How many different versions of God are there?

[Magical Realist]

Estimates put the number of religions on earth to around 4200. But there are far more versions of God than that seeing every believer carries a highly subjective rendition of this being in their own heads. Suffice it say there are probably millions of versions of God/gods out there, each differing from the other in some way.

What does this say about the objective reality of God that so many people disagree on who and what he is? Would something as simply self-evident and objectively manifest as say water have so many different versions of itself? Hardly. Everyone agrees on what water is. It can be pointed to and confirmed quite effortlessly in our experience. And we certainly don't have 4200 different religions with different ideas about what water is. But God? Nothing even approaching the reality of simple water. Endless versions and discussions on who he is, what he is, why he does or doesn't do certain things, etc, without one objective thing to refer to and to compare our suppositions to. What does this say about God, that he's not even real enough to clear up all the disagreements and speculations about him? God..a mere vaporous phantom that morphs and shapeshifts according to the whims and fancies of whatever believer happens to be thinking about him.

 

[Yazata]

MR and I must be thinking in unison. (Scary!) I was thinking about starting a new thread about the meaning of the word 'God', when I saw that MR had started this thread.

Do define the underlined term ['God'].

Does the English language word 'God' even have a clear-cut and universally agreed upon definition?

It looks to me more like a cloud-concept, consisting of all kinds of disseparate ideas and associations that have stuck to the word over the millennia. There's all sorts of material derived from Biblical mythology. There's philosophical speculations, some of them pre-Christian, others patristic, medieval scholastic or more modern. More recently, ideas from other religions, notably Islam and also Hindu theism, have entered the mix and are often taken to be part of what the word 'God' means.

Individual users of the word 'God' consciously or unconsciously make selections from that grab-bag, emphasizing this or that, as their religious purposes demand. That suggests that when one person uses the word 'God', his/her intended usage needn't be idential to or even consistent with how somebody else chooses to use the word. All that the different uses need to possess is some sufficient degree of family resemblance to each other so as to justify employing the same word.

 

[arauca]

Estimates put the number of religions on earth to around 4200. But there are far more versions of God than that seeing every believer carries a highly subjective rendition of this being in their own heads. Suffice it say there are probably millions of versions of God/gods out there, each differing from the other in some way.

What does this say about the objective reality of God that so many people disagree on who and what he is? Would something as simply self-evident and objectively manifest as say water have so many different versions of itself? Hardly. Everyone agrees on what water is. It can be pointed to and confirmed quite effortlessly in our experience. And we certainly don't have 4200 different religions with different ideas about what water is. But God? Nothing even approaching the reality of simple water. Endless versions and discussions on who he is, what he is, why he does or doesn't do certain things, etc, without one objective thing to refer to and to compare our suppositions to. What does this say about God, that he's not even real enough to clear up all the disagreements and speculations about him? God..a mere vaporous phantom that morphs and shapeshifts according to the whims and fancies of whatever believer happens to be thinking about him.

There is only one creator and since there is only one, He does not need to have a name .

 

[krash661]

it's not that there is only one god or creator, but many gods and no one can say who is an actual creator.

a couple of gods claim to create human/mankind.
none claim to create everything.

there were/are many gods before noah's and abraham's god.

 

[kx000]

it's not that there is only one god or creator, but many gods and no one can say who is an actual creator.

a couple of gods claim to create human/mankind.
none claim to create everything.

there were/are many gods before noah's and abraham's god.

Who created God, or the ancestor of all things?

 

[arauca]

it's not that there is only one god or creator, but many gods and no one can say who is an actual creator.

a couple of gods claim to create human/mankind.
none claim to create everything.

there were/are many gods before noah's and abraham's god.

A God can not have a body made out of elements , otherwise it will transform . So I doubt Noah or Abraham have seen God in person.

 

[krash661]

i can already see this is going to be another typical ridiculous conversation.

an·thro·po·cen·tric
ˌanTHrəpōˈsentrik/Submit
adjective
1.
regarding humankind as the central or most important element of existence, esp. as opposed to God or animals.
1. treating humans as preeminent: regarding humans as the universe's most important entity
2. from point of view of humankind: seeing things in human terms, especially judging things according to human perceptions, values, and experiences
anthropocentric responses to the condition of animals

i will also say,
some say god(s) other say IB's or such

 

[Magical Realist]

It looks to me more like a cloud-concept, consisting of all kinds of disseparate ideas and associations that have stuck to the word over the millennia. There's all sorts of material derived from Biblical mythology. There's philosophical speculations, some of them pre-Christian, others patristic, medieval scholastic or more modern. More recently, ideas from other religions, notably Islam and also Hindu theism, have entered the mix and are often taken to be part of what the word 'God' means.

Individual users of the word 'God' consciously or unconsciously make selections from that grab-bag, emphasizing this or that, as their religious purposes demand

Lacking any objective referent at all, it becomes absurd for theists to talk about God as if he has some well-known consensus-derived traits like apples and chairs and vases have. From whence are they deriving this consensus in this grab bag of diverse ascriptions? Does God become the common denominator or average of all god concepts? Or is there some other guiding criteria here?

From my atheist pov talk about God as one objective thing is as futile and silly as talk about the defining traits of the Jabberwocky. There's simply no universal unanimous experience of said entity. So pretending there is is just plain ridiculous. God/Goddess becomes an abstract category or classification for a certain type or character found in different mythic narratives , much as the category of Trickster is exemplified across cultures in such diverse forms as coyote, raven, hare, Loki, the serpent, and the Devil.

 

[kx000]

Lacking any objective referent at all, it becomes absurd for theists to talk about God as if he has some well-known consensus-derived traits like apples and chairs and vases have. From whence are they deriving this consensus in this grab bag of diverse ascriptions? Does God become the common denominator or average of all god concepts? Or is there some other guiding criteria here?

From my atheist pov talk about God as one objective thing is as futile and silly as talk about the defining traits of the Jabberwocky. There's simply no universal unanimous experience of said entity. So pretending there is is just plain ridiculous. God/Goddess becomes an abstract category or classification for a certain type or character found in different mythic narratives , much as the category of Trickster is exemplified across cultures in such diverse forms as coyote, raven, hare, Loki, the serpent, and the Devil.

God is a righteous moral doing heap of power and energy. He knows everything, and is the greatest thing in the universe. Also, he has the powers of creation and free will.

 

[lightgigantic]

Estimates put the number of religions on earth to around 4200. But there are far more versions of God than that seeing every believer carries a highly subjective rendition of this being in their own heads. Suffice it say there are probably millions of versions of God/gods out there, each differing from the other in some way.

What does this say about the objective reality of God that so many people disagree on who and what he is? Would something as simply self-evident and objectively manifest as say water have so many different versions of itself? Hardly. Everyone agrees on what water is. It can be pointed to and confirmed quite effortlessly in our experience. And we certainly don't have 4200 different religions with different ideas about what water is. But God? Nothing even approaching the reality of simple water. Endless versions and discussions on who he is, what he is, why he does or doesn't do certain things, etc, without one objective thing to refer to and to compare our suppositions to. What does this say about God, that he's not even real enough to clear up all the disagreements and speculations about him? God..a mere vaporous phantom that morphs and shapeshifts according to the whims and fancies of whatever believer happens to be thinking about him.

If we include atheistic ideas of God then yes there are millions. Just in another thread there is one such individual making the suggestion that God is the distinguishable supreme person yet they are completely at a loss to explain what those distinguishable qualities are.

Iow lacking any objective reference its mostly absurd for atheists to talk about God.

 

[wynn]

Estimates put the number of religions on earth to around 4200. But there are far more versions of God than that seeing every believer carries a highly subjective rendition of this being in their own heads. Suffice it say there are probably millions of versions of God/gods out there, each differing from the other in some way.

What does this say about the objective reality of God that so many people disagree on who and what he is? Would something as simply self-evident and objectively manifest as say water have so many different versions of itself? Hardly. Everyone agrees on what water is. It can be pointed to and confirmed quite effortlessly in our experience. And we certainly don't have 4200 different religions with different ideas about what water is. But God? Nothing even approaching the reality of simple water. Endless versions and discussions on who he is, what he is, why he does or doesn't do certain things, etc, without one objective thing to refer to and to compare our suppositions to. What does this say about God, that he's not even real enough to clear up all the disagreements and speculations about him? God..a mere vaporous phantom that morphs and shapeshifts according to the whims and fancies of whatever believer happens to be thinking about him.

Why should the fact that there are many ideas about God's identity be a problem?

If "God" would have the same roles as, say, US dollar banknotes, or water, or gasoline, then it would surely be of great importance that everyone have the same ideas about "God."

But beyond that, what does it matter that people have different ideas about "God"? Can anyone explain why this variety is somehow problematic?

 

[Dazz]

Why should the fact that there are many ideas about God's identity be a problem?

If "God" would have the same roles as, say, US dollar banknotes, or water, or gasoline, then it would surely be of great importance that everyone have the same ideas about "God."

So, you're implying that god is not important... Hard to disagree.

But beyond that, what does it matter that people have different ideas about "God"? Can anyone explain why this variety is somehow problematic?

There's no problem. Besides the fact that we are never reaching any kind of consensus on that. And any kind of discussion about such, would become an overwhelming swirlpool of different ideas that leads to what it leads, even now.

 

[Syne]

But there are far more versions of God than that seeing every believer carries a highly subjective rendition of this being in their own heads. Suffice it say there are probably millions of versions of God/gods out there, each differing from the other in some way.

What does this say about the objective reality of God that so many people disagree on who and what he is? Would something as simply self-evident and objectively manifest as say water have so many different versions of itself?

Who said a god was "objectively manifest"? Seems you are demanding a criteria that cannot be applied. The scientific method requires evidence and thus presupposes phenomena inaccessible to its methodology. See: Empirical limits in science

The concept of god is primarily an idealization, which will necessarily differ by culture and is thus equally accessible to all.

Lacking any objective referent at all, it becomes absurd for theists to talk about God as if he has some well-known consensus-derived traits like apples and chairs and vases have. From whence are they deriving this consensus in this grab bag of diverse ascriptions? Does God become the common denominator or average of all god concepts? Or is there some other guiding criteria here?

"Consensus-derived traits" need not be objective, and yes, commonalities do breed consensus, as they do on any subject.

From my atheist pov talk about God as one objective thing is as futile and silly as talk about the defining traits of the Jabberwocky.

Yes, it is rather silly for an atheist to spend such an inordinate amount of time talking about God, especially when they say the concept is incoherent. It would make much more sense for many atheists to define themselves as anti-religious and spend their time talking about the religious, which do have objective traits.

Does the English language word 'God' even have a clear-cut and universally agreed upon definition?
...

Individual users of the word 'God' consciously or unconsciously make selections from that grab-bag, emphasizing this or that, as their religious purposes demand. That suggests that when one person uses the word 'God', his/her intended usage needn't be idential to or even consistent with how somebody else chooses to use the word. All that the different uses need to possess is some sufficient degree of family resemblance to each other so as to justify employing the same word.

"Universal" only denotes having particular things in common, and this does not necessitate having all particulars in common for a term to be useful.

u·ni·ver·sal
adjective
Logic
denoting a proposition in which something is asserted of all of a class.​

The subjective nature of the concept of god does nothing to marginalize the word.

 

[Magical Realist]

Why should the fact that there are many ideas about God's identity be a problem?

If "God" would have the same roles as, say, US dollar banknotes, or water, or gasoline, then it would surely be of great importance that everyone have the same ideas about "God."

But beyond that, what does it matter that people have different ideas about "God"? Can anyone explain why this variety is somehow problematic?

Because to assert the objective reality of something is to also assert a consensual unanimous experience of that thing. There will be certain common traits and properties of the thing that people will agree on. Without this, the reality of that thing will always remain in question.

 

[Yazata]

Lacking any objective referent at all, it becomes absurd for theists to talk about God as if he has some well-known consensus-derived traits like apples and chairs and vases have.

Theists believe that the word 'God' does have a literally existing objective referent. That's basically what makes them theists. Whether or not that's the case, whether something objectively exists out there somewhere in reality that the word 'God' refers to, is probably the most important question in the more theistic varieties of philosophy of religion.

I agree that the collection of ideas associated with the word 'God' doesn't appear to be derived from the observation and description of a single divine object. It looks more like historical accretion to me, sedimentary traces of the various usages that the word 'God' has had over the centuries.

From whence are they deriving this consensus in this grab bag of diverse ascriptions? Does God become the common denominator or average of all god concepts? Or is there some other guiding criteria here?

I'm not convinced that any universal consensus exists. No matter what's said about God, some theist somewhere will doubtless disagree with it. Academic writers have produced many different definitions over the years of what the writers think the essential meaning of 'God' is, and it's telling how different they sometimes are.

Some ideas are more widely shared than others though. That's mostly historical and cultural, I guess. In Western thought, there are obviously the Biblical traces. There's the input of orthodox church teaching on various issues such as the trinity and the incarnation. There's popular religiosity with its signs and wonders. There are philosophical ideas as well, especially from Aquinas and the medieval scholastics, who represented kind of the official philosophy taught in Catholic education for several hundred years.

From my atheist pov talk about God as one objective thing is as futile and silly as talk about the defining traits of the Jabberwocky. There's simply no universal unanimous experience of said entity.

I don't believe that there is. I don't want to close the door on it 100% though. It's possible (a small possibility perhaps, but not quite zero) that God does literally exist as something more than a word and the vaguely defined cloud of ideas associated with it. It's possible that God will someday decide to come out of hiding and prove me wrong. But as things stand today, I think that I'm reasonable in proceeding on the assumption that God doesn't exist.

 

[Franklin]

How many versions of Morality are there? Do the many versions of Morality lessen its importance?

 

[kx000]

How many versions of Morality are there? Do the many versions of Morality lessen its importance?

Yes. There should be one grand moral route.

 

[andy1033]

What does it matter?

 

[kx000]

What does it matter?

Morality? It means only good things happen to others and yourself.

 

[Magical Realist]

Yes, it is rather silly for an atheist to spend such an inordinate amount of time talking about God, especially when they say the concept is incoherent. It would make much more sense for many atheists to define themselves as anti-religious and spend their time talking about the religious, which do have objective traits.

Talking about a delusion that holds the vast majority of people on earth in its grip is silly? No..not when there are so many ill effects from believing in this delusion.

http://reasonism.org/main-content/the-negative-effects-of-religion

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=evOsANlXo2k&feature=player_embedded

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qmwEOuMGxu4&feature=player_embedded

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1fT662iSUJg&feature=player_embedded