What is the concept of God philosophically?

[Martin Peter Clarke]

God, philosophically speaking....is man's idealization of himself.....
God, forever existing in man's Platonic Cave, his own skull.
God, an abstraction, an idea, an ideal...
Mind.....
Man's own mind, his consciousness, projected into a all-encompassing idea...

God of the ancients, is different....
Gods representing the incomprehensible, nature....death....life....the mysterious....the mystical....

Since Feuerbach, in response to Hegel. Whence Marx and Freud.

[Janoah]

Why don't you ask me the following which are supposedly the Laws of Nature [Biology and human nature];

Are you ready to stop breathing?
Are you ready to stop drinking water?
Are you ready to stop eating food?

Those who are going to live are not ready, because they believe that the law of nature is real, and they will die if they do not eat, etc. Both people and animals, as part of nature, obey the laws of nature.
History knows of cases where religious fanatics jumped off cliffs, believing that miracles can occur with the abolition of law of nature, but miracles with the abolition of law of nature do not exist.
You don't look like a religious fanatic, so you won't jump off a cliff, and You won't refuse food, at most You'll fool Your head with unrealistic verbal schemes, but You won't give up Your faith in the reality of the law of nature, and You'll drink water regularly.

Living entities [single-cell to complex animals] had been living spontaneously for billions of year to the present without the term 'law of nature'.
Humans had also lived for hundreds of thousand of years spontaneously without the term 'laws of nature'.

The law of nature existed, naturally, before the appearance of life on Earth.
The law of gravity existed before the apple fell on Newton's head, without the law of gravity the Earth would not exist.
Scientists discover laws that exist independently of these scientists

[Janoah]

Almost all the topics here mention God.
But to talk about something, you should have an idea about it, unless you are a parrot.
So, what is your definition of God?
This applies to both theists and atheists.
There is a parable, an atheist came to the Rabbi and said to him,
- Rabbi, I don't believe in God.
And the Rabbi answers him,
- I don't believe in the God that you don't believe in either.

What God do you believe in?

In my view, God is the One Law of Nature.
What is your opinion about this view?

[Gary Childress]

Almost all the topics here mention God.
But to talk about something, you should have an idea about it, unless you are a parrot.
So, what is your definition of God?
This applies to both theists and atheists.
There is a parable, an atheist came to the Rabbi and said to him,
- Rabbi, I don't believe in God.
And the Rabbi answers him,
- I don't believe in the God that you don't believe in either.

What God do you believe in?

In my view, God is the One Law of Nature.
What is your opinion about this view?

Is God a conscious being? Does God possess empathy or compassion? Is God "good"? Or is it that God just "is" whether we like the way the world is or not?

Does God have a full range of human emotions, including the bad ones, or does God have no emotion at all?

[Phil8659]

Almost all the topics here mention God.

The word "the" in What is the concept of God philosophically is an ostensive, i.e., you are pointing to something, a single thing, mind sharing what you are pointing to, some one thing? Personally, I have never seen a concept, nor do I know of any grammar system called philosophic, perhaps you can explain that too.

So, while I am waiting, I will simply take the word God by definition. "The power which creates the Universe." Now we know, that there are two, and only two identities in grammar, Literal and Metaphorical, if a thing cannot be literal, it then must be metaphorical, it can never be philosophically.
So, Plato explained it this way. For intelligent life, a species which uses both types of identity, the Physical universe, the material universe, is its own power, so that is the body of God, The intelligible of that is all the power a mind can ever know, rationality, therefore God is the power of the mind. Adding the two powers together, God is the rational product both. This is because grammar is made to manage the universe, by rational response.
So, no, God is not the Jolly Green Giant, and no, God is not an idiot. God is the sum of the powers we must manage, physically and intelligibly.

But go on with your lousy grammar and myth, explain that, if you can, any better than the simple addition of power. I am usually not impressed by someone who cannot perform a simple function, but I am sure you can impress me.
What may be predicated of any thing, is wholly determined by the definition of that thing. Definitions can, by grammatical fact, be either metaphorical, literal or a combination of both.

[Phil8659]

I have never heard that any of the author's you mentioned were even literate.

[Janoah]

What God do you believe in?

In my view, God is the One Law of Nature.
What is your opinion about this view?

Is God a conscious being? Does God possess empathy or compassion? Is God "good"? Or is it that God just "is" whether we like the way the world is or not?

Does God have a full range of human emotions, including the bad ones, or does God have no emotion at all?

That's right, just "is" whether we like the way the world is or not.
The law is not material, therefore nothing material is inherent in it, neither sympathy nor antipathy.

[Gary Childress]

In my view, God is the One Law of Nature.
What is your opinion about this view?

Is God a conscious being? Does God possess empathy or compassion? Is God "good"? Or is it that God just "is" whether we like the way the world is or not?

Does God have a full range of human emotions, including the bad ones, or does God have no emotion at all?

That's right, just "is" whether we like the way the world is or not.
The law is not material, therefore nothing material is inherent in it, neither sympathy nor antipathy.

If there is a God, then that seems plausible.

[Janoah]

Is God a conscious being? Does God possess empathy or compassion? Is God "good"? Or is it that God just "is" whether we like the way the world is or not?

Does God have a full range of human emotions, including the bad ones, or does God have no emotion at all?

That's right, just "is" whether we like the way the world is or not.
The law is not material, therefore nothing material is inherent in it, neither sympathy nor antipathy.

If there is a God, then that seems plausible.

Thanks, Gary, for your opinion.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Those who are going to live are not ready, because they believe that the law of nature is real, and they will die if they do not eat, etc. Both people and animals, as part of nature, obey the laws of nature.
History knows of cases where religious fanatics jumped off cliffs, believing that miracles can occur with the abolition of law of nature, but miracles with the abolition of law of nature do not exist.
You don't look like a religious fanatic, so you won't jump off a cliff, and You won't refuse food, at most You'll fool Your head with unrealistic verbal schemes, but You won't give up Your faith in the reality of the law of nature, and You'll drink water regularly.

Living entities [single-cell to complex animals] had been living spontaneously for billions of year to the present without the term 'law of nature'.
Humans had also lived for hundreds of thousand of years spontaneously without the term 'laws of nature'.

The law of nature existed, naturally, before the appearance of life on Earth.
The law of gravity existed before the apple fell on Newton's head, without the law of gravity the Earth would not exist.
Scientists discover laws that exist independently of these scientists

You're right that, in the conventional scientific framework, laws like gravity are treated as existing independently and "discovered" by scientists. That's how empirical science works—and it's extremely effective.
However, there are nuanced deep philosophical views to the above common sense, convention and philosophical realist views.
You have to widen your thinking vista.

Here's from Kant who argued, the Laws of Nature cannot be absolutely independent from the human conditions. Kant is not saying humans exclusively invented the Laws of Nature like what is dictated by legal laws, but only that we cannot extricate the human factor from the Laws of Nature.

Kant Copernican Revolution explained:

“We ourselves introduce that order and regularity in appearances which we call nature… We could never find them in appearances, had not we ourselves originally set them there.” (CPR A125)

Kant's point in the Critique of Pure Reason isn't to deny gravity or science—it's to explain how we can experience anything like a law-governed nature in the first place.

In other words, the necessity and lawfulness we find in nature isn't just out there waiting to be discovered—it’s a structure our mind contributes to experience itself. The law of gravity is valid within experience—but its lawlike character is not mind-independent; it's grounded in the a priori conditions that make nature intelligible to us in the first place.

Kant’s view doesn’t deny the world—it just says: we only know it as it appears, structured through space, time, and causality, which are not found in things-in-themselves but imposed by the mind. That’s how science becomes possible.

Btw, science never claim there are absolute-certain Laws of Nature awaiting human discover, science merely ASSUME they exist out there to facilitate their quest of more and more polished Laws of Nature. Hope you understand the criticalness of the term 'ASSUME' in this case.

All the above is to restraint theists from reifying an illusory God as a real entity sending messages to prophets and messengers; the messages that demand believers kill non-believers in the name of a religion for the sake of the survival of a man-made religion.

Kant stated, one can THINK of a God, but only as a mere THOUGHT and never something constitutively nor substantial; such a thought-out illusion can nevertheless be a useful illusion to soothe soteriological existential pains.

[Martin Peter Clarke]

Those who are going to live are not ready, because they believe that the law of nature is real, and they will die if they do not eat, etc. Both people and animals, as part of nature, obey the laws of nature.
History knows of cases where religious fanatics jumped off cliffs, believing that miracles can occur with the abolition of law of nature, but miracles with the abolition of law of nature do not exist.
You don't look like a religious fanatic, so you won't jump off a cliff, and You won't refuse food, at most You'll fool Your head with unrealistic verbal schemes, but You won't give up Your faith in the reality of the law of nature, and You'll drink water regularly.

Living entities [single-cell to complex animals] had been living spontaneously for billions of year to the present without the term 'law of nature'.
Humans had also lived for hundreds of thousand of years spontaneously without the term 'laws of nature'.

The law of nature existed, naturally, before the appearance of life on Earth.
The law of gravity existed before the apple fell on Newton's head, without the law of gravity the Earth would not exist.
Scientists discover laws that exist independently of these scientists

As they do of any posited God the ground of being. They would have no choice. They would have to submit, humbly, to that.

[Martin Peter Clarke]

Almost all the topics here mention God.
But to talk about something, you should have an idea about it, unless you are a parrot.
So, what is your definition of God?
This applies to both theists and atheists.
There is a parable, an atheist came to the Rabbi and said to him,
- Rabbi, I don't believe in God.
And the Rabbi answers him,
- I don't believe in the God that you don't believe in either.

What God do you believe in?

In my view, God is the One Law of Nature.
What is your opinion about this view?

Nature excludes God. What is its self-embracing One Law that They are?

[Martin Peter Clarke]

Is God a conscious being? Does God possess empathy or compassion? Is God "good"? Or is it that God just "is" whether we like the way the world is or not?

Does God have a full range of human emotions, including the bad ones, or does God have no emotion at all?

That's right, just "is" whether we like the way the world is or not.
The law is not material, therefore nothing material is inherent in it, neither sympathy nor antipathy.

If there is a God, then that seems plausible.

I agree on the is, from our monkey perspective, but i) not from Theirs; They would be beyond "is"ness. & ii) what's this non-material law?

[Martin Peter Clarke]

Living entities [single-cell to complex animals] had been living spontaneously for billions of year to the present without the term 'law of nature'.
Humans had also lived for hundreds of thousand of years spontaneously without the term 'laws of nature'.

The law of nature existed, naturally, before the appearance of life on Earth.
The law of gravity existed before the apple fell on Newton's head, without the law of gravity the Earth would not exist.
Scientists discover laws that exist independently of these scientists

You're right that, in the conventional scientific framework, laws like gravity are treated as existing independently and "discovered" by scientists. That's how empirical science works—and it's extremely effective.
However, there are nuanced deep philosophical views to the above common sense, convention and philosophical realist views.
You have to widen your thinking vista.

Here's from Kant who argued, the Laws of Nature cannot be absolutely independent from the human conditions. Kant is not saying humans exclusively invented the Laws of Nature like what is dictated by legal laws, but only that we cannot extricate the human factor from the Laws of Nature.

Kant Copernican Revolution explained:

“We ourselves introduce that order and regularity in appearances which we call nature… We could never find them in appearances, had not we ourselves originally set them there.” (CPR A125)

Kant's point in the Critique of Pure Reason isn't to deny gravity or science—it's to explain how we can experience anything like a law-governed nature in the first place.

In other words, the necessity and lawfulness we find in nature isn't just out there waiting to be discovered—it’s a structure our mind contributes to experience itself. The law of gravity is valid within experience—but its lawlike character is not mind-independent; it's grounded in the a priori conditions that make nature intelligible to us in the first place.

Kant’s view doesn’t deny the world—it just says: we only know it as it appears, structured through space, time, and causality, which are not found in things-in-themselves but imposed by the mind. That’s how science becomes possible.

Btw, science never claim there are absolute-certain Laws of Nature awaiting human discover, science merely ASSUME they exist out there to facilitate their quest of more and more polished Laws of Nature. Hope you understand the criticalness of the term 'ASSUME' in this case.

All the above is to restraint theists from reifying an illusory God as a real entity sending messages to prophets and messengers; the messages that demand believers kill non-believers in the name of a religion for the sake of the survival of a man-made religion.

Kant stated, one can THINK of a God, but only as a mere THOUGHT and never something constitutively nor substantial; such a thought-out illusion can nevertheless be a useful illusion to soothe soteriological existential pains.

Kant was wrong. Order is computable. In its opposite. Entropy. Like complexity. Order does not imply meaning.

[Greatest I am]

Before God, I am., is how this Gnostic Christian begins in defining who God is.

Choosing a God is a judgement call and all who know good from evil are told by the Bible to judge all things, including our menu of Gods, and hold to the good.

This is basically the moral of the whole Bible.

It is also why moral, people have rejected Yahweh as a decent God.