What is the concept of God philosophically?

[Belinda]

The belief in demons opposing God is a deviation from monotheism.
For there is nothing that is not subordinate to God.

Demons are what some humans use to explain evil in the world so that they can call God benevolent. Seems to me that if there is a single creator or central supreme being, then it's responsible for everything, good and bad.

Yes, the law of gravity is responsible for the apple falling on Newton's head, hurting him, and on the other hand, contributing well to Newton's discovery of this Law of Gravity.

There are angelically pleasant cases, and “diabolically” unpleasant cases.
But all cases are natural and obey God, the One Law of Nature.

That, Janoah, is what I'd name as the philosophical concept of God.

[Belinda]

Demons are what some humans use to explain evil in the world so that they can call God benevolent. Seems to me that if there is a single creator or central supreme being, then it's responsible for everything, good and bad.

I've met Christians who refer to "the enemy". "The enemy" deliberately temps them away from God or brings miserable events into their lives or makes them feel shame. "The enemy" is some sentient agent that arranges traps and all sorts of diabolical ways of making us miserable, according to them. When talking about transcendent, outside-of-this-world stuff, I guess anyone can say pretty much anything they want, since no one can verify it one way or the other.

It is reasonable that if I posit a person Who is the force for Good then I must posit a person who is the force for Evil,

Why posit such a person? How do you get from reality, now, or ever, to such a person?

Via the linguistic trick of personification.

personification
/pəˌsɒnɪfɪˈkeɪʃn/
noun
1.
the attribution of a personal nature or human characteristics to something non-human, or the representation of an abstract quality in human form.
"the book provides a sustained account of how literary personification works"
2.
a figure intended to represent an abstract quality.
"the knight is accompanied by two feminine personifications of vice"

[Martin Peter Clarke]

It is reasonable that if I posit a person Who is the force for Good then I must posit a person who is the force for Evil,

Why posit such a person? How do you get from reality, now, or ever, to such a person?

Via the linguistic trick of personification.

personification
/pəˌsɒnɪfɪˈkeɪʃn/
noun
1.
the attribution of a personal nature or human characteristics to something non-human, or the representation of an abstract quality in human form.
"the book provides a sustained account of how literary personification works"
2.
a figure intended to represent an abstract quality.
"the knight is accompanied by two feminine personifications of vice"

Why posit such a personification? Go straight to good and evil. But why? Beyond poetry.

[Eodnhoj7]

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.

If God is defined than God is subject to definition and hence not God.

If God is undefinable than God is non existent and hence God as God is not limited to existence and the term God becomes synonymous to nothing.


If God is defined than God is a thing.

If God is undefined than God is not a thing.

If God is subject to either thingness or nothingness than God is not God as God limited in power thus is not all powerful. If God is not subject to thingness or nothingness than God is not God as God is not ever present hence not all powerful.

If God is determined by power than God is not God.
If God is determined by omnicience than God is not God.

The God argument is the essence of paradox, it is merely a process of transforming how we see things as the term God is merely a projection of how we create heiarchies of experience. It is only a mental exercise or rather "dance".

[Belinda]

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.

If God is defined than God is subject to definition and hence not God.

If God is undefinable than God is non existent and hence God as God is not limited to existence and the term God becomes synonymous to nothing.


If God is defined than God is a thing.

If God is undefined than God is not a thing.

If God is subject to either thingness or nothingness than God is not God as God limited in power thus is not all powerful. If God is not subject to thingness or nothingness than God is not God as God is not ever present hence not all powerful.

If God is determined by power than God is not God.
If God is determined by omnicience than God is not God.

The God argument is the essence of paradox, it is merely a process of transforming how we see things as the term God is merely a projection of how we create heiarchies of experience. It is only a mental exercise or rather "dance".

But there are lots of idea which we define that are not things.

The Platonic God is goodness attained through reason.

The OT God has a history , same as the Jewish people, ranging between tribal deity and the God of the OT prophets , all monotheistic, and rather passionate.

One completely incorrect definition of God, and this applies to all cultures and ethnicities, is the God which is the same as self.

[Eodnhoj7]

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.

If God is defined than God is subject to definition and hence not God.

If God is undefinable than God is non existent and hence God as God is not limited to existence and the term God becomes synonymous to nothing.


If God is defined than God is a thing.

If God is undefined than God is not a thing.

If God is subject to either thingness or nothingness than God is not God as God limited in power thus is not all powerful. If God is not subject to thingness or nothingness than God is not God as God is not ever present hence not all powerful.

If God is determined by power than God is not God.
If God is determined by omnicience than God is not God.

The God argument is the essence of paradox, it is merely a process of transforming how we see things as the term God is merely a projection of how we create heiarchies of experience. It is only a mental exercise or rather "dance".

But there are lots of idea which we define that are not things.

The Platonic God is goodness attained through reason.

The OT God has a history , same as the Jewish people, ranging between tribal deity and the God of the OT prophets , all monotheistic, and rather passionate.

One completely incorrect definition of God, and this applies to all cultures and ethnicities, is the God which is the same as self.

Last time I checked an idea is a distinction and we know things as distinctions and reason is grounded on spontaneous assumptions given from impressions of relatively deep or intense experiences...the grounds of reason are not entirely rational so who is to say what is Good or Evil without giving into to a subtle insanity?

If the incorrect definition of God, "is the God which is the same as self" would not defining God in such a manner elevate the individual above God and become the very thing it argues against?

[Greatest I am]

If God is defined than God is subject to definition and hence not God.

If God is undefinable than God is non existent and hence God as God is not limited to existence and the term God becomes synonymous to nothing.


If God is defined than God is a thing.

If God is undefined than God is not a thing.

If God is subject to either thingness or nothingness than God is not God as God limited in power thus is not all powerful. If God is not subject to thingness or nothingness than God is not God as God is not ever present hence not all powerful.

If God is determined by power than God is not God.
If God is determined by omnicience than God is not God.

The God argument is the essence of paradox, it is merely a process of transforming how we see things as the term God is merely a projection of how we create heiarchies of experience. It is only a mental exercise or rather "dance".

But there are lots of idea which we define that are not things.

The Platonic God is goodness attained through reason.

The OT God has a history , same as the Jewish people, ranging between tribal deity and the God of the OT prophets , all monotheistic, and rather passionate.

One completely incorrect definition of God, and this applies to all cultures and ethnicities, is the God which is the same as self.

Last time I checked an idea is a distinction and we know things as distinctions and reason is grounded on spontaneous assumptions given from impressions of relatively deep or intense experiences...the grounds of reason are not entirely rational so who is to say what is Good or Evil without giving into to a subtle insanity?

If the incorrect definition of God, "is the God which is the same as self" would not defining God in such a manner elevate the individual above God and become the very thing it argues against?

Perhaps this quoted false statement is what is confusing you. ---- "the grounds of reason are not entirely rational".

God is me but somehow getting to rule the tribe/church.

[Eodnhoj7]

But there are lots of idea which we define that are not things.

The Platonic God is goodness attained through reason.

The OT God has a history , same as the Jewish people, ranging between tribal deity and the God of the OT prophets , all monotheistic, and rather passionate.

One completely incorrect definition of God, and this applies to all cultures and ethnicities, is the God which is the same as self.

Last time I checked an idea is a distinction and we know things as distinctions and reason is grounded on spontaneous assumptions given from impressions of relatively deep or intense experiences...the grounds of reason are not entirely rational so who is to say what is Good or Evil without giving into to a subtle insanity?

If the incorrect definition of God, "is the God which is the same as self" would not defining God in such a manner elevate the individual above God and become the very thing it argues against?

Perhaps this quoted false statement is what is confusing you. ---- "the grounds of reason are not entirely rational".

God is me but somehow getting to rule the tribe/church.

God is you? You seem to be fighting with yourself....maybe the division is above you.

[Belinda]

But there are lots of idea which we define that are not things.

The Platonic God is goodness attained through reason.

The OT God has a history , same as the Jewish people, ranging between tribal deity and the God of the OT prophets , all monotheistic, and rather passionate.

One completely incorrect definition of God, and this applies to all cultures and ethnicities, is the God which is the same as self.

Last time I checked an idea is a distinction and we know things as distinctions and reason is grounded on spontaneous assumptions given from impressions of relatively deep or intense experiences...the grounds of reason are not entirely rational so who is to say what is Good or Evil without giving into to a subtle insanity?

If the incorrect definition of God, "is the God which is the same as self" would not defining God in such a manner elevate the individual above God and become the very thing it argues against?

Perhaps this quoted false statement is what is confusing you. ---- "the grounds of reason are not entirely rational".

God is me but somehow getting to rule the tribe/church.

You last sentence expresses delusion. God is not you, neither as as a real man or as an internet persona.

[Greatest I am]

Last time I checked an idea is a distinction and we know things as distinctions and reason is grounded on spontaneous assumptions given from impressions of relatively deep or intense experiences...the grounds of reason are not entirely rational so who is to say what is Good or Evil without giving into to a subtle insanity?

If the incorrect definition of God, "is the God which is the same as self" would not defining God in such a manner elevate the individual above God and become the very thing it argues against?

Perhaps this quoted false statement is what is confusing you. ---- "the grounds of reason are not entirely rational".

God is me but somehow getting to rule the tribe/church.

God is you? You seem to be fighting with yourself....maybe the division is above you.

Maybe. Maybe not.

You did not show the conflict you imagine, so I cannot comment on your abstract thoughts.

[Greatest I am]

Last time I checked an idea is a distinction and we know things as distinctions and reason is grounded on spontaneous assumptions given from impressions of relatively deep or intense experiences...the grounds of reason are not entirely rational so who is to say what is Good or Evil without giving into to a subtle insanity?

If the incorrect definition of God, "is the God which is the same as self" would not defining God in such a manner elevate the individual above God and become the very thing it argues against?

Perhaps this quoted false statement is what is confusing you. ---- "the grounds of reason are not entirely rational".

God is me but somehow getting to rule the tribe/church.

You last sentence expresses delusion. God is not you, neither as as a real man or as an internet persona.

Were you born wanting to lead as the fittest, or follow as a rank and filler person?

[Eodnhoj7]

Perhaps this quoted false statement is what is confusing you. ---- "the grounds of reason are not entirely rational".

God is me but somehow getting to rule the tribe/church.

God is you? You seem to be fighting with yourself....maybe the division is above you.

Maybe. Maybe not.

You did not show the conflict you imagine, so I cannot comment on your abstract thoughts.

No, you are...right now.