confused about god.?

Question

when i think of god i think he was a person like us which alot of poeple thinks so. i personally do not belive in god. however i read on yahoo answers that god is not in form of human and some kind of power. now it kind of makes sense to me. instead of thinking that someone like us created the whole world and us, then who created god himself. and if he is some kind of power not in form of human then how did this power write the bible or why do we have pictures of god as if he is human. thank you.

Answer 1

here's what I've read a while ago by a person named "Fibrosa" - dosen't mean that I beleive it or not- just may be you're interested to find out:

"I think this is a particularly relevant and interesting issue, no matter which side of the ‘pew’ you line yourself up with. Religiosity and church attendance are at an all time high, in fact, belief has never been so common place in America-this is why the topic of God belief is an important issue. According to Michael Shermer:

“For the past two centuries American church membership rates have risen from a paltry 17 percent at the time of the Revolution, to 34 percent by the middle of the nineteenth century, to over 60 percent today.” [1]

With that said, I will introduce some of the arguments either against specific arguments in favor of God or in favor of the non-existence of God. I will be addressing the arguments one at a time, and with proper reference links/cites when appropriate. I’m not going to rattle off a litany of arguments because I feel that more will be gained if we explore them one at a time and in greater detail.

Before I begin, I’m going to define some terms for the purpose of this discussion. These are by no means concrete and we can define them further if need be.

Atheist: Someone without the belief in God. It is not necessarily a position where the person says affirmatively that God does not exist. Atheist is a general statement about a non belief in any God concept.

Hard Atheist: This is the person who says that God does not exist, affirmatively.

Weak Atheist: This is a person who does not feel that there is any quality evidence for the existence of God. They do not rule the concept of God out definitely, but they see no reason to believe in any of the Gods they know of.

Agnostic: Agnosticism is not a position on whether one believes in God or not, it is a position on whether one believes that it is possible to know positively whether God exists or not. Additionally it’s a position on whether God can be known through experience.

I’m fairly certain that everyone will agree with the above-at least to some extent. The next definition, that of God, begins the discussion and the first argument for the non-existence of God.


Before I begin examining the concept of God, I feel justified in asking the following question: Does God require faith? From what I’ve read, most incarnations of God want their believers to believe based off of faith, instead of based off of empirical evidence. If this is true, then atheism is justified-because without doubt there is no faith-only certainty. Now then, onto a bigger problem.

Defining God and the problems therein.

The very first question that should be asked before we can either affirm or deny the belief in an entity is what is the entity in question?

I think we can all agree that if the entity in question is ill defined to the point of utter arbitrariness that it doesn’t make much sense to affirm a belief in the entity; after all, what would we be actually affirming a belief in? A mystery? An abstract concept that has no basis in reality?

In order to be clear on this point, I’ll rely on the words of W.T. Blackstone:

“Until the content of a belief is made clear, the appeal to accept the belief on faith is beside the point, for one would not know what one has accepted. The request for the meaning of a religious belief is logically prior to the question of accepting that belief on faith or to the question of whether that belief constitutes knowledge.”[2]

So without a foundation on which to rest a belief, that belief is by definition nonsensical. I think we can all agree on this. The problem with relating to commonly accepted definitions of what God is, is that since the dawn of time there have been many different definitions of God. Some included the more traditional anthropomorphic God, such as Zeus, Mithra, El, Isis, Horus, etc. These Gods were basically big magical ‘men’, so to speak, in that they were aggrandized versions of humanity. They had human form, emotions, and other characteristics. For the most part Gods of these sorts can be dismissed for the purpose of this discussion as they are not believed in by anyone here, and have been, for the most part, relegated to the dustbin of history.


The other versions of God that are often brought up are the Gods without physical substance, these Gods include, but are not limited to, the God of Abraham (includes Hebrew/Christian/Islamic religions) and Ahura Mazda (granted even these can be argued against). These Gods are often described as omnimax Gods; i.e., all powerful, all benevolent, all knowing, and omnipresent (in most cases). These Gods are the type of God I am concentrating on. They are not defined outside of abstraction, which means they do not have a valid, workable, definition.

It is sometimes argued that God is ‘being itself’. I do not think this is a rational statement however, because it blurs the definition of what we already know with what we do not know in an effort to sustain a belief in something for which none is warranted. If we say that existence or ‘being’ is God, then what is existence? What does ‘being’ mean? These terms become nonsensical when they are relegated to the attributes of God.

As George Smith puts it:


“To divorce the idea of a supernatural being from the concept of god is to obliterate the basic distinction between theism and atheism. If the so-called “theist” or “Christian” is willing to admit that a supernatural being does not exist, then he has capitulated to traditional atheism, and his continued use of the word “god” carries no metaphysical significance.” [3]

So God can not be redefined to mean existence or being, because it confuses the concept and destroys the concept of what it means to have a supernatural God. In short, there is nothing to believe in, other then existence, which is a fundamental axiom already.


To continue on, the other position a theist takes is that God is part of the supernatural. This too has the appearance of definition, but when inspected closely falls apart. When something is claimed to be supernatural, it means that it doesn’t follow the natural laws of the universe. It is somehow outside of the natural world, it is outside of any possible understanding that we, as natural and physical beings, can be privy to-logically/rationally speaking.

Once again, George H. Smith sums it up:


“The first problem with the designation of supernatural (or any equivalent term) is that it tells us nothing positive about a God. “Supernatural” tells us what a god is not-that it is not part of the natural universe-but it does not tell us what a god is. What identifiable characteristics does a god possess? In other words, how will we recognize a god if we run across one? To state that a god is supernatural does not provide us with an answer….the entire notion of a supernatural being is incomprehensible. The theist wishes us to conceive of a being exempt from natural law-a being that does not fall within the domain of scientific explanation-but no theist has ever explained how we can conceive of existence other than “natural” existence. “Natural existence” is a redundancy; we have no familiarity with “unnatural” existence, or even a vague notion of what such existence would be like.“[4]

To claim that god is subject to natural law is to unmake god and to apply limitations to god. Additional claims of omnipotence then entail a logical contradiction and do not hold. Furthermore, since god has to be supernatural, that means that it can not possess determinant characteristics, these characteristics would automatically limit god to the natural (and obviously out of the omnipotent).


So what is god? Well, in order to exist, an entity has to exist as something. Existence can not exist without something to exist, and similarly anything that exists must necessarily be something. The trouble is, god can have no defining determinant characteristics and necessarily must be in the realm of the supernatural. As such, to claim that god exists is to claim that something with no characteristics exists, which is nonsensical.

Ludwig Feuerbach said:


“To deny all the qualities of a being is equivalent to denying the being himself. A being without qualities is one which can not become an object to the mind, and such a being is virtually non-existent“[5]

What is there to believe in? What qualities does the believer believe that God possesses? The standard reply is that God is omnipotent, omniscient, etc. Unfortunately this is not a proper answer, as this tells us what the God is not. These are not positive attributes. Omnipotence tells us that God is without limits in power. It does not tell us how this omnipotence manifests itself, nor how it can be achieved in the knowable world. It in effect, an empty statement, an aggrandizement of what human beings perceive. It is similar to the concept of ‘perfection’, in that it’s an ill-defined subjective term and not part of objective reality. The other ‘omni’s fall because of similar objections. God is without ignorance and there is no place where God isn’t.

Francois Tremblay states:


“To understand how the god-concept is meaningless, I need first to explain what negative defining, and substance, mean.

Something is negatively defined when the identification critically lacks specificity because it tells us what something is not, instead of what something is. For instance, the following identification lacks specificity

“I am not Arthur Daniels Jr.”

While it is true that I am not Arthur Daniels Jr., the identification tells you almost nothing about me. All it tells you is that I am not one particular person. It still leaves the possibility of me being any other person on Earth, or even any other sentient entity in the universe. As such, it critically lacks specificity.

Some categories of attributes interest us specifically, such as : substance, secondary attributes, and relational attributes. The substance of an existant is the basic nature of the material it is composed of. Secondary and relational attributes can only be meaningful insofar as the substance is meaningful and pertains to those specific attributes.

The following propositions can express this clearly.

1. The ball is red.
2. The sound is red.
3. The soul is red.

Proposition 1 is perfectly possible, since we know that balls are made of material which can have colour, such as plastic. Proposition 2 is not possible, as sound arrives to us in the form of sound waves, which cannot have colour. Proposition 3 is meaningless, since souls are “supernatural", which means non-material. All we know is that the soul is not made of matter, but we do not know what it is made of. If we do not know what it is made of, we cannot say what attributes it can take and what attributes it cannot take. Consequently, proposition 3 is meaningless.

If we look at the attributes given to the word “god", we find the same problems. All of its attributes are either negatively defined, secondary or relational. If a god is Creator, then it must be immaterial, as nothing can cause itself. But as we have seen, “immaterial” is a negatively defined term. Therefore a god’s substance is undefined.

This lack of definition is fatal to the meaningfulness of the god-concept, as secondary or relational attributes can no longer apply either. It makes no sense to apply attributes like “unicity” or “loving", or even “personal being", to a being when we do not know the substance of that being.

The other core attributes of the god-concept suffer from the same problems. Gods are Creator, but this is a relational attribute, as it concerns a god’s relationship with the universe. Gods have infinite powers, but the word “infinite” is negatively defined, and therefore ontologically meaningless. Gods are personal beings, but personality is meaningless without knowing whether the substance of a god is capable of intelligence or personality.” [6]


All of this is to say that the god concept is incoherent. If this indeed turns out to be the case, then positive belief in such a concept is not possible. I realize that what you’ve probably just read can be seen as the same argument, drawn out in aggonizing detail. I’ve tried to keep it short-believe me (I’m rather long winded and could go on and on)-and I’ve tried to keep it coherent and on point as much as possible.

With that said, in order to validate a belief in an entity (God) the theist must first define the entity. The definition must include whether the entity is material or immaterial, supernatural or non-supernatural, etc etc. Unfortunately an entity that is material and non-supernatural is not a new entity at all, it’s just a new term for the universe-which is why the pantheistic argument fails. An entity that is supernatural and non-material can not exist because that entity lacks specificity and is empty. A supernatural materialistic entity is a contradiction in terms."

Answer 2

God is both human and non human. There are three Divine Persons in the one God (God the Father,God the Son and God the Holy Spirit) This is known as The Blessed Trinity .God has always existed so no one "created" God (otherwise he would not be God) . God is everywhere and in everything,including you whether you like it or not. God made you just as he made everything.Even if you do not believe in God he will not desert you.If you have an open mind and consider the possibility that there could be a God then it makes sense of why the universe came into existence instead of trying to find a non creation explanation which will never be found.

I guess in the end it all boils down to faith as proving there is a God by scientific and mathematical equations is impossible .Therefore scientists say there is no proof so there must be no God.And yet they can't prove how the universe began but they are happy to use a theory to get them out of trouble. Why can't they at least label God as a theory also,they can't prove he does not exist .Rather ironic wouldn't you say?
For those who believe,no explanation is necessary.For those who do not believe,no explanation is possible.

Answer 3

This question can actually be refuted quite easily. For one thing, consider the audience. This prophet was speaking to people who lived in the Americas, and their only point of reference in the Old World was Jerusalem, the land of their forefathers. Had the prophet said the Messiah would be born in Bethlehem, the listeners might have said, "What? Where is Bethlehem? We have never heard of such a place." Then the prophet probably would have replied, "Well, it's close to Jerusalem." Then they might have said, "Oh, well why didn't you just say he would be born in the land of Jerusalem, then?" LOL Secondly, assuming you are a Christian, I hope you do not apply a double standard when critiquing the Bible. After all, even the Bible (yes, that perfect, infallible book upheld by Christians everywhere) states that someone "was buried at Jerusalem with his fathers in the city of David." (2 Kings 14:20) What?! Well, everyone knows that the city of David is Bethlehem, right? (Luke 2:4) Unless, that is, the writers of the Bible (or, uh, God) got confused! Alternatively, one may conclude that it is perfectly acceptable to say that Bethlehem is in the land of Jerusalem. Otherwise, both the Bible and the Book of Mormon are wrong. Personally, I do not know if Mormonism is true, but for someone to conclude that the Book of Mormon is a fraud because of Alma 7:10 indicates that they are either looking for reasons/excuses to leave the church, or they are just easily deceived by anti-mormon propaganda.

Answer 4

for a human being, most important thing is achievement. everybody knows, so far a proof could not be produced for having seen a god. with one or other background, somebody in the past(this happens even in the present) has created a god with certain name and story behind, and made people to belive it. when that happened with mass people, that easily passed through generation down and become so strong, a word against that become taboo. this happened with almost all present day so called gods. but nothing wrong in it as long as it gives satisfation to people. but what is bad is, a religion or a god started for the benefit of people are now become the main source for destruction of mankind!

Answer 5

Well, the confusion has to be there...
If it was possible to answer, every answer would have been a replica (with a link to a web site !)
Even those who have had the 'experience' of God have been quite 'confused' (since time immemorial !),about how to put it in the form of a verbal communication.
Better to keep the search option with an open mind rather than settling for a false sense of security under 'blind-belief' scheme offered !

Answer 6

If GOD is coherent energy, or a spiritual being, and we are created in GOD's image, this explains the conundrum as to how GOD could create both men and females in the same image. The meat is irrelevant. If GOD gave us understanding, then we eventually wrote down what we believed to have understood. However, our understanding is not perfect. You can lose your way reading the Bible, just as you can find revelation in the daily paper. The difference is in the connection you may or may not have spiritually. We have to ask for understanding, just as we have to ask for a relationship with that spiritual mentor. Without it, we are disconnected. Even with our own temporary power source, eventually we are lost without it. We do not have pictures of GOD as human for the same reason we do not have pictures of ourselves as spirit. That is beyond our comprehension!

Answer 7

The more neuroscientists research the limbic system of our brains, the more we've come to understand where the 'god belief' comes from. The so-called 'god-gene' was a survival mechanism evolved over eons by our primitive barbaric ancestors. The more recent development (cerebral cortex) has only been around for about 100,000 years.

Obsolete genes do not die overnight, so we'll be seeing the irrational belief systems and distorted worldview for some time to come...........

Answer 8

Early man created the "Gods". This new monotheism God has hitched a ride on the deity train and swept up a whole group and stuck in our culture. I sure hope he falls off soon and the real truth comes to light. The ultimate enlightenment.

Answer 9

God is power He has no name or shape or form in particular. Whatever name you chose it OK whatever shape or form you chose to make is OK. Actually human mind needs a point, a shape to think of. You cannot think of nothing. So when you worship, pray, you need a form to concentrate in front of your inner eyes. So we have the pictures of God. As to who wrote the Bible I am not aware as I am a Hindu from India.

Answer 10

People portray God as a human because its much easier to relate to someone similar to yourself, than to a strange energy being. No one knows the origin of the universe, people have theories and beliefs, but no one can tell you the truth. It's just a mystery we cant yet solve.

Answer 11

GOD means something good,pure and just positive energy within all human beings but for some our weak mind and crazy ideas take overhand just for selfish means.If we would go back to being a child and listen to these pure GOOD feelings the world would be a better place.Please try to listen to child within you and you will find your own true GOD of man