is basically repeating my first comment just slightly altered to fit your reply and it'd go in circles. This is one of those things, I think, where it's interesting to hears others view but pointless to go on about it.

I believe God exists, and can be defined, but everybody has a different definition for him. I could tell you how I define him, but it might be too much to write here.

The only information we have (assuming he exists) is that he created the universe, we don't know what he looks like, and he's above all laws of defined physics and omniscient.

We don't exactly know what rules he governs the universe by, because while the universe he regulates has a moral code, it is blurry at the edges and not strictly enforced by my observations, unless there is some unknown variable to every instance of someone getting different treatment than they deserve that makes it all fair.

The purpose of our lives is considered by many to be to judge whether or not we go to heaven or hell for eternity (depending on which religion is followed specifically), so perhaps all instances of unfairness is simply God throwing varying stimuli at us to see how we act, which suggests a blind spot in his omniscience. One interesting notion is that this is not because he doesn't know, but because he is judging how we view others in moments of strife and glory, to judge us by how we judge others.

That basically leaves God to be defined as an omnipotent, omniscient universal creator, though enforcer of and judge by principles unknown.

The only "real" definition of God I know of is the one He gives in His Word - the Bible. Many don't believe the Bible is His Word, so to those people, anything the Bible says is meaningless.
Simply put - "God is Spirit" - that is what the Bible gives as who or what He is. But defining Him is kind of like trying to define LOVE. How do you accurately do such a thing? Most of us know what love IS and as we start "defining" it, we are really only speaking of characteristics pertaining to it. We describe what it is like or how it behaves and shows itself. But to actually define WHAT love is is nearly impossible.
God says of Himself that He is Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last. He is the eternal, all knowing, all powerful, all present Creator of the universe. The only "knowledge" of or about Him is what He chose to reveal about Himself to us. And the 3 modes He chose to do so (to our knowledge) is Creation, His Word, and His Son.

Of course God can be defined. What can’t really be done is for us to assess God based on our conception of reality, our logic, and our physical senses, as implied by religious people.

The question isn't whether God can or cannot be defined, but whether anything can be defined at all. That is, anything a human cannot prove.

It it assumed God is the higher being, the creator of our universe, it who birthed our Mother Earth. A spirit; a King and A Queen.

But in the end, we only assume.
We cannot prove anything.
So in terms of belief, of course he could.
In terms of thought, hell no.

... what did I just write?

Please   login   or signup   to leave a comment.