Revision as of 20:53, 16 August 2017 view sourcePlewReficuL (talk | contribs)56 edits Undid revision 795839202 by Unibond (talk) still important and relevant to the section← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 20:18, 8 January 2025 view source TessiDon (talk | contribs)185 edits I made copyedit | ||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Short description|Principal object of faith in monotheism}} | |||
{{About|the concept of a supreme "God" in the context of ]|the general concept of a being superior to humans that is worshiped as "a god"|Deity|God in specific religions|#In specific religions{{!}}§ In specific religions|8=other uses of the term|9=God (disambiguation)}} | |||
{{pp|small=yes}} | |||
], an ancient symbol for the metaphysical ]. Early ], particularly ] and ], was connected to the divine for most ], and many believed that there was something intrinsically "divine" or "perfect" that could be found in circles.<ref>], '']: A History of Man's Changing Vision of the Universe'' (1959)</ref><ref>], Tr. Thomas Taylor (1816) Vol. 2, Ch. 2, "Of Plato"</ref>]] | |||
{{About|the supreme being in monotheistic belief systems|powerful supernatural beings considered divine or sacred|Deity|God in specific religions|Conceptions of God|other uses}} | |||
{{Use dmy dates|date=May 2019}} | |||
{{multiple image | {{multiple image | ||
| footer |
| footer = Left to right, top to bottom: representations of God in ], ], ], ], ], and ] | ||
| perrow = 2 | | perrow = 2 | ||
| total_width= |
| total_width = 300 | ||
| image1 = Michelangelo, Creation of Adam 06.jpg | |||
| image2 = Istanbul, Hagia Sophia, Allah.jpg | |||
| image3 = Tetragrammaton Sefardi.jpg | |||
| image4 = 051907 Wilmette IMG 1404 The Greatest Name.jpg | |||
| image5 = Naqshe Rostam Darafsh Ordibehesht 93 (35).JPG | |||
| image6 = Vishnu_from_Gita_Govinda.jpg | |||
}} | |||
In ] belief systems, '''God''' is usually viewed as the supreme being, ], and principal object of ].<ref name="Swinburne"/> In ] belief systems, ] is "a spirit or being believed to have created, or for controlling some part of the ] or life, for which such a deity is often worshipped".<ref>{{multiref | {{Cite dictionary |entry=god |dictionary=Cambridge Dictionary}} | {{Cite dictionary |entry=God |dictionary=Merriam-Webster English Dictionary |archive-date=20 February 2023 |url=https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/god |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230220102221/https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/god |url-status=live}} }}</ref> Belief in the existence of at least one god is called ].<ref>{{multiref | {{Cite dictionary |entry=Theism |url=https://www.dictionary.com/browse/theism |access-date=2023-11-13 |dictionary=Dictionary.com |archive-date=2 December 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231202194557/https://www.dictionary.com/browse/theism? |url-status=live}} | {{Cite dictionary |entry=Theism |url=https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/theism |access-date=2023-11-13 |dictionary=Merriam-Webster English Dictionary |archive-date=14 May 2011 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110514194441/http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/theism |url-status=live}} }}</ref> | |||
| image1 = Michelangelo, Creation of Adam 06.jpg | |||
| width1 = 535 | |||
| height1 = 750 | |||
] vary considerably. Many notable theologians and philosophers have developed arguments for and against the ].<ref name="Plantinga" /> ] rejects the belief in any deity. ] is the belief that the existence of God is unknown or ]. Some theists view knowledge concerning God as derived from faith. God is often conceived as the greatest entity in existence.<ref name="Swinburne">{{Cite book |last=Swinburne |first=R. G. |author-link=Richard Swinburne |title=The Oxford Companion to Philosophy |publisher=Oxford University Press |year=1995 |editor-last=Honderich |editor-first=Ted |editor-link=Ted Honderich |chapter=God}}</ref> God is often believed to be the cause of all things and so is seen as the creator, ], and ruler of the universe. God is often thought of as ] and ] of the material creation,<ref name="Swinburne" /><ref>{{Cite book |last=Bordwell |first=David |title=Catechism of the Catholic Church |publisher=Continuum |year=2002 |isbn=978-0-860-12324-8 |pages=84}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |title=Catechism of the Catholic Church |via=IntraText |url=https://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P17.HTM |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130303003725/https://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P17.HTM |archive-date=3 March 2013 |access-date=30 December 2016}}</ref> while ] holds that God is the universe itself. God is sometimes seen as ], while ] holds that God is not involved with humanity apart from creation. | |||
| image2 = Lord_Muruga_Batu_Caves.jpg | |||
| width2 = 1712 | |||
| height2 = 2288 | |||
Some traditions attach spiritual significance to maintaining some form of relationship with God, often involving acts such as ] and ], and see God as the source of all ].<ref name="Swinburne" /> God is sometimes described without reference ], while others use terminology that is gender-specific. God is referred to by different ] depending on the language and cultural tradition, sometimes with different titles of God used in reference to God's various attributes. | |||
| image3 = Lalita sm.JPG | |||
| width3 = 700 <!-- Width different form original width for alignment reasons --> | |||
| height3 = 882 | |||
==Etymology and usage== | |||
| image4 = Vishnu.jpg | |||
{{Main|God (word)|l1 = ''God'' (word)}} | |||
| width4 = 205 | |||
] bears the earliest known reference (840 BCE) to the Israelite God Yahweh.]] | |||
| height4 = 246 | |||
}}{{God}} | |||
In ], '''God''' is conceived of as the supreme being and principal object of ].<ref name=Swinburne>] "God" in ]. (ed)''The Oxford Companion to Philosophy'', ], 1995.</ref> The ], as described by ], commonly includes the attributes of ] (all-knowing), ] (unlimited power), ] (present everywhere), ], and as having an eternal and necessary existence. Many theologians also describe God as being ] (perfectly good) and ].{{Citation needed|reason=Reliable source needed for the whole sentence|date=August 2017}} | |||
The earliest written form of the Germanic word ''God'' comes from the 6th-century {{lang|la|]}}, containing a ] translation of the ]. The English word itself is derived from the ] *ǥuđan. The reconstructed ] form {{PIE|*ǵhu-tó-m}} was probably based on the root {{PIE|*ǵhau(ə)-}}, which meant either "to call" or "to invoke".<ref>The ulterior etymology is disputed. Apart from the unlikely hypothesis of adoption from a foreign tongue, the OTeut. "ghuba" implies as its preTeut-type either "*ghodho-m" or "*ghodto-m". The former does not appear to admit of explanation; but the latter would represent the neut. pple. of a root "gheu-". There are two Aryan roots of the required form ("*g,heu-" with palatal aspirate) one with meaning 'to invoke' (Skr. "hu") the other 'to pour, to offer sacrifice' (Skr "hu", Gr. χεηi;ν, OE "geotàn" Yete v). ].</ref> The Germanic words for ''God'' were originally ], but during the process of the ] of the ]s from their indigenous ], the words became a ].<ref name="BARNHART323">Barnhart, Robert K. (1995). ''The Barnhart Concise Dictionary of Etymology: the Origins of American English Words'', p. 323. ]. {{ISBN|0062700847}}.</ref> In English, capitalization is used when the word is used as a ], as well as for other names by which a god is known. Consequently, the capitalized form of ''god'' is not used for multiple gods or when used to refer to the generic idea of a ].<ref>]; "God n. ME < OE , akin to Ger gott, Goth guth, prob. < IE base *ĝhau-, to call out to, invoke > Sans havaté, (he) calls upon; 1. any of various beings conceived of as supernatural, immortal, and having special powers over the lives and affairs of people and the course of nature; deity, esp. a male deity: typically considered objects of worship; 2. an image that is worshiped; idol 3. a person or thing deified or excessively honored and admired; 4. in monotheistic religions, the creator and ruler of the universe, regarded as eternal, infinite, all-powerful, and all-knowing; Supreme Being; the Almighty" | |||
God is most often held to be ] (immaterial),<ref name="Swinburne" /> and to be without gender,<ref>David Bordwell, 2002, ''Catechism of the Catholic Church'',Continuum International Publishing {{ISBN|978-0-86012-324-8}} page 84</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P17.HTM |title=Catechism of the Catholic Church – IntraText |publisher= |accessdate=30 December 2016 |deadurl=yes |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20130303003725/http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P17.HTM |archivedate=3 March 2013 |df= }}</ref> yet the concept of God actively creating the universe (as opposed to passively)<ref name=":1">{{cite book|last1=Lang|first1=David|title=Why Matter Matters: Philosophical and Scriptural Reflections on the Sacraments|year=2002|publisher=Our Sunday Visitor|location=Chapter Five: Why Male Priests?|isbn=978-1931709347|first2=Peter |last2=Kreeft}}</ref> has caused{{Dubious|date=September 2016}} many religions to describe God using masculine terminology, using such terms as "Him" or "Father". Furthermore, some religions (such as ]) attribute only a purely grammatical ].<ref>"G-d has no body, no genitalia, therefore the very idea that G-d is male or female is patently absurd. Although in the Talmudic part of the Torah and especially in Kabalah G-d is referred to under the name ']' – which is feminine, this is only to accentuate the fact that all the creation and nature are actually in the receiving end in reference to the creator and as no part of the creation can perceive the creator outside of nature, it is adequate to refer to the divine presence in feminine form. We refer to G-d using masculine terms simply for convenience's sake, because Hebrew has no neutral gender; G-d is no more male than a table is." . "The fact that we always refer to God as 'He' is also not meant to imply that the concept of sex or gender applies to God." Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan, ''The Aryeh Kaplan Reader'', Mesorah Publications (1983), p. 144</ref> Incorporeity and corporeity of God are related to conceptions of ] (being outside nature) and ] (being in nature, in the world) of God, with positions of synthesis such as the "]" of ]. | |||
</ref><ref> {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090419052813/http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/God |date=19 April 2009 }}; "God /gɒd/ noun: 1. the one Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe. 2. the Supreme Being considered with reference to a particular attribute. 3. (lowercase) one of several deities, esp. a male deity, presiding over some portion of worldly affairs. 4. (often lowercase) a supreme being according to some particular conception: the God of mercy. 5. Christian Science. the Supreme Being, understood as Life, Truth, Love, Mind, Soul, Spirit, Principle. 6. (lowercase) an image of a deity; an idol. 7. (lowercase) any deified person or object. 8. (often lowercase) Gods, Theater. 8a. the upper balcony in a theater. 8b. the spectators in this part of the balcony."</ref> | |||
The English word ''God'' and its counterparts in other languages are normally used for any and all conceptions and, in spite of significant differences between religions, the term remains an English translation common to all. | |||
God has been conceived as either ] or impersonal. In ], God is the ] and ] of the ], while in ], God is the creator, but not the sustainer, of the universe. In ], God is the universe itself. In ], God is not believed to exist, while God is deemed unknown or unknowable within the context of ]. God has also been conceived as the source of all ], and the "greatest conceivable existent".<ref name="Swinburne" /> Many notable philosophers have developed arguments for and against the ].<ref name="Platinga" /> | |||
The ] word for 'god' is ], which also as a proper noun referred to the chief deity in ancient Semitic religions. In the ], God is also given a personal name, ], in contrast to the genetic name, and in origin possibly the name of an ] or ] deity who was adopted into ].<ref name="Parke-Taylor2006">{{cite book |last1=Parke-Taylor |first1=G. H. |title=Yahweh: The Divine Name in the Bible |date=1 January 2006 |publisher=] |isbn=978-0889206526 |page=4}}</ref> In many English translations of the ], Yahweh is translated as "the LORD" with "Lord" in all caps.<ref name="Barton2006">{{cite book |author=Barton |first=G. A. |title=A Sketch of Semitic Origins: Social and Religious |publisher=Kessinger Publishing |year=2006 |isbn=978-1428615755}}</ref> ] or Yah is an abbreviation of Jahweh/Yahweh, and often sees usage by Jews and Christians in the interjection "]", meaning 'praise Jah', which is used to give God glory.<ref name="Loewen2020">{{cite book |last1=Loewen |first1=Jacob A. |title=The Bible in Cross Cultural Perspective |date=1 June 2020 |publisher=William Carey |isbn=978-1645083047 |page=182 |edition=Revised}}</ref> In ], some of the Hebrew titles of God are considered ]. | |||
There are many ], and different names are attached to different cultural ideas about God's identity and attributes. In the ancient Egyptian era of ], possibly the earliest recorded monotheistic religion, this deity was called ],<ref>Jan Assmann, ''Religion and Cultural Memory: Ten Studies'', Stanford University Press 2005, p.59</ref> premised on being the one "true" Supreme Being and creator of the universe.<ref>M. Lichtheim, ''Ancient Egyptian Literature'', Vol.2, 1980, p.96</ref> In the ] and ], "He Who Is", "]", and the ] YHWH ({{Lang-he|יהוה}}, which means: "I am who I am"; "He Who Exists") are used as names of God, while ] and ] are sometimes used in Christianity as vocalizations of YHWH. In the Christian doctrine of the Trinity, God, consubstantial in three persons, is called the ], the ], and the ]. In Judaism, it is common to refer to God by the titular ] ] or ], the latter of which is believed by some scholars to descend from the Egyptian Aten.<ref name="freud">Freud, S. (1939). Moses and Monotheism: Three Essays.</ref><ref>Gunther Siegmund Stent, ''Paradoxes of Free Will''. ], DIANE, 2002. 284 pages. Pages 34 – 38. {{ISBN|0-87169-926-5}}</ref><ref>Jan Assmann, ''Moses the Egyptian: The Memory of Egypt in Western Monotheism''. ], 1997. 288 pages. {{ISBN|0-674-58739-1}}</ref><ref>N. Shupak, ''The Monotheism of Moses and the Monotheism of Akhenaten''. Sevivot, 1995.</ref><ref>William F. Albright, ''From the Patriarchs to Moses II. Moses out of Egypt''. The Biblical Archaeologist, Vol. 36, No. 2 (May, 1973), pp. 48–76. doi 10.2307/3211050</ref> In ], the name ] is used, while Muslims also have a ] for God. In ], ] is often considered a ] concept of God.<ref>Pantheism: A Non-Theistic Concept of Deity – Page 136, Michael P. Levine – 2002</ref> In ], God is conceived as the ] (first ancestor) of the universe, intrinsic to it and constantly ] it. Other religions have names for God, for instance, ] in the ],<ref>A Feast for the Soul: Meditations on the Attributes of God : ... – Page x, Baháʾuʾlláh, Joyce Watanabe – 2006</ref> ] in ],<ref>Philosophy and Faith of Sikhism – Page ix, Kartar Singh Duggal – 1988</ref> and ] in ].<ref>The Intellectual Devotional: Revive Your Mind, Complete Your Education, and Roam confidently with the cultured class, David S. Kidder, Noah D. Oppenheim, page 364</ref> | |||
{{tlit|ar|]}} ({{langx|ar|الله}}) is the Arabic term with no plural used by Muslims and Arabic-speaking Christians and Jews meaning 'the God', while {{tlit|ar|]}} ({{lang|ar|إِلَٰه}}, plural {{tlit|ar|`āliha}} {{lang|ar|آلِهَة}}) is the term used for a deity or a god in general.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.pbs.org/empires/islam/faithgod.html |title=God |work=Islam: Empire of Faith |publisher=PBS |access-date=18 December 2010 |archive-date=27 March 2014 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140327034958/http://www.pbs.org/empires/islam/faithgod.html |url-status=live}}</ref><ref>"Islam and Christianity", ''Encyclopedia of Christianity'' (2001): Arabic-speaking ] and ]s also refer to God as ''Allāh''.</ref><ref>{{Cite encyclopedia |title=Allah |encyclopedia=Encyclopaedia of Islam Online |last=Gardet |first=L.}}</ref> ] also use a ] for God. | |||
The many different conceptions of God, and competing claims as to God's characteristics, aims, and actions, have led to the development of ideas of ], ],<ref name="Lataster">{{cite book | |||
|author= ] | |||
|title= There was no Jesus, there is no God: A Scholarly Examination of the Scientific, Historical, and Philosophical Evidence & Arguments for Monotheism | |||
|page= 165 | |||
|year= 2013 | |||
|ISBN= 1492234419 | |||
|quote= This one god could be of the deistic or pantheistic sort. Deism might be superior in explaining why God has seemingly left us to our own devices and pantheism could be the more logical option as it fits well with the ontological argument's 'maximally-great entity' and doesn't rely on unproven concepts about 'nothing' (as in 'creation out of nothing'). A mixture of the two, pandeism, could be the most likely God-concept of all.}}</ref><ref name ="Dawe">{{cite book | |||
|title= The God Franchise: A Theory of Everything | |||
|author = Alan H. Dawe | |||
|year = 2011 | |||
|ISBN = 0473201143 | |||
|page = 48 | |||
|quote = Pandeism: This is the belief that God created the universe, is now one with it, and so, is no longer a separate conscious entity. This is a combination of pantheism (God is identical to the universe) and deism (God created the universe and then withdrew Himself). | |||
}} | |||
</ref> or a ], which postulates that there is one underlying theological truth, of which all religions express a partial understanding, and as to which "the devout in the various great world religions are in fact worshipping that one God, but through different, overlapping concepts or mental images of Him."<ref>''Christianity and Other Religions'', by John Hick and Brian Hebblethwaite. 1980. Page 178.</ref> | |||
In ], ] is often considered a ] concept of God.<ref>Levine, Michael P. (2002). ''Pantheism: A Non-Theistic Concept of Deity'', p. 136.</ref> God may also be given a proper name in monotheistic currents of Hinduism which emphasize the ], with early references to his name as ]-] in ] or later ] and ].<ref name="Hastings541">{{Harvnb|Hastings|1925–2003|p=540|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=Kaz58z--NtUC&pg=PA540&vq=Krishna&cad=1_1}}.</ref> ] is the term used in ].<ref>McDaniel, June (2013), A Modern Hindu Monotheism: Indonesian Hindus as 'People of the Book'. The Journal of Hindu Studies, Oxford University Press, {{doi|10.1093/jhs/hit030}}.</ref> | |||
==Etymology and usage== | |||
] bears the earliest known reference (840 BCE) to the Israelite God Yahweh.]] | |||
{{pp-semi-indef}}{{pp-move-indef}} | |||
{{Main article|God (word)}} | |||
The earliest written form of the Germanic word ''God'' (always, in this usage, ]<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/god|title='God' in Merriam-Webster (online)|publisher=Merriam-Webster, Inc.|accessdate=2012-07-19}}</ref>) comes from the 6th-century ] '']''. The English word itself is derived from the ] * ǥuđan. The reconstructed ] form {{PIE|* ǵhu-tó-m}} was likely based on the root {{PIE|* ǵhau(ə)-}}, which meant either "to call" or "to invoke".<ref>The ulterior etymology is disputed. Apart from the unlikely hypothesis of adoption from a foreign tongue, the OTeut. "ghuba" implies as its preTeut-type either "*ghodho-m" or "*ghodto-m". The former does not appear to admit of explanation; but the latter would represent the neut. pple. of a root "gheu-". There are two Aryan roots of the required form ("*g,heu-" with palatal aspirate) one with meaning 'to invoke' (Skr. "hu") the other 'to pour, to offer sacrifice' (Skr "hu", Gr. χεηi;ν, OE "geotàn" Yete v). ]</ref> The Germanic words for ''God'' were originally ]—applying to both genders—but during the process of the ] of the ]s from their indigenous ], the words became a ].<ref name=BARNHART323>Barnhart, Robert K (1995). ''The Barnhart Concise Dictionary of Etymology: the Origins of American English Words'', page 323. ]. {{ISBN|0-06-270084-7}}</ref> | |||
In ], ] is conceived as the ] of the universe, intrinsic to it and constantly bringing order to it. | |||
]]] | |||
] is the name for God used in ]. "Mazda", or rather the Avestan stem-form ''Mazdā-'', nominative ''Mazdå'', reflects Proto-Iranian ''*Mazdāh (female)''. It is generally taken to be the proper name of the spirit, and like its ] cognate {{tlit|sa|medhā}} means 'intelligence' or 'wisdom'. Both the Avestan and Sanskrit words reflect ] ''*mazdhā-'', from ] mn̩sdʰeh<sub>1</sub>, literally meaning 'placing (''dʰeh<sub>1</sub>'') one's mind (''*mn̩-s'')', hence 'wise'.{{Sfn|Boyce|1983|p=685}} Meanwhile ] are also in use.<ref>Kidder, David S.; Oppenheim, Noah D. The Intellectual Devotional: Revive Your Mind, Complete Your Education, and Roam confidently with the cultured class, p. 364.</ref> | |||
In the ], capitalization is used for names by which a god is known, including 'God'. Consequently, the capitalized form of ''god'' is not used for multiple gods (]) or when used to refer to the generic idea of a ].<ref>]; "God n. ME < OE, akin to Ger gott, Goth guth, prob. < IE base * ĝhau-, to call out to, invoke > Sans havaté, (he) calls upon; 1. any of various beings conceived of as supernatural, immortal, and having special powers over the lives and affairs of people and the course of nature; deity, esp. a male deity: typically considered objects of worship; 2. an image that is worshiped; idol 3. a person or thing deified or excessively honored and admired; 4. in monotheistic religions, the creator and ruler of the universe, regarded as eternal, infinite, all-powerful, and all-knowing; ]; the Almighty" | |||
</ref><ref> | |||
; "God /gɒd/ noun: 1. the one Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe. 2. the Supreme Being considered with reference to a particular attribute. 3. (lowercase) one of several deities, esp. a male deity, presiding over some portion of worldly affairs. 4. (often lowercase) a supreme being according to some particular conception: the God of mercy. 5. Christian Science. the Supreme Being, understood as Life, Truth, Love, Mind, Soul, Spirit, Principle. 6. (lowercase) an image of a deity; an idol. 7. (lowercase) any deified person or object. 8. (often lowercase) Gods, Theater. 8a. the upper balcony in a theater. 8b. the spectators in this part of the balcony." | |||
</ref> | |||
The English word ''God'' and its counterparts in other languages are normally used for any and all conceptions and, in spite of significant differences between religions, the term remains an English translation common to all. The same holds for Hebrew '']'', but ], God is also given a proper name, the ] YHWH, in origin possibly the name of an ] or ] deity, ]. | |||
In many translations of the ], when the word ''LORD'' is in all capitals, it signifies that the word represents the tetragrammaton.<ref name=Barton2006>{{cite book | |||
|author = Barton, G.A. | |||
|year = 2006 | |||
|title = A Sketch of Semitic Origins: Social and Religious | |||
|publisher = Kessinger Publishing | |||
|isbn = 1-4286-1575-X | |||
}}</ref> | |||
] ({{langx|pa|{{IAST|vāhigurū}}}}) is a term most often used in ] to refer to God.<ref>Duggal, Kartar Singh (1988). ''Philosophy and Faith of Sikhism'', p. ix.</ref> It means 'Wonderful Teacher' in the Punjabi language. ''Vāhi'' (a ] borrowing) means 'wonderful', and '']'' ({{langx|sa|{{IAST|guru}}}}) is a term denoting 'teacher'. Waheguru is also described by some as an experience of ecstasy which is beyond all description. The most common usage of the word ''Waheguru'' is in the greeting Sikhs use with each other—''Waheguru Ji Ka Khalsa, Waheguru Ji Ki Fateh'', "Wonderful Lord's ], Victory is to the Wonderful Lord." | |||
'']'' ({{lang-ar|الله}}) is the ] term with no ] used by Muslims and Arabic speaking Christians and Jews meaning "The God" (with a capital G), while "]" ({{lang-ar|'''إله'''}}) is the term used for a deity or a god in general.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.pbs.org/empires/islam/faithgod.html |title=God |work=Islam: Empire of Faith |publisher=PBS|accessdate=2010-12-18}}</ref><ref>"Islam and Christianity", ''Encyclopedia of Christianity'' (2001): Arabic-speaking ]s and ]s also refer to God as ''Allāh''.</ref><ref>{{Cite encyclopedia | title=Allah | encyclopedia=Encyclopaedia of Islam Online | author=L. Gardet}}</ref> God may also be given a proper name in monotheistic currents of Hinduism which emphasize the ], with early references to his name as ]-] in ] or later ] and ].<ref name="Hastings541">{{Harvnb|Hastings|2003|p=540|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=Kaz58z--NtUC&pg=PA540&vq=Krishna&source=gbs_search_r&cad=1_1&sig=lo3NqA31k8hJZw7qNc9QDEAYyYA}}</ref> | |||
''Baha'', the "greatest" name for God in the ], is Arabic for "All-Glorious".<ref>Baháʾuʾlláh, Joyce Watanabe (2006). A Feast for the Soul: Meditations on the Attributes of God : ... p. x.</ref> | |||
Ahura Mazda is the name for God used in Zoroastrianism. "Mazda", or rather the Avestan stem-form ''Mazdā-'', nominative ''Mazdå'', reflects Proto-Iranian ''*Mazdāh (female)''. It is generally taken to be the proper name of the spirit, and like its ] cognate ''medhā'', means "]" or "]". Both the Avestan and Sanskrit words reflect ] ''*mazdhā-'', from ] mn̩sdʰeh<sub>1</sub>'', literally meaning "placing (''dʰeh<sub>1</sub>'') one's mind (''*mn̩-s'')", hence "wise".{{Sfn|Boyce|1983|p=685}} | |||
Other names for God include ]<ref>Assmann, Jan. ''Religion and Cultural Memory: Ten Studies'', Stanford University Press 2005, p. 59.</ref> in ancient Egyptian ] where Aten was proclaimed to be the one "true" supreme being and creator of the universe,<ref>] (1980). ''Ancient Egyptian Literature'', Vol. 2, p. 96.</ref> ] in ],<ref>{{Cite book |last1=Afigbo |first1=A. E |url=https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/61361536 |title=Myth, history and society: the collected works of Adiele Afigbo |last2=Falola |first2=Toyin |date=2006 |publisher=Africa World Press |isbn=978-1592214198 |location=Trenton, New Jersey |language=En-us |oclc=61361536 |access-date=11 March 2023 |archive-date=23 May 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240523094823/https://search.worldcat.org/title/61361536 |url-status=live}}</ref> and ] in ].<ref name="Buckley 2002">{{cite book |last=Buckley |first=Jorunn Jacobsen |title=The Mandaeans: ancient texts and modern people |publisher=Oxford University Press |year=2002 |isbn=0195153855 |publication-place=New York |oclc=65198443}}</ref><ref name=Nashmi>{{Citation |last=Nashmi |first=Yuhana |title=Contemporary Issues for the Mandaean Faith |website=Mandaean Associations Union |date=24 April 2013 |url=http://www.mandaeanunion.com/history-english/item/488-mandaean-faith |access-date=28 December 2021 |archive-date=31 October 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211031155605/http://www.mandaeanunion.com/history-english/item/488-mandaean-faith |url-status=live}}</ref> | |||
Waheguru ({{lang-pa|''{{IAST|vāhigurū}}''}}) is a term most often used in ] to refer to God. It means "Wonderful Teacher" in the Punjabi language. ''Vāhi'' (a Middle Persian borrowing) means "wonderful" and '']'' ({{lang-sa|''{{IAST|guru}}''}}) is a term denoting "teacher". Waheguru is also described by some as an experience of ecstasy which is beyond all descriptions. The most common usage of the word "Waheguru" is in the greeting Sikhs use with each other: | |||
: ''Waheguru Ji Ka Khalsa, Waheguru Ji Ki Fateh'' | |||
: Wonderful Lord's ], Victory is to the Wonderful Lord. | |||
''Baha'', the "greatest" name for God in the Baha'i faith, is Arabic for "All-Glorious". | |||
==General conceptions== | ==General conceptions== | ||
{{Main article|Conceptions of God}} | |||
===Existence=== | |||
There is no clear consensus on the nature or even the ].<ref>{{cite journal|last=Froese|first=Paul|author2=Christopher Bader|title=Does God Matter? A Social-Science Critique|journal=Harvard Divinity Bulletin|date=Fall–Winter 2004|volume=32|series=4}}</ref> The ] include the ] definition of God in ], the ] view of ], and the ]. | |||
{{Main|Existence of God}} | |||
The ] differ in their view of the divine: views of ] vary by region, sect, and caste, ranging from monotheistic to polytheistic. Many polytheistic religions share the idea of a ], though having a name other than "God" and without all of the other roles attributed to a singular God by monotheistic religions. ] and ] are polytheistic and ]. | |||
{{See also|Theism|Atheism|Agnosticism}} | |||
] summed up ] as proofs for God's existence. Painting by ], 1476.]] | |||
]'' (1770) argues that belief in God is based on fear, lack of understanding and ].]] | |||
The existence of God is a subject of debate in ], ] and ].<ref>See e.g. ''The Rationality of Theism'' quoting ], "God is not 'dead' in academia; it returned to life in the late 1960s." They cite the shift from hostility towards theism in Paul Edwards's ''Encyclopedia of Philosophy'' (1967) to sympathy towards theism in the more recent '']''.</ref> In philosophical terms, the question of the existence of God involves the disciplines of ] (the nature and scope of knowledge) and ] (study of the nature of ] or ]) and the ] (since some definitions of God include "perfection"). | |||
===Oneness=== | |||
{{Main article|Monotheism|Henotheism}} | |||
], ] (embodied metaphysically in the physical realm by ]), and ].]] | |||
]s refer to any argument for the existence of God that is based on ''a priori'' reasoning.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ontological-arguments/ |title=Ontological Arguments |publisher=Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy |access-date=27 December 2022 |archive-date=25 May 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230525190107/https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ontological-arguments/ |url-status=live}}</ref> Notable ontological arguments were formulated by ] and ].<ref>{{cite book |editor-last=Kreeft |editor-first=Peter |title=Summa of the Summa |year=1990 |publisher=Ignatius Press |pages=65–69 |first=Thomas |last=Aquinas}}</ref> ]s use concepts around the origin of the universe to argue for the existence of God. | |||
] hold that there is only one god, and may claim that the one true god is worshiped in different religions under different names. The view that all theists actually worship the same god, whether they know it or not, is especially emphasized in ]<ref>See Swami Bhaskarananda, ''Essentials of Hinduism'' (Viveka Press 2002) {{ISBN|1-884852-04-1}}</ref> and ].<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.srigranth.org/servlet/gurbani.gurbani?Action=Page&Param=1350&english=t&id=57718 |title=Sri Guru Granth Sahib |publisher=Sri Granth |accessdate=2011-06-30}}</ref> In ], the ] describes God as one God in three persons. The Trinity comprises ], ] (embodied metaphysically by ]), and ].<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.whataboutjesus.com/grace/actions-god-series/what-trinity?page=0,0 |title=What Is the Trinity? |deadurl=yes |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20140219020335/http://www.whataboutjesus.com/grace/actions-god-series/what-trinity?page=0%2C0 |archivedate=2014-02-19 |df= }}</ref> ]'s most fundamental concept is '']'' (meaning "oneness" or "uniqueness"). God is described in the ] as: "Say: He is Allah, the One and Only; Allah, the Eternal, Absolute; He begetteth not, nor is He begotten; And there is none like unto Him."<ref>{{Cite quran|112|1|end=4|style=ref}}</ref><ref>{{Cite encyclopedia | title=Allah, Tawhid | encyclopedia=Encyclopædia Britannica Online | author=D. Gimaret}}</ref> Muslims repudiate the Christian doctrine of the ] and the divinity of ], comparing it to ]. In Islam, God is beyond all comprehension or equal and does not resemble any of his creations in any way. Thus, ]s are not ], and are not expected to visualize God.<ref name=":3">{{cite book | |||
|author = Robyn Lebron | |||
|year = 2012 | |||
|title = Searching for Spiritual Unity...Can There Be Common Ground? | |||
|publisher = | |||
|isbn = 1-4627-1262-2 | |||
|page = 117 | |||
}}</ref> | |||
The ], also called "argument from design", uses the complexity within the universe as a proof of the existence of God.<ref>{{cite encyclopedia |url=https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/teleological-arguments/ |entry=Teleological Arguments for God’s Existence |encyclopedia=Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy |orig-date=2005 |date=10 June 2005 |last1=Ratzsch |first1=Del |last2=Koperski |first2=Jeffrey |title=Teleological Arguments for God's Existence |access-date=30 December 2022 |archive-date=7 October 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191007141418/https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/teleological-arguments/ |url-status=live}}</ref> It is countered that the ] required for a stable universe with life on earth is illusory, as humans are only able to observe the small part of this universe that succeeded in making such observation possible, called the ], and so would not learn of, for example, life on other planets or of ] that did not occur because of different ].<ref>{{cite web |url=https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fine-tuning/ |title=Fine-Tuning |website=The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy |publisher=Center for the Study of Language and Information (CSLI), Stanford University |access-date=December 29, 2022 |date=Aug 22, 2017 |archive-date=10 October 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231010234820/https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fine-tuning/ |url-status=live}}</ref> Non-theists have argued that complex processes that have natural explanations yet to be discovered are referred to the supernatural, called ]. Other theists, such as ] who believed ] was acceptable, have also argued against versions of the teleological argument and held that it is limiting of God to view him having to only intervene specially in some instances rather than having complex processes designed to create order.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Chappell |first1=Jonathan |year=2015 |title=A Grammar of Descent: John Henry Newman and the Compatibility of Evolution with Christian Doctrine |journal=Science and Christian Belief |volume=27 |issue=2 |pages=180–206 |doi= |pmid= |bibcode=}}</ref> | |||
] is the belief and worship of a single god while accepting the existence or possible existence of other ].<ref>Müller, Max. (1878) ''Lectures on the Origin and Growth of Religion: As Illustrated by the Religions of India.'' London:Longmans, Green and Co.</ref> | |||
The ] states that this universe happens to contain special beauty in it and that there would be no particular reason for this over aesthetic neutrality other than God.<ref>{{cite book |author=Swinburne |first=Richard |title=The Existence of God |publisher=Oxford University Press |year=2004 |isbn=978-0199271689 |edition=2nd |pages=190–91}}</ref> This has been countered by pointing to the existence of ugliness in the universe.<ref>{{cite book |title=The existence of God |publisher=Watts & Co. |page=75 |edition=1}}</ref> This has also been countered by arguing that beauty has no objective reality and so the universe could be seen as ugly or that humans have made what is more beautiful than nature.<ref>''Minority Report'', H. L. Mencken's Notebooks, Knopf, 1956.</ref> | |||
===Theism, deism and pantheism=== | |||
{{Main article|Theism|Deism|Pantheism}} | |||
The ] argues for the existence of God given the assumption of the objective existence of ]s.<ref>{{cite book |title=Atheism: A Philosophical Justification |publisher=Temple University Press |year=1992 |pages=213–214 |author=Martin, Michael |isbn=978-0877229438}}</ref> While prominent non-theistic philosophers such as the atheist ] agreed that the argument is valid, they disagreed with its premises. ] argued that there is no basis to believe in objective moral truths while biologist ] theorized that the feelings of morality are a by-product of natural selection in humans and would not exist independent of the mind.<ref>{{cite book |last1=Craig |first1=William Lane |title=The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology |last2=Moreland |first2=J. P. |publisher=John Wiley & Sons |year=2011 |isbn=978-1444350852 |page=393}}</ref> Philosopher ] argued that a subjective account for morality can be acceptable. Similar to the argument from morality is the ] which argues for the existence of God given the existence of a conscience that informs of right and wrong, even against prevailing moral codes. Philosopher ] instead argued that conscience is a social construct and thus could lead to contradicting morals.<ref>{{cite book |author=Parkinson |first=G. H. R. |title=An Encyclopedia of Philosophy |publisher=Taylor & Francis |year=1988 |isbn=978-0415003230 |pages=344–345}}</ref> | |||
] generally holds that God exists realistically, objectively, and independently of human thought; that God created and sustains everything; that God is omnipotent and eternal; and that God is personal and interacting with the universe through, for example, ] and the prayers of humans.<ref name="smart">{{cite book|last=Smart|first=Jack|authorlink= J. J. C. Smart|author2=John Haldane|title=Atheism and Theism|publisher=Blackwell Publishing|year=2003|isbn=0-631-23259-1|page=8}}</ref> Theism holds that God is both transcendent and immanent; thus, God is simultaneously infinite and, in some way, present in the affairs of the world.<ref name="lemos">{{cite book|last=Lemos|first=Ramon M.|title=A Neomedieval Essay in Philosophical Theology|publisher=Lexington Books|year=2001|isbn=0-7391-0250-8|page=34}}</ref> Not all theists subscribe to all of these propositions, but each usually subscribes to some of them (see, by way of comparison, ]).<ref name="smart" /> Catholic theology holds that God is ] and is not involuntarily subject to time. Most theists hold that God is omnipotent, omniscient, and benevolent, although this belief raises questions about God's responsibility for evil and suffering in the world. Some theists ascribe to God a self-conscious or purposeful limiting of omnipotence, omniscience, or benevolence. ], by contrast, contends that, due to the nature of time, God's omniscience does not mean the deity can predict the future. ''Theism'' is sometimes used to refer in general to any belief in a god or gods, i.e., monotheism or ].<ref name="philosofrelGlossthe">{{cite web|url=http://www.philosophyofreligion.info/definitions.html|title=Philosophy of Religion.info – Glossary – Theism, Atheism, and Agonisticism|publisher=Philosophy of Religion.info|accessdate=2008-07-16|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20080424071443/http://www.philosophyofreligion.info/definitions.html|archivedate=2008-04-24}}</ref><ref name="TFDtheism">{{cite web|url=http://www.thefreedictionary.com/theism|title=Theism – definition of theism by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia|publisher=]|accessdate=2008-07-16}}</ref>]", a watercolor painting depicting God, by ] (1757–1827)]]] holds that God is wholly ]: God exists, but does not intervene in the world beyond what was necessary to create it.<ref name=lemos /> In this view, God is not ], and neither answers prayers nor produces miracles. Common in Deism is a belief that God has no interest in humanity and may not even be aware of humanity. ] combines Deism with Pantheistic beliefs.<ref name ="Dawe"/><ref>{{cite book |title= The History of Science: A Beginner's Guide |author = Sean F. Johnston |year = 2009 |ISBN = 1-85168-681-9 |page = 90 |quote = In its most abstract form, deism may not attempt to describe the characteristics of such a non-interventionist creator, or even that the universe is identical with God (a variant known as pandeism).}}</ref><ref>{{cite book |title= This Strange Eventful History: A Philosophy of Meaning |author = Paul Bradley |year = 2011 |ISBN = 0875868762 |page = 156 |quote = Pandeism combines the concepts of Deism and Pantheism with a god who creates the universe and then becomes it.}}</ref> Pandeism is proposed to explain as to Deism why God would create a universe and then abandon it,<ref name="Fuller">{{cite book |title= Thought: The Only Reality |author = Allan R. Fuller |year = 2010 |ISBN = 1608445909 |page = 79 |quote = Pandeism is another belief that states that God is identical to the universe, but God no longer exists in a way where He can be contacted; therefore, this theory can only be proven to exist by reason. Pandeism views the entire universe as being from God and now the universe is the entirety of God, but the universe at some point in time will fold back into one single being which is God Himself that created all. Pandeism raises the question as to why would God create a universe and then abandon it? As this relates to pantheism, it raises the question of how did the universe come about what is its aim and purpose?}}</ref> and as to Pantheism, the origin and purpose of the universe.<ref name="Fuller"/><ref>{{cite book |title= Ultimate Truth, Book 1 |author = Peter C. Rogers |year = 2009 |ISBN = 1438979681 |page = 121 |quote = As with Panentheism, Pantheism is derived from the Greek: 'pan'= all and 'theos' = God, it literally means "God is All" and "All is God." Pantheist purports that everything is part of an all-inclusive, indwelling, intangible God; or that the Universe, or nature, and God are the same. Further review helps to accentuate the idea that natural law, existence, and the Universe which is the sum total of all that is, was, and shall be, is represented in the theological principle of an abstract 'god' rather than an individual, creative Divine Being or Beings of any kind. This is the key element which distinguishes them from Panentheists and Pandeists. As such, although many religions may claim to hold Pantheistic elements, they are more commonly Panentheistic or Pandeistic in nature.}}</ref> | |||
] is, in a broad sense, the rejection of ] in the existence of deities.<ref>Nielsen 2013</ref><ref>Edwards 2005"</ref> ] is the view that the ]s of certain claims—especially ] and religious claims such as ], the ] or the ] exist—are unknown and perhaps unknowable.<ref>], an English biologist, was the first to come up with the word ''agnostic'' in 1869 {{Cite book |last=Dixon |first=Thomas |title=Science and Religion: A Very Short Introduction |publisher=Oxford University Press |year=2008 |location=Oxford |page=63 |isbn=978-0199295517}} However, earlier authors and published works have promoted an agnostic points of view. They include ], a 5th-century BCE Greek philosopher. {{cite web |url=http://www.iep.utm.edu/p/protagor.htm |title=The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy – Protagoras (c. 490 – c. 420 BCE) |access-date=6 October 2008 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20081014181706/http://www.iep.utm.edu/p/protagor.htm |archive-date=14 October 2008 |url-status=live}}</ref><ref name="Hepburn">{{cite encyclopedia |year=2005 |title=Agnosticism |encyclopedia=] |publisher=MacMillan Reference US (Gale) |last=Hepburn |first=Ronald W. |orig-date=1967 |editor=Borchert |editor-first=Donald M. |edition=2nd |volume=1 |page=92 |isbn=978-0028657806 |quote=In the most general use of the term, agnosticism is the view that we do not know whether there is a God or not.}} (p. 56 in 1967 edition).</ref><ref name="RoweRoutledge">{{cite encyclopedia |year=1998 |title=Agnosticism |encyclopedia=] |publisher=Taylor & Francis |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=VQ-GhVWTH84C&q=agnosticism&pg=PA122 |last=Rowe |first=William L. |author-link=William L. Rowe |isbn=978-0415073103 |editor-first=Edward |editor-last=Craig |access-date=11 November 2020 |archive-date=23 May 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240523094732/https://books.google.com/books?id=VQ-GhVWTH84C&q=agnosticism&pg=PA122 |url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite encyclopedia |year=2012 <!--|access-date=22 July 2013--> |entry=agnostic, agnosticism |dictionary=Oxford English Dictionary Online |publisher=Oxford University Press |edition=3rd}</ref> ] generally holds that God exists objectively and independently of human thought and is sometimes used to refer to any belief in God or gods. | |||
] holds that God is the universe and the universe is God, whereas ] holds that God contains, but is not identical to, the Universe.<ref>John Culp (2013). ''Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy'', Spring.</ref> It is also the view of the ]; ]; some views of Hinduism except ], which believes in panentheism; Sikhism; some divisions of ] and ], along with many varying denominations and individuals within denominations. ], Jewish mysticism, paints a pantheistic/panentheistic view of God—which has wide acceptance in ], particularly from their founder ]—but only as an addition to the Jewish view of a personal god, not in the original pantheistic sense that denies or limits persona to God.{{Citation needed|date=March 2012}} | |||
Some view the existence of God as an empirical question. ] states that "a universe with a god would be a completely different kind of universe from one without, and it would be a scientific difference".<ref name="Dawkins">{{cite news |last=Dawkins |first=Richard |author-link=Richard Dawkins |title=Why There Almost Certainly Is No God |url=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/richard-dawkins/why-there-almost-certainl_b_32164.html |access-date=10 January 2007 |work=The Huffington Post |date=23 October 2006 |archive-date=6 October 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181006010610/https://www.huffingtonpost.com/richard-dawkins/why-there-almost-certainl_b_32164.html |url-status=live}}</ref> ] argued that the doctrine of a Creator of the Universe was difficult to prove or disprove and that the only conceivable scientific discovery that could disprove the existence of a Creator (not necessarily a God) would be the discovery that the universe is infinitely old.<ref>{{cite book |title=The Demon Haunted World |page=278 |last=Sagan |first=Carl |author-link=Carl Sagan |year=1996 |publisher=Ballantine Books |location=New York |isbn=978-0345409461}}</ref> Some theologians, such as ], argue that the existence of God is not a question that can be answered using the ].<ref name="mcgrath2005">{{cite book |author=McGrath |first=Alister E. |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=V9dr6167AJ8C |title=Dawkins' God: genes, memes, and the meaning of life |publisher=Wiley-Blackwell |year=2005 |isbn=978-1405125390}}</ref><ref name="barackman2001">{{cite book |author=Barackman |first=Floyd H. |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=Jb5aRB7OxWsC |title=Practical Christian Theology: Examining the Great Doctrines of the Faith |publisher=Kregel Academic |year=2001 |isbn=978-0825423802}}</ref> | |||
===Other concepts=== | |||
], which is related to ], is a form of theism which holds that God is either not wholly good or is fully malevolent as a consequence of the ]. One such example comes from ]'s '']'', in which Ivan Karamazov rejects God on the grounds that he allows children to suffer.<ref> pp259-261</ref> | |||
] ] argued that science and religion are not in conflict and proposed an approach dividing the world of philosophy into what he called "]" (NOMA).<ref>{{cite book |title=Leonardo's Mountain of Clams and the Diet of Worms |last=Gould |first=Stephen J. |page=274 |publisher=Jonathan Cape |year=1998 |isbn=978-0224050432}}</ref> In this view, questions of the ], such as those relating to the ] and nature of God, are ]-] and are the proper domain of ]. The methods of science should then be used to answer any empirical question about the natural world, and theology should be used to answer questions about ultimate meaning and moral value. In this view, the perceived lack of any empirical footprint from the magisterium of the supernatural onto natural events makes science the sole player in the natural world.<ref name="Dawkins-Delusion">{{cite book |title=The God Delusion |last=Dawkins |first=Richard |author-link=Richard Dawkins |year=2006 |publisher=Bantam Press |location=Great Britain |isbn=978-0618680009}}</ref> ] and co-author ] state in their 2010 book, '']'', that it is reasonable to ask who or what created the universe, but if the answer is God, then the question has merely been deflected to that of who created God. Both authors claim, however, that it is possible to answer these questions purely within the realm of science and without invoking divine beings.<ref>{{cite book |author=Hawking |first1=Stephen |url=https://archive.org/details/granddesign0000hawk |title=The Grand Design |last2=Mlodinow |first2=Leonard |publisher=Bantam Books |year=2010 |isbn=978-0553805376 |page= |url-access=registration}}</ref><ref>Krauss, L. ''A Universe from Nothing''. Free Press, New York. 2012. {{ISBN|978-1451624458}}.</ref> | |||
In modern times, some more abstract concepts have been developed, such as ] and ]. The contemporaneous French philosopher ] has however proposed a ] as ] essence of ].<ref>{{cite book|last=Henry|first=Michel|title=I am the Truth. Toward a philosophy of Christianity|publisher=Stanford University Press|year=2003|isbn=0-8047-3780-0|others=Translated by Susan Emanuel}}</ref> | |||
===Oneness=== | |||
God has also been conceived as being ] (immaterial), a ] being, the source of all ], and the "greatest conceivable existent".<ref name=Swinburne/> These attributes were all supported to varying degrees by the early ], ] and ] theologian philosophers, including ],<ref name=Edwards /> ],<ref name="Edwards">]. "God and the philosophers" in ]. (ed)''The Oxford Companion to Philosophy'', ], 1995. {{ISBN|978-1-61592-446-2}}.</ref> and ],<ref name=Platinga>]. "God, Arguments for the Existence of", ''Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy'', Routledge, 2000.</ref> respectively. | |||
{{Main|Deity|Monotheism|Henotheism}} | |||
] | |||
A deity, or "god" (with ] ''g''), refers to a supernatural being.<ref name="OBrien">{{cite book |last1=O'Brien |first1=Jodi |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=_nyHS4WyUKEC |title=Encyclopedia of Gender and Society |publisher=Sage |year=2009 |isbn=978-1412909167 |location=Los Angeles |page=191 |access-date=28 June 2017 |archive-date=13 January 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230113144056/https://books.google.com/books?id=_nyHS4WyUKEC |url-status=live}}</ref> ] is the belief that there is only one deity, referred to as "God" (with uppercase ''g''). Comparing or equating other entities to God is viewed as ] in monotheism, and is often strongly condemned. ] is one of the oldest monotheistic traditions in the world.<ref>{{Cite web |url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/judaism/ |title=BBC – Religion: Judaism |website=www.bbc.co.uk |access-date=31 August 2022 |archive-date=5 August 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220805174338/https://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/judaism/ |url-status=live}}</ref> Islam's most fundamental concept is '']'', meaning 'oneness' or "uniqueness'.<ref>{{Cite encyclopedia |title=Allah, Tawhid |encyclopedia=Encyclopædia Britannica Online |last=Gimaret |first=D.}}</ref> The first ] is an ] that forms the basis of the religion and which non-Muslims wishing to convert must recite, declaring that, "I testify that there is no deity except God."<ref>Mohammad, N. 1985. "The doctrine of jihad: An introduction". '']'' 3(2): 381–397.</ref> | |||
==Non-theistic views== | |||
{{See also|Evolutionary origin of religions|Evolutionary psychology of religion}} | |||
] views about God also vary. Some non-theists avoid the concept of God, whilst accepting that it is significant to many; other non-theists understand God as a symbol of human values and aspirations. The nineteenth-century English ] ] declared that he refused to say "There is no God", because "the word 'God' is to me a sound conveying no clear or distinct affirmation";<ref>"A Plea for Atheism. By 'Iconoclast{{'"}}, London, Austin & Co., 1876, p. 2.</ref> he said more specifically that he disbelieved in the Christian god. ] proposed an approach dividing the world of philosophy into what he called "]" (NOMA). In this view, questions of the ], such as those relating to the ] and ] of God, are ]-] and are the proper domain of ]. The methods of science should then be used to answer any empirical question about the natural world, and theology should be used to answer questions about ultimate meaning and moral value. In this view, the perceived lack of any empirical footprint from the magisterium of the supernatural onto natural events makes science the sole player in the natural world.<ref name="Dawkins-Delusion">{{cite book |title=The God Delusion |last=Dawkins |first=Richard |authorlink=Richard Dawkins |year=2006 |publisher=Bantam Press |location=Great Britain |isbn=0-618-68000-4}}</ref> | |||
In Christianity, the ] describes ] as one God in ], ] (]), and ].<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.whataboutjesus.com/grace/actions-god-series/what-trinity?page=0,0 |title=What Is the Trinity? |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140219020335/http://www.whataboutjesus.com/grace/actions-god-series/what-trinity?page=0%2C0 |archive-date=19 February 2014}}</ref> In past centuries, this fundamental mystery of the Christian faith was also summarized by the Latin formula ''Sancta Trinitas, Unus Deus'' (Holy Trinity, Unique God), reported in the '']''. | |||
Another view, advanced by ], is that the existence of God is an empirical question, on the grounds that "a universe with a god would be a completely different kind of universe from one without, and it would be a scientific difference."<ref name="Dawkins">{{cite news | |||
|last = Dawkins|first = Richard|authorlink = Richard Dawkins|title = Why There Almost Certainly Is No God|url = http://www.huffingtonpost.com/richard-dawkins/why-there-almost-certainl_b_32164.html|accessdate = 2007-01-10|publisher = The Huffington Post|date = 2006-10-23}}</ref> ] argued that the doctrine of a Creator of the Universe was difficult to prove or disprove and that the only conceivable scientific discovery that could disprove the existence of a Creator (not necessarily a God) would be the discovery that the universe is infinitely old.<ref>{{cite book |title=The Demon Haunted World p.278 |last=Sagan |first=Carl |authorlink=Carl Sagan |year=1996 |publisher=Ballantine Books |location=New York |isbn=0-345-40946-9}}</ref> | |||
] is viewed differently by diverse strands of the religion, with most Hindus having faith in a ] (''Brahman'') who can be manifested in numerous chosen deities. Thus, the religion is sometimes characterized as ''Polymorphic Monotheism''.<ref>{{cite web |author=Lipner |first=Julius |date= |title=Hindu deities |url=https://www.khanacademy.org/humanities/art-asia/beginners-guide-asian-culture/hindu-art-culture/a/hindu-deities |access-date=6 September 2022 |archive-date=7 September 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220907001823/https://www.khanacademy.org/humanities/art-asia/beginners-guide-asian-culture/hindu-art-culture/a/hindu-deities |url-status=live}}</ref> ] is the belief and worship of a single god at a time while accepting the validity of worshiping other deities.<ref>Müller, Max. (1878) ''Lectures on the Origin and Growth of Religion: As Illustrated by the Religions of India''. London, England: Longmans, Green and Company.</ref> ] is the belief in a single deity worthy of worship while accepting the existence of other deities.<ref>{{citation |last=McConkie |first=Bruce R. |title=] |page=351 |year=1979 |edition=2nd |location=Salt Lake City, Utah |publisher=Bookcraft |author-link=Bruce R. McConkie}}.</ref> | |||
] and co-author ] state in their book, '']'', that it is reasonable to ask who or what created the universe, but if the answer is God, then the question has merely been deflected to that of who created God. Both authors claim however, that it is possible to answer these questions purely within the realm of science, and without invoking any divine beings.<ref>{{cite book|page=172|title=The Grand Design|author=Stephen Hawking|author2=Leonard Mlodinow|publisher=Bantam Books|year=2010|isbn=978-0-553-80537-6}}</ref> Neuroscientist Michael Nikoletseas has proposed that questions of the existence of God are no different from questions of natural sciences. Following a biological comparative approach, he concludes that it is highly probable that God exists, and, although not visible, it is possible that we know some of his attributes.<ref name=":0">Nikoletseas, Michael M. (2014). Deus Absconditus – The Hidden God. {{ISBN|978-1495336225}}.</ref> | |||
=== |
===Transcendence=== | ||
{{See also|Pantheism|Panentheism}} | |||
Agnosticism is the view that, the ]s of certain claims – especially ] and religious claims such as ], the ] or the ] exist – are unknown and perhaps<!--probably?--> unknowable.<!-- | |||
] is the aspect of God's nature that is completely independent of the material universe and its physical laws. Many supposed characteristics of God are described in human terms. ] thought that God did not feel emotions such as anger or love, but appeared to do so through our imperfect understanding. The incongruity of judging "being" against something that might not exist, led many medieval philosophers approach to knowledge of God through negative attributes, called ]. For example, one should not say that God is wise, but can say that God is not ignorant (i.e. in some way God has some properties of knowledge). Christian theologian ] writes that one has to understand a "personal god" as an analogy. "To say that God is like a person is to affirm the divine ability and willingness to relate to others. This does not imply that God is human, or located at a specific point in the universe."<ref>{{Cite book |first=Alister |last=McGrath |author-link=Alister McGrath |title=Christian Theology: An Introduction |publisher=Blackwell |year=2006 |isbn=978-1405153607 |page=205}}</ref> | |||
--><ref name="Hepburn">{{cite encyclopedia|year=2005|title=Agnosticism|encyclopedia=]|publisher=MacMillan Reference USA (Gale)|last=Hepburn|first=Ronald W.|origyear=1967|edition=2nd|volume=1|page=92|isbn=0-02-865780-2|quote=In the most general use of the term, agnosticism is the view that we do not know whether there is a God or not.|editor=Donald M. Borchert}} (page 56 in 1967 edition)</ref><!-- | |||
--><ref name="RoweRoutledge">{{cite encyclopedia|year=1998|title=Agnosticism|encyclopedia=]|publisher=Taylor & Francis|url=https://books.google.com/?id=VQ-GhVWTH84C&pg=PA122&dq=agnosticism+routledge|last=Rowe|first=William L.|authorlink=William L. Rowe|isbn=978-0-415-07310-3|quote=In the popular sense, an agnostic is someone who neither believes nor disbelieves in God, whereas an atheist disbelieves in God. In the strict sense, however, agnosticism is the view that human reason is incapable of providing sufficient rational grounds to justify either the belief that God exists or the belief that God does not exist. In so far as one holds that our beliefs are rational only if they are sufficiently supported by human reason, the person who accepts the philosophical position of agnosticism will hold that neither the belief that God exists nor the belief that God does not exist is rational.|editor=Edward Craig}}</ref><!-- | |||
--><ref>{{cite dictionary|dictionary=OED Online, 3rd ed.|entry=agnostic, agnosticism|publisher=Oxford University Press|date=September 2012 <!--|accessdate=July 22, 2013-->|quote='''agnostic'''. : '''A'''. n. :# A person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of immaterial things, especially of the existence or nature of God. :# In extended use: a person who is not persuaded by or committed to a particular point of view; a sceptic. Also: person of indeterminate ideology or conviction; an equivocator. : '''B.''' adj. :# Of or relating to the belief that the existence of anything beyond and behind material phenomena is unknown and (as far as can be judged) unknowable. Also: holding this belief. :# a. In extended use: not committed to or persuaded by a particular point of view; sceptical. Also: politically or ideologically unaligned; non-partisan, equivocal. '''agnosticism''' n. The doctrine or tenets of agnostics with regard to the existence of anything beyond and behind material phenomena or to knowledge of a First Cause or God.}}</ref> | |||
] holds that God is the universe and the universe is God and denies that God transcends the Universe.<ref>{{cite web |date=17 May 2007 |title=Pantheism |url=https://stanford.library.sydney.edu.au/archives/spr2008/entries/pantheism/ |access-date=11 September 2022 |publisher=Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy |archive-date=11 September 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220911224648/https://stanford.library.sydney.edu.au/archives/spr2008/entries/pantheism/ |url-status=live}}</ref> For pantheist philosopher ], the whole of the natural universe is made of one substance, God, or its equivalent, Nature.<ref>{{cite book |last=Curley |first=Edwin M. |year=1985 |title=The Collected Works of Spinoza |publisher=Princeton University Press |isbn=978-0691072227}}</ref><ref>{{cite encyclopedia |url=http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2012/entries/spinoza/ |entry=Baruch Spinoza |encyclopedia=Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy |orig-date=2001 |date=21 August 2012 |last1=Nadler |first1=Steven |title=Baruch Spinoza |access-date=6 December 2012 |archive-date=13 November 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221113053208/https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2012/entries/spinoza/ |url-status=live}}</ref> Pantheism is sometimes objected to as not providing any meaningful explanation of God with the German philosopher ] stating, "Pantheism is only a euphemism for atheism."<ref>{{cite web |date=1 October 2012 |title=Pantheism |url=https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pantheism/ |access-date=18 November 2022 |publisher=Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy |archive-date=15 September 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180915080407/https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pantheism/ |url-status=live}}</ref> ] holds that God was a separate entity but then ].<ref name="Dawe">{{cite book |author=Dawe |first=Alan H. |title=The God Franchise: A Theory of Everything |year=2011 |isbn=978-0473201142 |page=48 |publisher=Alan H. Dawe}} | |||
Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of ] in the existence of ], or a God.<ref>Nielsen 2013: "Instead of saying that an atheist is someone who believes that it is false or probably false that there is a God, a more adequate characterization of atheism consists in the more complex claim that to be an atheist is to be someone who rejects belief in God for the following reasons ... : for an anthropomorphic God, the atheist rejects belief in God because it is false or probably false that there is a God; for a nonanthropomorphic God ... because the concept of such a God is either meaningless, unintelligible, contradictory, incomprehensible, or incoherent; for the God portrayed by some modern or contemporary theologians or philosophers ... because the concept of God in question is such that it merely masks an atheistic substance—e.g., "God" is just another name for love, or ... a symbolic term for moral ideals."</ref><ref>Edwards 2005: "On our definition, an 'atheist' is a person who rejects belief in God, regardless of whether or not his reason for the rejection is the claim that 'God exists' expresses a false proposition. People frequently adopt an attitude of rejection toward a position for reasons other than that it is a false proposition. It is common among contemporary philosophers, and indeed it was not uncommon in earlier centuries, to reject positions on the ground that they are meaningless. Sometimes, too, a theory is rejected on such grounds as that it is sterile or redundant or capricious, and there are many other considerations which in certain contexts are generally agreed to constitute good grounds for rejecting an assertion."</ref> In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.<ref>Rowe 1998: "As commonly understood, atheism is the position that affirms the nonexistence of God. So an atheist is someone who disbelieves in God, whereas a theist is someone who believes in God. Another meaning of 'atheism' is simply nonbelief in the existence of God, rather than positive belief in the nonexistence of God. ... an atheist, in the broader sense of the term, is someone who disbelieves in every form of deity, not just the God of traditional Western theology."</ref> | |||
</ref><ref>{{cite book |author=Bradley |first=Paul |title=This Strange Eventful History: A Philosophy of Meaning |year=2011 |isbn=978-0875868769 |page=156 |publisher=Algora |quote=Pandeism combines the concepts of Deism and Pantheism with a god who creates the universe and then becomes it.}}</ref> ] holds that God contains, but is not identical to, the Universe.<ref>Culp, John (2013). {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20151016023813/http://plato.stanford.edu/cgi-bin/encyclopedia/archinfo.cgi?entry=panentheism|date=16 October 2015}} ''Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy'', Spring.</ref><ref>{{cite book |author=Rogers |first=Peter C. |title=Ultimate Truth, Book 1 |year=2009 |isbn=978-1438979687 |page=121 |publisher=AuthorHouse}}</ref> | |||
=== |
===Creator=== | ||
{{See also|Creator deity}} | |||
{{Main article|Anthropomorphism}} | |||
]]] | |||
] argues that while there is a wide array of supernatural concepts found around the world, in general, supernatural beings tend to behave much like people. The construction of gods and spirits like persons is one of the best known traits of religion. He cites examples from ], which is, in his opinion, more like a modern ] than other religious systems.<ref name="boyer">{{cite book | |||
|title=Religion Explained, | |||
|isbn=0-465-00696-5 | |||
|year=2001 | |||
|last=Boyer | |||
|first=Pascal | |||
|authorlink=Pascal Boyer | |||
|url=https://books.google.com/?id=wreF80OHTicC&pg=PA142&lpg=PA142&dq=boyer+modern+soap+opera | |||
|pages=142–243 | |||
|publisher=Basic Books | |||
|location=New York | |||
}}</ref> | |||
] and Timothy Jurgensen demonstrate through formalization that Boyer's explanatory model matches physics' ] in positing not directly observable entities as intermediaries.<ref name="ducasteljurgensen">{{cite book | |||
|title=Computer Theology, | |||
|isbn=0-9801821-1-5 | |||
|publisher= Midori Press | |||
|location= Austin, Texas | |||
|year=2008 | |||
|last= du Castel | |||
|first= Bertrand | |||
|author2=Jurgensen, Timothy M. | |||
|authorlink=Bertrand du Castel | |||
|pages=221–222 | |||
}}</ref> | |||
] Stewart Guthrie contends that people project human features onto non-human aspects of the world because it makes those aspects more familiar. ] also suggested that god concepts are projections of one's father.<ref>{{cite journal|url=http://commonsenseatheism.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/Barrett-Conceptualizing-a-Nonnatural-Entity.pdf | |||
|format=PDF|title=Conceptualizing a Nonnatural Entity: Anthropomorphism in God Concepts | |||
|year=1996 | |||
|last=Barrett | |||
|first=Justin | |||
}}</ref> | |||
God is often viewed as the cause of all that exists. For ]s, ] variously referred to divinity, the first being or an indivisible origin.<ref>Fairbanks, Arthur, Ed., "The First Philosophers of Greece". K. Paul, Trench, Trubner. London, England, 1898, p. 145.</ref> The philosophy of ] and ] refers to "]", which is the first principle of reality that is "beyond" being<ref>Dodds, E. R. "The Parmenides of Plato and the Origin of the Neoplatonic 'One'". ''The Classical Quarterly'', Jul–Oct 1928, vol. 22, p. 136.</ref> and is both the source of the Universe and the ] purpose of all things.<ref>{{cite book |last=Brenk |first=Frederick |date=January 2016 |title="Theism" and Related Categories in the Study of Ancient Religions |chapter=Pagan Monotheism and Pagan Cult |chapter-url=https://classicalstudies.org/annual-meeting/147/abstract/pagan-monotheism-and-pagan-cult |publisher=], University of Pennsylvania |location=Philadelphia |volume=75 |issue=4 |access-date=5 November 2022 |archive-date=6 May 2017 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170506035740/https://classicalstudies.org/annual-meeting/147/abstract/pagan-monotheism-and-pagan-cult |url-status=live}} {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220303063811/https://samreligions.org/2014/12/30/theism-and-related-categories-in-the-study-of-ancient-religions/ |date=3 March 2022 }}</ref> ] theorized a ] for all motion in the universe and viewed it as perfectly beautiful, immaterial, unchanging and indivisible. ] is the property of not depending on any cause other than itself for its existence. ] held that there must be a ] guaranteed to exist by its essence—it cannot "not" exist—and that humans identify this as God.<ref>{{cite encyclopedia |title=From the necessary existent to God |first=Peter |last=Adamson |editor-first=Peter |editor-last=Adamson |encyclopedia=Interpreting Avicenna: Critical Essays |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=OeVribsJbgUC |year=2013 |publisher=] |isbn=978-0521190732 |page=170}}</ref> ] refers to God creating the laws of the Universe which then can change themselves within the ]. In addition to the initial creation, ] refers to the idea that the Universe would not by default continue to exist from one instant to the next and so would need to rely on God as a ]. While ] refers to any intervention by God, it is usually used to refer to "special providence", where there is an extraordinary intervention by God, such as ]s.<ref>{{cite encyclopedia |url=http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/Providence.aspx#1O101-Providence |title=Providence |encyclopedia=The Concise Oxford Dictionary of World Religions |access-date=2014-07-17 |archive-date=17 April 2011 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110417135306/http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/Providence.aspx#1O101-Providence |url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |title=Creation, Providence, and Miracle |url=http://www.reasonablefaith.org/creation-providence-and-miracle |publisher=] |access-date=2014-05-20 |archive-date=13 May 2017 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170513180211/http://www.reasonablefaith.org/creation-providence-and-miracle |url-status=live}}</ref> | |||
Likewise, ] was one of the earliest to suggest that gods represent an extension of human social life to include supernatural beings. In line with this reasoning, psychologist Matt Rossano contends that when humans began living in larger groups, they may have created gods as a means of enforcing morality. In small groups, morality can be enforced by social forces such as gossip or reputation. However, it is much harder to enforce morality using social forces in much larger groups. Rossano indicates that by including ever-watchful gods and spirits, humans discovered an effective strategy for restraining selfishness and building more cooperative groups.<ref name="supernature">{{cite journal | |||
|last=Rossano | |||
|first=Matt | |||
|title=Supernaturalizing Social Life: Religion and the Evolution of Human Cooperation | |||
|year=2007 | |||
|url=http://www2.selu.edu/Academics/Faculty/mrossano/recentpubs/Supernaturalizing.pdf|format=PDF|accessdate=2009-06-25}} | |||
</ref> | |||
== |
===Benevolence=== | ||
{{See also|Deism|Thirteen Attributes of Mercy}} | |||
{{Main article|Existence of God}}] summed up five main arguments as proofs for God's existence.]] | |||
Deism holds that God exists but does not intervene in the world beyond what was necessary to create it,<ref name="lemos">{{cite book |last=Lemos |first=Ramon M. |title=A Neomedieval Essay in Philosophical Theology |publisher=Lexington Books |year=2001 |isbn=978-0739102503 |page=34}}</ref> such as answering prayers or producing miracles. Deists sometimes attribute this to God having no interest in or not being aware of humanity. Pandeists would hold that God does not intervene because God is the Universe.<ref name="Fuller">{{cite book |author=Fuller |first=Allan R. |title=Thought: The Only Reality |year=2010 |isbn=978-1608445905 |page=79 |publisher=Dog Ear}}</ref> | |||
] saw the existence of a Creator necessary in the movement of astronomical objects.]] | |||
Arguments about the existence of God typically include empirical, deductive, and inductive types. Different views include that: "God does not exist" (]); "God almost certainly does not exist" (''de facto'' ]); "no one knows whether God exists" (]<ref>], an English biologist, was the first to come up with the word ''agnostic'' in 1869 {{Cite book| last = Dixon| first = Thomas| title = Science and Religion: A Very Short Introduction| publisher=Oxford University Press |year=2008 |location=Oxford |page=63 |isbn=978-0-19-929551-7}} However, earlier authors and published works have promoted an agnostic points of view. They include ], a 5th-century ] Greek philosopher. {{cite web|url=http://www.iep.utm.edu/p/protagor.htm|title=The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy – Protagoras (c. 490 – c. 420 BCE)|accessdate=2008-10-06|quote=While the pious might wish to look to the gods to provide absolute moral guidance in the relativistic universe of the Sophistic Enlightenment, that certainty also was cast into doubt by philosophic and sophistic thinkers, who pointed out the absurdity and immorality of the conventional epic accounts of the gods. Protagoras' prose treatise about the gods began 'Concerning the gods, I have no means of knowing whether they exist or not or of what sort they may be. Many things prevent knowledge including the obscurity of the subject and the brevity of human life.'|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20081014181706/http://www.iep.utm.edu/p/protagor.htm|archivedate=2008-10-14 <!--DASHBot-->|deadurl=no}}</ref>);"God exists, but this cannot be proven or disproven" (''de facto'' ]); and that "God exists and this can be proven" (]).<ref name="Dawkins-Delusion" /> | |||
Of those theists who hold that God has an interest in humanity, most hold that God is ], omniscient, and benevolent. This belief raises questions about God's responsibility for evil and suffering in the world. ], which is related to ], is a form of theism that holds that God is either not wholly good or is fully malevolent as a consequence of the ]. | |||
Countless arguments have been proposed to prove the existence of God.<ref>{{cite book|editor-last=Kreeft|editor-first=Peter|title=Summa of the Summa|year=1990|publisher=Ignatius Press |page=63 |first=Thomas |last=Aquinas}}</ref> Some of the most notable arguments are the ], the ] proposed by ], and the ] formulated both by ] and ].<ref>{{cite book|editor-last=Kreeft|editor-first=Peter |title=Summa of the Summa|year=1990|publisher=Ignatius Press |pages=65–69 |first=Thomas |last=Aquinas}}</ref> | |||
===Omniscience and omnipotence=== | |||
St. Anselm's approach was to define God as, "that than which nothing greater can be conceived". Famed pantheist philosopher ] would later carry this idea to its extreme: "By God I understand a being absolutely infinite, i.e., a substance consisting of infinite attributes, of which each one expresses an eternal and infinite essence." For Spinoza, the whole of the natural universe is made of one substance, God, or its equivalent, Nature.<ref>{{cite book|last=Curley|first=Edwin M.|year=1985|title=The Collected Works of Spinoza|publisher=Princeton University Press|isbn=978-0-691-07222-7}}</ref> His proof for the existence of God was a variation of the Ontological argument.<ref>{{cite web |url= http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2012/entries/spinoza/ |title=Baruch Spinoza|publisher=}}</ref> | |||
] (all-powerful) is an attribute often ascribed to God. The ] is most often framed with the example "Could God create a stone so heavy that even he could not lift it?" as God could either be unable to create that stone or lift that stone and so could not be omnipotent. This is often countered with variations of the argument that omnipotence, like any other attribute ascribed to God, only applies as far as it is noble enough to befit God and thus God cannot lie, or do what is contradictory as that would entail opposing himself.<ref>{{Cite book |publisher=World Wisdom |isbn=978-1933316499 |title=Christianity/Islam : perspectives on esoteric ecumenism : a new translation with selected letters. |location=United Kingdom |year=2008 |last1=Perry |first1=M. |last2=Schuon |first2=F. |last3=Lafouge |first3=J. |page=135}}</ref> | |||
Omniscience (all-knowing) is an attribute often ascribed to God. This implies that God knows how free agents will choose to act. If God does know this, either their ] might be illusory or foreknowledge does not imply predestination, and if God does not know it, God may not be omniscient.<ref name="Wierenga">Wierenga, Edward R. "Divine foreknowledge" in ]. ''The Cambridge Companion to Philosophy''. Cambridge University Press, 2001.</ref> ] limits God's omniscience by contending that, due to the nature of time, God's omniscience does not mean the deity can predict the future and ] holds that God does not have ], so is affected by his creation. | |||
] ] saw God as the masterful creator whose existence could not be denied in the face of the grandeur of all creation.<ref>Webb, R.K. ed. Knud Haakonssen. "The emergence of Rational Dissent." Enlightenment and Religion: Rational Dissent in eighteenth-century Britain. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge: 1996. p19.</ref> Nevertheless, he rejected polymath ]' thesis that God would necessarily make a perfect world which requires no intervention from the creator. In Query 31 of the ''Opticks'', Newton simultaneously made an argument from design and for the necessity of intervention:{{quote| For while comets move in very eccentric orbs in all manner of positions, blind fate could never make all the planets move one and the same way in orbs concentric, some inconsiderable irregularities excepted which may have arisen from the mutual actions of comets and planets on one another, and which will be apt to increase, till this system wants a reformation.<ref>Newton, 1706 ''Opticks'' (2nd Edition), quoted in H. G. Alexander 1956 (ed): ''The Leibniz-Clarke correspondence'', University of Manchester Press.</ref>}}St. Thomas believed that the ] is self-evident in itself, but not to us. "Therefore I say that this proposition, "God exists", of itself is self-evident, for the predicate is the same as the subject.... Now because we do not know the essence of God, the proposition is not self-evident to us; but needs to be demonstrated by things that are more known to us, though less known in their nature—namely, by effects."<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1002.htm#article1|title=SUMMA THEOLOGIAE: The existence of God (Prima Pars, Q. 2)|publisher=|accessdate=30 December 2016}}</ref> | |||
===Other concepts=== | |||
St. Thomas believed that the existence of God can be demonstrated. Briefly in the '']'' and more extensively in the '']'', he considered in great detail five arguments for the existence of God, widely known as the '']'' (Five Ways).{{Hatnote|For the original text of the five proofs, see ]}} | |||
] of theistic personalism (the view held by ], ], ], ], ], and most ]) argue that God is most generally the ground of all being, immanent in and transcendent over the whole world of reality, with immanence and transcendence being the contrapletes of personality.<ref>{{Cite web |url=http://www.ditext.com/runes/t.html |title=www.ditext.com |access-date=7 February 2018 |archive-date=4 February 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180204214255/http://www.ditext.com/runes/t.html |url-status=live}}</ref> | |||
God has also been conceived as being ] (immaterial), a ] being, the source of all ], and the "greatest conceivable existent".<ref name=Swinburne/> These attributes were all supported to varying degrees by the early Jewish, Christian and Muslim theologian philosophers, including ],<ref name=Edwards /> ],<ref name="Edwards">]. "God and the philosophers" in ]. (ed)''The Oxford Companion to Philosophy'', Oxford University Press, 1995. {{ISBN|978-1615924462}}.</ref> and ],<ref name=Plantinga>]. "God, Arguments for the Existence of", ''Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy'', Routledge, 2000.</ref> respectively. | |||
# Motion: Some things undoubtedly move, though cannot cause their own motion. Since there can be no infinite chain of causes of motion, there must be a ] not moved by anything else, and this is what everyone understands by God. | |||
# Causation: As in the case of motion, nothing can cause itself, and an infinite chain of causation is impossible, so there must be a ], called God. | |||
# Existence of necessary and the unnecessary: Our experience includes things certainly existing but apparently unnecessary. Not everything can be unnecessary, for then once there was nothing and there would still be nothing. Therefore, we are compelled to suppose something that exists necessarily, having this necessity only from itself; in fact itself the cause for other things to exist. | |||
# Gradation: If we can notice a gradation in things in the sense that some things are more hot, good, etc., there must be a superlative that is the truest and noblest thing, and so most fully existing. This then, we call God (Note: Thomas does not ascribe actual qualities to God Himself). | |||
# Ordered tendencies of nature: A direction of actions to an end is noticed in all bodies following natural laws. Anything without awareness tends to a goal under the guidance of one who is aware. This we call God (Note that even when we guide objects, in Thomas's view, the source of all our knowledge comes from God as well).<ref>Summa of Theology I, q.2, The Five Ways Philosophers Have Proven God's Existence</ref> | |||
], a formerly atheistic ] and ] who has been highly critical of ]' version of ]]] | |||
Some theologians, such as the scientist and theologian ], argue that the existence of God is not a question that can be answered using the ].<ref name="mcgrath2005">{{cite book|author=Alister E. McGrath|title=Dawkins' God: genes, memes, and the meaning of life|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=V9dr6167AJ8C|year=2005|publisher=Wiley-Blackwell|isbn=978-1-4051-2539-0}}</ref><ref name="barackman2001">{{cite book|author=Floyd H. Barackman|title=Practical Christian Theology: Examining the Great Doctrines of the Faith|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=Jb5aRB7OxWsC|year=2001|publisher=Kregel Academic|isbn=978-0-8254-2380-2}}</ref> ] ] argues that science and religion are not in conflict and do not ].<ref>{{cite book|title=Leonardo's Mountain of Clams and the Diet of Worms|last=Gould|first=Stephen J.|page=274|publisher=Jonathan Cape|year=1998|isbn=0-224-05043-5}}</ref> | |||
==Non-theistic views== | |||
Some findings in the fields of ], ] and ] are interpreted by some atheists (including ] and ]) as evidence that God is an imaginary entity only, with no basis in reality.<ref>Krauss L. A Universe from Nothing. Free Press, New York. 2012. {{ISBN|978-1-4516-2445-8}}</ref><ref name="Harris, S 2005">Harris, S. The end of faith. W. W. Norton and Company, New York. 2005. {{ISBN|0-393-03515-8}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal | url = http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4141622/pdf/fnins-08-00265.pdf | pmc=4141622 | pmid=25202234 | doi=10.3389/fnins.2014.00265 | volume=8 | title=Superior pattern processing is the essence of the evolved human brain | year=2014 | journal=Front Neurosci | pages=265 | last1 = Mattson | first1 = MP}}</ref> These atheists claim that a single, omniscient God who is imagined to have created the universe and is particularly attentive to the lives of humans has been imagined, embellished and promulgated in a trans-generational manner.<ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Culotta | first1 = E | year = 2009 | title = The origins of religion | url = | journal = Science | volume = 326 | issue = | pages = 784–787 | doi=10.1126/science.326_784}}</ref> ] interprets such findings not only as a lack of evidence for the material existence of such a God, but as extensive evidence to the contrary.<ref name="Dawkins-Delusion" /> However, his views are opposed by some theologians and scientists including ], who argues that existence of God is compatible with science.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.rzim.org/resources/audio_visuals.php |title=Audio Visual Resources |publisher=] |accessdate=2007-04-07 |archiveurl = https://web.archive.org/web/20070329053738/http://www.rzim.org/resources/audio_visuals.php <!-- Bot retrieved archive --> |archivedate = 2007-03-29}}, includes sound recording of the Dawkins-McGrath debate</ref> | |||
===Religious traditions=== | |||
Neuroscientist Michael Nikoletseas has proposed that questions of the existence of God are no different from questions of natural sciences. Following a biological comparative approach, he concludes that it is highly probable that God exists, and, although not visible, it is possible that we know some of his attributes.<ref name=":0"/> | |||
] has ], holding that soul substances (]) are uncreated and that time is beginningless.<ref>Nayanar, Prof. A. Chakravarti (2005). ''Samayasāra of Ācārya Kundakunda''. Gāthā 10.310, New Delhi, India: Today & Tomorrows Printer and Publisher. p. 190.</ref> | |||
Some interpretations and traditions of ] can be conceived as being ]. ] the specific monotheistic view of a ]. The Buddha criticizes the theory of creationism in the ].<ref>Thera, Narada (2006). ''"The Buddha and His Teachings"'', Jaico Publishing House. pp. 268–269.</ref><ref>Hayes, Richard P., "Principled Atheism in the Buddhist Scholastic Tradition", ''Journal of Indian Philosophy'', 16:1 (1988: Mar) p. 2.</ref> Also, major Indian Buddhist philosophers, such as ], ], ], and ], consistently critiqued Creator God views put forth by Hindu thinkers.<ref>Cheng, Hsueh-Li. "Nāgārjuna's Approach to the Problem of the Existence of God" in Religious Studies, Vol. 12, No. 2 (June 1976), Cambridge University Press, pp. 207–216.</ref><ref>Hayes, Richard P., "Principled Atheism in the Buddhist Scholastic Tradition", ''Journal of Indian Philosophy'', 16:1 (1988: Mar.).</ref><ref>Harvey, Peter (2019). "Buddhism and Monotheism", Cambridge University Press. p. 1.</ref> However, as a non-theistic religion, Buddhism leaves the existence of a supreme deity ambiguous. There are significant numbers of Buddhists who believe in God, and there are equally large numbers who deny God's existence or are unsure.<ref>{{cite magazine |last=Khan |first=Razib |date=June 23, 2008 |title=Buddhists do Believe in God |url=https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/buddhists-do-believe-in-god |magazine=Discover |publisher=Kalmbach Publishing |access-date=26 April 2023 |archive-date=26 April 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230426041330/https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/buddhists-do-believe-in-god |url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/religious-landscape-study/religious-tradition/buddhist/ |title=Buddhists |website=Pew Research Center |publisher=The Pew Charitable Trusts |access-date=26 April 2023 |archive-date=26 April 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230426041330/https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/religious-landscape-study/religious-tradition/buddhist/ |url-status=live}}</ref> | |||
==Specific attributes== | |||
Different religious traditions assign differing (though often similar) attributes and characteristics to God, including expansive powers and abilities, psychological characteristics, gender characteristics, and preferred nomenclature. The assignment of these attributes often differs according to the ] in the culture from which they arise. For example, ], attributes of ], and ] share certain similarities arising from their common roots. | |||
Chinese religions such as ] and ] are silent on the existence of creator gods. However, keeping with the tradition of ], adherents worship the spirits of people such as ] and ] in a similar manner to God.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/confucianism/ |title=Confucianism |website=National Geographic |publisher=National Geographic Society |access-date=26 April 2023 |archive-date=26 April 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230426232307/https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/confucianism/ |url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/taoism/ |title=Taoism |website=National Geographic |publisher=National Geographic Society |access-date=26 April 2023 |archive-date=26 April 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230426232309/https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/taoism/ |url-status=live}}</ref> | |||
===Names=== | |||
{{Main article| Names of God}} | |||
], in ] ]|400x400px]] | |||
The word ''God'' is "one of the most complex and difficult in the English language." In the ] tradition, "the Bible has been the principal source of the conceptions of God". That the Bible "includes many different images, concepts, and ways of thinking about" God has resulted in perpetual "disagreements about how God is to be conceived and understood".<ref>Francis Schüssler Fiorenza and Gordon D. Kaufman, "God", Ch 6, in Mark C. Taylor, ed, ''Critical Terms for Religious Studies'' (University of Chicago, 1998/2008), 136–140.</ref> | |||
===Anthropology=== | |||
Throughout the Hebrew and Christian Bibles there are many names for God. One of them is Elohim. Another one is ''El Shaddai'', translated "God Almighty".<ref>Gen. 17:1; 28:3; 35:11; Ex. 6:31; Ps. 91:1, 2</ref> A third notable name is ''El Elyon'', which means "The High God".<ref>Gen. 14:19; Ps. 9:2; Dan. 7:18, 22, 25</ref> | |||
{{See also|Evolutionary origin of religions|Evolutionary psychology of religion|Anthropomorphism}} | |||
Some atheists have argued that a single, omniscient God who is imagined to have created the universe and is particularly attentive to the lives of humans has been imagined and embellished over generations.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Culotta |first1=E. |year=2009 |title=The origins of religion |journal=Science |volume=326 |issue=5954 |pages=784–787 |bibcode=2009Sci...326..784C |doi=10.1126/science.326_784 |pmid=19892955 |issn=0036-8075}}</ref> | |||
] argues that while there is a wide array of supernatural concepts found around the world, in general, supernatural beings tend to behave much like people. The construction of gods and spirits like persons is one of the best known traits of religion. He cites examples from ], which is, in his opinion, more like a modern ] than other religious systems.<ref name="boyer">{{cite book |title=Religion Explained |isbn=978-0465006960 |year=2001 |last=Boyer |first=Pascal |author-link=Pascal Boyer |url=https://archive.org/details/religionexplaine00boye |url-access=registration |quote=Admittedly, the Greek gods were extraordinarily anthropomorphic, and Greek mythology really is like the modern soap opera, much more so than other religious systems. |pages=–243 |publisher=Basic Books |location=New York}}</ref> | |||
God is described and referred in the ] and ] by certain names or attributes, the most common being '']'', meaning "Most Compassionate" and ''Al-Rahim'', meaning "Most Merciful" (See ]).<ref name="Ben">{{Cite book|last=Bentley |first=David |title=The 99 Beautiful Names for God for All the People of the Book |publisher=William Carey Library |date=September 1999 |isbn=0-87808-299-9}}</ref>]The ] use the term "Supreme Soul" to refer to God. They see God as incorporeal and eternal, and regard him as a point of living light like human souls, but without a physical body, as he does not enter the cycle of birth, death and rebirth. God is seen as the perfect and constant embodiment of all virtues, powers and values and that He is the unconditionally loving Father of all souls, irrespective of their religion, gender, or culture.<ref name="Ramsay_Custodians of Purity4">{{cite journal|last=Ramsay|first=Tamasin|date=September 2010|title=Custodians of Purity An Ethnography of the Brahma Kumaris|journal=Monash University|issue=|pages=107–108}}</ref> | |||
] and Timothy Jurgensen demonstrate through formalization that Boyer's explanatory model matches physics' ] in positing not directly observable entities as intermediaries.<ref name="ducasteljurgensen">{{cite book |last1=du Castel |first1=Bertrand |title=Computer Theology |last2=Jurgensen |first2=Timothy M. |publisher=Midori Press |year=2008 |isbn=978-0980182118 |location=Austin, Texas |pages=221–222 -us |author-link=Bertrand du Castel}}</ref> | |||
], a tradition in Hinduism, has ]. | |||
Anthropologist Stewart Guthrie contends that people project human features onto non-human aspects of the world because it makes those aspects more familiar. ] also suggested that god concepts are projections of one's father.<ref>{{cite journal |url=http://commonsenseatheism.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/Barrett-Conceptualizing-a-Nonnatural-Entity.pdf |title=Conceptualizing a Nonnatural Entity: Anthropomorphism in God Concepts |year=1996 |last=Barrett |first=Justin |journal=Cognitive Psychology |volume=31 |issue=3 |pages=219–47 |doi=10.1006/cogp.1996.0017 |pmid=8975683 |s2cid=7646340 |access-date=20 November 2015 |archive-date=19 March 2015 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150319064701/http://commonsenseatheism.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/Barrett-Conceptualizing-a-Nonnatural-Entity.pdf |url-status=live}}</ref> | |||
===Gender=== | |||
{{Main article|Gender of God}} | |||
The gender of God may be viewed as either a literal or an ] aspect of a ] who, in classical western philosophy, transcends bodily form.<ref>{{cite book|last=Aquinas|first=Thomas|title=Summa Theologica|year=1274|location=Part 1, Question 3, Article 1|url=http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1003.htm}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|author=Augustine of Hippo|title=Confessions|year=397|location=Book 7}}</ref> ] religions commonly attribute to each of ''the gods'' a gender, allowing each to interact with any of the others, and perhaps with humans, sexually. In most ] religions, God has no counterpart with which to relate sexually. Thus, in classical western philosophy the ] of this one-and-only deity is most likely to be an ] statement of how humans and God address, and relate to, each other. Namely, God is seen as begetter of the world and revelation which corresponds to the active (as opposed to the receptive) role in sexual intercourse.<ref name=":1"/> | |||
Likewise, ] was one of the earliest to suggest that gods represent an extension of human social life to include supernatural beings. In line with this reasoning, psychologist Matt Rossano contends that when humans began living in larger groups, they may have created gods as a means of enforcing morality. In small groups, morality can be enforced by social forces such as gossip or reputation. However, it is much harder to enforce morality using social forces in much larger groups. Rossano indicates that by including ever-watchful gods and spirits, humans discovered an effective strategy for restraining selfishness and building more cooperative groups.<ref name="supernature">{{cite journal |last=Rossano |first=Matt |year=2007 |title=Supernaturalizing Social Life: Religion and the Evolution of Human Cooperation |url=http://www2.selu.edu/Academics/Faculty/mrossano/recentpubs/Supernaturalizing.pdf |url-status=dead |journal=Human Nature |location=Hawthorne, New York |volume=18 |issue=3 |pages=272–294 |doi=10.1007/s12110-007-9002-4 |pmid=26181064 |s2cid=1585551 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120303101304/http://www2.selu.edu/Academics/Faculty/mrossano/recentpubs/Supernaturalizing.pdf |archive-date=3 March 2012 |access-date=25 June 2009}}</ref> | |||
Biblical sources usually refer to God using male words, except {{Bibleverse|Genesis||1:26–27|KJV}},<ref>Elaine H. Pagels Signs, Vol. 2, No. 2 (Winter, 1976), pp. 293–303</ref><ref>{{cite book|last=Coogan|first=Michael|title=God and Sex. What the Bible Really Says|url=https://books.google.com/?id=2_gPKQEACAAJ&dq=god+and+sex|accessdate=2011-05-05|edition=1st|date=October 2010|publisher=Twelve. Hachette Book Group|location=New York, Boston|isbn=978-0-446-54525-9|page=175|chapter=6. Fire in Divine Loins: God's Wives in Myth and Metaphor|quote=humans are modeled on ''elohim'', specifically in their sexual differences.}}</ref> {{Bibleverse|Psalm||123:2–3|KJV}}, and {{Bibleverse|Luke||15:8–10|KJV}} (female); {{Bibleverse|Hosea||11:3–4|KJV}}, {{Bibleverse|Deuteronomy||32:18|KJV}}, {{Bibleverse|Isaiah||66:13|KJV}}, {{Bibleverse|Isaiah||49:15|KJV}}, {{Bibleverse|Isaiah||42:14|KJV}}, {{Bibleverse|Psalm||131:2|KJV}} (a mother); {{Bibleverse|Deuteronomy||32:11–12|KJV}} (a mother eagle); and {{Bibleverse|Matthew||23:37|KJV}} and {{Bibleverse|Luke||13:34|KJV}} (a mother hen). | |||
=== |
===Neuroscience and psychology=== | ||
{{See also| |
{{See also|Jungian interpretation of religion}} | ||
Johns Hopkins researchers studying the effects of the "spirit molecule" ], which is both an endogenous molecule in the human brain and the active molecule in the psychedelic ], found that a large majority of respondents said DMT brought them into contact with a "conscious, intelligent, benevolent, and sacred entity", and describe interactions that oozed joy, trust, love, and kindness. More than half of those who had previously self-identified as atheists described some type of belief in a higher power or God after the experience.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://hub.jhu.edu/magazine/2020/fall/psychedelics-god-atheism/ |title=A spiritual experience |date=17 September 2020 |access-date=11 October 2022 |quote= |archive-date=19 October 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221019233542/https://hub.jhu.edu/magazine/2020/fall/psychedelics-god-atheism/ |url-status=live}}</ref> | |||
], c.1795]] | |||
] plays a significant role among many believers. Muslims believe that the ] is to ] God.<ref name="patheos1">{{cite web|url=http://www.patheos.com/Library/Islam/Beliefs/Human-Nature-and-the-Purpose-of-Existence.html|title=Human Nature and the Purpose of Existence|publisher=Patheos.com|accessdate=2011-01-29}}</ref><ref>{{Cite quran|51|56|style=ref}}</ref> He is viewed as a personal God and there are no intermediaries, such as ], to contact God. Prayer often also includes ] and ]. God is often believed to be forgiving. For example, a ] states God would replace a sinless people with one who sinned but still asked repentance.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://en.islamtoday.net/artshow-426-3787.htm|title=Allah would replace you with a people who sin|publisher=islamtoday.net|accessdate=13 October 2013}}</ref> Christian theologian ] writes that there are good reasons to suggest that a "personal god" is integral to the Christian outlook, but that one has to understand it is an analogy. "To say that God is like a person is to affirm the divine ability and willingness to relate to others. This does not imply that God is human, or located at a specific point in the universe."<ref>{{Cite book|first=Alister|last=McGrath|authorlink=Alister McGrath|title=Christian Theology: An Introduction|publisher=Blackwell Publishing|year=2006|isbn=1-4051-5360-1|page=205}}</ref> | |||
About a quarter of those afflicted by ]s experience what is described as a religious experience<ref>{{cite news |last=Sample |first=Ian |title=Tests of faith |url=https://www.theguardian.com/science/2005/feb/24/1 |access-date=15 October 2022 |work=The Guardian |date=23 February 2005 |archive-date=23 May 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240523094847/https://www.theguardian.com/science/2005/feb/24/1 |url-status=live}}</ref> and may become preoccupied by thoughts of God even if they were not previously. Neuroscientist ] hypothesizes that seizures in the temporal lobe, which is closely connected to the emotional center of the brain, the ], may lead to those afflicted to view even banal objects with heightened meaning.<ref>{{cite book |last1=Ramachandran |first1=Vilayanur |last2=Blakeslee |first2=Sandra |title=Phantoms in the brain |edition= |pages=174–187 |year=1998 |publisher=HarperCollins |location=New York |isbn=0688152473 |language=English}}</ref> | |||
Adherents of different religions generally disagree as to how to best ] God and what is ] for mankind, if there is one. There are different approaches to reconciling the contradictory claims of monotheistic religions. One view is taken by exclusivists, who believe they are the ] or have exclusive access to ], generally through ] or encounter with the Divine, which adherents of other religions do not. Another view is ]. A pluralist typically believes that his religion is the right one, but does not deny the partial truth of other religions. An example of a pluralist view in Christianity is ], i.e., the belief that one's religion is the fulfillment of previous religions. A third approach is ], where everybody is seen as equally right; an example being ]: the doctrine that ] is eventually available for everyone. A fourth approach is ], mixing different elements from different religions. An example of syncretism is the ] movement. | |||
Psychologists studying feelings of awe found that participants feeling awe after watching scenes of natural wonders become more likely to believe in a supernatural being and to see events as the result of design, even when given randomly generated numbers.<ref>{{cite magazine |last=Kluger |first=Jeffrey |title=Why There Are No Atheists at the Grand Canyon |url=https://science.time.com/2013/11/27/why-there-are-no-atheists-at-the-grand-canyon/ |access-date=12 October 2022 |magazine=Time |date=27 November 2013 |archive-date=19 October 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221019233537/https://science.time.com/2013/11/27/why-there-are-no-atheists-at-the-grand-canyon/ |url-status=live}}</ref> | |||
Jews and Christians believe that humans are created in the likeness of God, and are the center, crown and key to God's creation, ] for God, supreme over everything else God had made ({{Bibleref2|Gen|1:26|NRSV}}); for this reason, humans are in Christianity called the "Children of God".<ref name=":5">{{cite web|url=http://www.biblestudytools.com/encyclopedias/isbe/sons-of-god-new-testament.html|title=International Standard Bible Encyclopedia: Sons of God (New Testament)|work=BibleStudyTools.com|accessdate=7 October 2014}}</ref> | |||
==Relationship with humanity== | |||
==Depiction== | |||
{{anchor|Relationship with creation}} | |||
God is defined as incorporeal,<ref name="Swinburne" /> and invisible from direct sight, and thus cannot be portrayed in a literal visual image. | |||
]'' by ]]] | |||
===Worship=== | |||
The respective principles of religions may or may not permit them to use images (which are entirely symbolic) to represent God in art or in worship . | |||
{{See also|Worship|Prayer|Supplication}} | |||
Theistic religious traditions often require worship of God and sometimes hold that the ] is to worship God.<ref name="patheos1">{{cite web |url=http://www.patheos.com/Library/Islam/Beliefs/Human-Nature-and-the-Purpose-of-Existence.html |title=Human Nature and the Purpose of Existence |publisher=Patheos.com |access-date=29 January 2011 |archive-date=29 August 2011 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110829020001/http://www.patheos.com/Library/Islam/Beliefs/Human-Nature-and-the-Purpose-of-Existence.html |url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{qref|51|56|b=y}}.</ref> To address the issue of an all-powerful being demanding to be worshipped, it is held that God does not need or benefit from worship but that worship is for the benefit of the worshipper.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/islam/practices/salat.shtml |title=Salat: daily prayers |publisher=BBC |access-date=12 April 2022 |archive-date=22 March 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220322040017/https://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/islam/practices/salat.shtml |url-status=live}}</ref> ] expressed the view that God does not need his supplication and that, "Prayer is not an asking. It is a longing of the soul. It is a daily admission of one's weakness."<ref>{{Cite book |title=The Philosophy of Gandhi: A Study of his Basic Ideas |first=Glyn |last=Richards |publisher=Routledge |year=2005 |isbn=1135799342}}</ref> Invoking God in prayer plays a significant role among many believers. Depending on the tradition, God can be viewed as a personal God who is only to be invoked directly while other traditions allow praying to intermediaries, such as ]s, to ] on their behalf. Prayer often also includes ] such as ]. God is often believed to be forgiving. For example, a ] states God would replace a sinless people with one who sinned but still asked repentance.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://en.islamtoday.net/artshow-426-3787.htm |title=Allah would replace you with a people who sin |publisher=islamtoday.net |access-date=13 October 2013 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131014174102/http://en.islamtoday.net/artshow-426-3787.htm |archive-date=14 October 2013}}</ref> ] for the sake of God is another act of devotion that includes ] and ]. ] of God in daily life include mentioning interjections ] when feeling gratitude or ], such as repeating ]s while performing other activities. | |||
=== |
===Salvation=== | ||
{{Main|Salvation}} | |||
] (left) with the ring of kingship. (Relief at ], 3rd century CE)]] | |||
] religious traditions may believe in the existence of deities but deny any spiritual significance to them. The term has been used to describe certain strands of Buddhism,<ref>Rigopoulos, Antonio. ''The Life and Teachings of Sai Baba of Shirdi'' (1993), p. 372; Houlden, J. L. (Ed.), ''Jesus: The Complete Guide'' (2005), p. 390.</ref> Jainism and ].<ref>de Gruyter, Walter (1988), ''Writings on Religion'', p. 145.</ref> | |||
During the early Parthian Empire, Ahura Mazda was visually represented for worship. This practice ended during the beginning of the Sassanid empire. Zoroastrian ], which can be traced to the end of the Parthian period and the beginning of the Sassanid, eventually put an end to the use of all images of Ahura Mazda in worship. However, Ahura Mazda continued to be symbolized by a dignified male figure, standing or on horseback which is found in Sassanian investiture.{{Sfn|Boyce|1983|p=686}} | |||
Among religions that do attach spirituality to the relationship with God disagree as how to best worship God and what is ] for mankind. There are different approaches to reconciling the contradictory claims of monotheistic religions. One view is taken by exclusivists, who believe they are the ] or have exclusive access to absolute truth, generally through ] or encounter with the Divine, which adherents of other religions do not. Another view is ]. A pluralist typically believes that his religion is the right one, but does not deny the partial truth of other religions. The view that all theists actually worship the same god, whether they know it or not, is especially emphasized in the Baháʼí Faith, Hinduism,<ref>See Swami Bhaskarananda, ''Essentials of Hinduism'' (Viveka Press, 2002), {{ISBN|1884852041}}.</ref> and Sikhism.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.srigranth.org/servlet/gurbani.gurbani?Action=Page&Param=1350&english=t&id=57718 |title=Sri Guru Granth Sahib |publisher=Sri Granth |access-date=30 June 2011 |archive-date=28 July 2011 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110728045943/http://www.srigranth.org/servlet/gurbani.gurbani?Action=Page&Param=1350&english=t&id=57718 |url-status=live}}</ref> The ] preaches that ]s include great prophets and teachers of many of the major religious traditions such as Krishna, Buddha, Jesus, Zoroaster, Muhammad, Bahá'ú'lláh and also preaches the unity of all religions and focuses on these multiple epiphanies as necessary for meeting the needs of humanity at different points in history and for different cultures, and as part of a scheme of ] and education of humanity. An example of a pluralist view in Christianity is ], i.e., the belief that one's religion is the fulfillment of previous religions. A third approach is ], where everybody is seen as equally right; an example being ]: the doctrine that ] is eventually available for everyone. A fourth approach is ], mixing different elements from different religions. An example of syncretism is the ] movement. | |||
===Islam=== | |||
{{Further|God in Islam}} | |||
Muslims believe that God (Allah) is beyond all comprehension or equal and does not resemble any of His creations in any way. Thus, ]s are not ], are not expected to visualize God.<ref name=":3" /> | |||
== |
==Epistemology== | ||
At least some Jews do not use any image for God, since God is the unimageable Being who cannot be represented in material forms.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.britannica.com/biography/Moses-Hebrew-prophet|title=Moses – Hebrew prophet|website=Encyclopædia Britannica|access-date=2016-03-19}}</ref> In some samples of Jewish Art, however, sometimes God, or at least His Intervention, is indicated by a Hand Of God symbol, which represents the '']'' (literally "daughter of a voice") or Voice of God;<ref name=":4">A matter disputed by some scholars</ref> this use of the Hand Of God is carried over to Christian Art. | |||
=== |
===Faith=== | ||
{{Main|Faith}} | |||
{{overly-detailed|section|date=April 2016}}{{See also|God the Father in Western art}} | |||
] is the position that in certain topics, notably theology such as in ], faith is superior than reason in arriving at truths. Some theists argue that there is value to the risk in having faith and that if the arguments for God's existence were as rational as the laws of physics then there would be no risk. Such theists often argue that the heart is attracted to beauty, truth and goodness and so would be best for dictating about God, as illustrated through ] who said, "The heart has its reasons that reason does not know."<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.ncregister.com/blog/the-heart-has-its-reasons-that-reason-does-not-know |title=The Heart Has Its Reasons That Reason Does Not Know |publisher=National Catholic Register |last=D’Antuono |first=Matt |date=1 August 2022 |access-date=1 June 2023 |archive-date=8 June 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230608024610/https://www.ncregister.com/blog/the-heart-has-its-reasons-that-reason-does-not-know |url-status=live}}</ref> A hadith attributes a quote to God as "I am what my slave thinks of me."<ref>{{cite book |title=A Treasury of Hadith: A Commentary on Nawawi's Selection of Prophetic Traditions |publisher=Kube Publishing Limited |year=2014 |page=199 |author=Ibn Daqiq al-'Id |isbn=978-1847740694}}</ref> Inherent intuition about God is referred to in Islam as '']'', or "innate nature".<ref>{{Citation |last=Hoover |first=Jon |title=Fiṭra |date=2016-03-02 |url=https://referenceworks.brillonline.com/entries/encyclopaedia-of-islam-3/*-COM_27155 |encyclopedia=Encyclopaedia of Islam, THREE |access-date=2023-11-13 |publisher=Brill |doi=10.1163/1573-3912_ei3_com_27155 |archive-date=28 December 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221228111034/https://referenceworks.brillonline.com/entries/encyclopaedia-of-islam-3/*-COM_27155 |url-status=live}}.</ref> In Confucian tradition, Confucius and ] promoted that the only justification for right conduct, called the Way, is what is dictated by Heaven, a more or less anthropomorphic higher power, and is implanted in humans and thus there is only one universal foundation for the Way.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://aeon.co/essays/the-influential-confucian-philosopher-you-ve-never-heard-of |title=The Second Sage |publisher=Aeon |access-date=24 March 2023 |archive-date=24 March 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230324222651/https://aeon.co/essays/the-influential-confucian-philosopher-you-ve-never-heard-of |url-status=live}}</ref> | |||
===Revelation=== | |||
Early Christians believed that the words of the ] 1:18: "No man has seen God at any time" and numerous other statements were meant to apply not only to God, but to all attempts at the depiction of God.<ref name="James Cornwell page 24">James Cornwell, 2009 ''Saints, Signs, and Symbols: The Symbolic Language of Christian Art'' {{ISBN|0-8192-2345-X}} page 2</ref> | |||
{{Main|Revelation}} | |||
{{See also|Prophet}} | |||
Revelation refers to some form of message communicated by God. This is usually proposed to occur through the use of ]s or ]s. ] argued for the need for revelation because even though humans are intellectually capable of realizing God, human desire can divert the intellect and because certain knowledge cannot be known except when specially given to prophets, such as the specifications of acts of worship.<ref>Çakmak, Cenap. ''Islam: A Worldwide Encyclopedia'' ABC-CLIO 2017, {{ISBN|978-1610692175}}, p. 1014.</ref> It is argued that there is also that which overlaps between what is revealed and what can be derived. According to Islam, one of the earliest revelations to ever be revealed was "If you feel no shame, then do as you wish."<ref>{{Cite book |last=Siddiqui |first=A. R. |title=Qur'anic Keywords: A Reference Guide. |publisher=Kube Publishing Limited |year=2015 |pages=53 |isbn=9780860376767}}</ref> The term ] is used to refer to knowledge revealed about God outside of ] or ] revelation such as scriptures. Notably, this includes studying nature, sometimes seen as the ].<ref>{{Cite web |url=http://silas.psfc.mit.edu/Faraday/ |title=Michael Faraday: Scientist and Nonconformist |last=Hutchinson |first=Ian |date=14 January 1996 |quote=] believed that in his scientific researches he was reading the book of nature, which pointed to its creator, and he delighted in it: 'for the book of nature, which we have to read is written by the finger of God.' |access-date=30 November 2022 |archive-date=1 December 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221201001723/http://silas.psfc.mit.edu/Faraday/ |url-status=live}}</ref> An idiom in Arabic states, "The Qur'an is a Universe that speaks. The Universe is a silent Qur'an."<ref>{{Cite book |last=Hofmann |first=Murad |title=Islam and Qur'an |publisher=Amana publications |year=2007 |pages=121 |isbn=978-1590080474}}</ref> | |||
===Reason=== | |||
] in the ] from the ], c. 850]] | |||
On matters of theology, some such as ], take an ] position, where a belief is only justified if it has a reason behind it, as opposed to holding it as a ].<ref>{{Cite journal |first=Michael |last=Beaty |year=1991 |title=God Among the Philosophers |url=http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=53 |journal=The Christian Century |access-date=20 February 2007 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070109162529/http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=53 |archive-date=9 January 2007}}</ref> ] holds that one should not opinionate beyond revelation to understand God's nature and frown upon rationalizations such as ].<ref name=Halverson-36>{{Harvtxt|Halverson|2010|page=}}.</ref> Notably, for ] such as the "Hand of God" and ], they neither nullify such texts nor accept a literal hand but leave any ambiguity to God, called '']'', without ].<ref name="Hoover 2020">{{cite book |author-last=Hoover |author-first=John |year=2020 |chapter=Early Mamlūk Ashʿarism against Ibn Taymiyya on the Nonliteral Reinterpretation (''taʾwīl'') of God’s Attributes |chapter-url=https://nottingham-repository.worktribe.com/output/3741348 |editor1-last=Shihadeh |editor1-first=Ayman |editor2-last=Thiele |editor2-first=Jan |title=Philosophical Theology in Islam: Later Ashʿarism East and West |location=Leiden and Boston |publisher=Brill |series=Islamicate Intellectual History |volume=5 |pages=195–230 |doi=10.1163/9789004426610_009 |isbn=978-9004426610 |s2cid=219026357 |issn=2212-8662 |access-date=13 November 2022 |archive-date=6 April 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230406075456/https://nottingham-repository.worktribe.com/output/3741348 |url-status=live}}</ref><ref name=Halverson-3637>{{harvtxt|Halverson|2010|pages=}}.</ref> ] provides arguments for theological topics based on reason.<ref>{{Cite encyclopedia |last1=Chignell |first1=Andrew |title=Natural Theology and Natural Religion |date=2020 |url=https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2020/entries/natural-theology/ |encyclopedia=The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy |editor-last=Zalta |editor-first=Edward N. |access-date=2020-10-09 |edition=Fall 2020 |publisher=Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University |last2=Pereboom |first2=Derk |archive-date=18 February 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220218132535/https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2020/entries/natural-theology/ |url-status=live}}.</ref> | |||
However, later depictions are found. Some, like the ], are depiction borrowed from Jewish art. | |||
==Specific characteristics== | |||
The beginning of the 8th century witnessed the suppression and destruction of religious icons as the period of ] (literally ''image-breaking'') started. The ] in 787 effectively ended the first period of ] and restored the honouring of icons and holy images in general.<ref>Edward Gibbon, 1995 ''The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire'' {{ISBN|0-679-60148-1}} page 1693</ref> However, this did not immediately translate into large scale depictions of God the Father. Even supporters of the use of icons in the 8th century, such as Saint ], drew a distinction between images of God the Father and those of Christ. | |||
{{See also|Attributes of God (disambiguation)}} | |||
===Titles=== | |||
Prior to the 10th century no attempt was made to use a human to symbolize ] in ].<ref name="James Cornwell page 24" /> Yet, Western art eventually required some way to illustrate the presence of the Father, so through successive representations a set of artistic styles for symbolizing the Father using a man gradually emerged around the 10th century AD. A rationale for the use of a human is the belief that God created the soul of Man in the image of His own (thus allowing Human to transcend the other animals). | |||
{{Main|Names of God}} | |||
{{See also|Names of God in Islam}} | |||
], in Chinese ]]] | |||
In the ] tradition, "the Bible has been the principal source of the conceptions of God". That the Bible "includes many different images, concepts, and ways of thinking about" God has resulted in perpetual "disagreements about how God is to be conceived and understood".<ref>Fiorenza, Francis Schüssler and Kaufman, Gordon D., "God", Ch 6, in Taylor, Mark C., ed., ''Critical Terms for Religious Studies'' (University of Chicago, 1998/2008), pp. 136–140.</ref> Throughout the Hebrew and Christian Bibles there are titles for God, who revealed his personal name as ] (often vocalized as ''Yahweh'' or ''Jehovah'').<ref name="Parke-Taylor2006"/> One of them is '']''. Another one is '']'', translated 'God Almighty'.<ref>Gen. 17:1; 28:3; 35:11; Ex. 6:31; Ps. 91:1, 2.</ref> A third notable title is '']'', which means 'The High God'.<ref>Gen. 14:19; Ps. 9:2; Dan. 7:18, 22, 25.</ref> Also noted in the ] and ] Bibles is the name "]".<ref>Exodus 3:13–15.</ref><ref name="Parke-Taylor2006"/> | |||
It appears that when early artists designed to represent God the Father, fear and awe restrained them from a usage of the whole human figure. Typically only a small part would be used as the image, usually the hand, or sometimes the face, but rarely a whole human. In many images, the figure of the Son supplants the Father, so a smaller portion of the person of the Father is depicted.<ref name="Adolphe Napoléon Didron pages 169">Adolphe Napoléon Didron, 2003 ''Christian iconography: or The history of Christian art in the middle ages'' {{ISBN|0-7661-4075-X}} pages 169</ref> | |||
God is described and referred in the ] and hadith by certain ], the most common being '']'', meaning 'Most Compassionate', and ''Al-Rahim'', meaning 'Most Merciful'.<ref name="Ben">{{Cite book |last=Bentley |first=David |title=The 99 Beautiful Names for God for All the People of the Book |publisher=William Carey Library |year=1999 |isbn=978-0878082995}}</ref> Many of these names are also used in the scriptures of the ]. | |||
By the 12th century depictions of God the Father had started to appear in French ]s, which as a less public form could often be more adventurous in their iconography, and in ] church windows in England. Initially the head or bust was usually shown in some form of frame of clouds in the top of the picture space, where the Hand of God had formerly appeared; the ] on the famous ] of ] is an example from 1118 (a Hand of God is used in another scene). Gradually the amount of the human symbol shown can increase to a half-length figure, then a full-length, usually enthroned, as in ]'s ] of c. 1305 in ].<ref name="ReferenceA">], at the top of the triumphal arch, ''God sending out the angel of the Annunciation''. See Schiller, I, fig 15</ref> In the 14th century the ] carried a depiction of God the Father in the ]. By the early 15th century, the ] has a considerable number of symbols, including an elderly but tall and elegant full-length figure walking in the ], which show a considerable diversity of apparent ages and dress. The ] by ], begun in 1425 use a similar tall full-length symbol for the Father. The ] of about 1430 also included depictions of God the Father in half-length human form, which were now becoming standard, and the Hand of God becoming rarer. At the same period other works, like the large Genesis ] by the Hamburg painter ], continued to use the old depiction of Christ as ''Logos'' in Genesis scenes. In the 15th century there was a brief fashion for depicting all three persons of the Trinity as ]. | |||
], a tradition in Hinduism, has a ]. | |||
In an early Venetian school ] by ] and ], (c. 1443) The Father is depicted using the symbol consistently used by other artists later, namely a patriarch, with benign, yet powerful countenance and with long white hair and a beard, a depiction largely derived from, and justified by, the near-physical, but still figurative, description of the ].<ref>Bigham Chapter 7</ref> | |||
===Gender=== | |||
. ...the Ancient of Days did sit, whose garment was white as snow, and the hair of his head like the pure wool: his throne was like the fiery flame, and his wheels as burning fire. (] 7:9) | |||
{{Main|Gender of God}} | |||
The gender of God may be viewed as either a literal or an allegorical aspect of a deity who, in classical Western philosophy, transcends bodily form.<ref>{{cite book |last=Aquinas |first=Thomas |title=Summa Theologica |section=First part: Question 3: The simplicity of God: Article 1: Whether God is a body? |url=http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1003.htm |publisher=New Advent |access-date=22 June 2012 |archive-date=9 November 2011 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20111109160402/http://newadvent.org/summa/1003.htm |url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite book |url=https://archive.org/details/confessionsaugu00shedgoog |title=The Confessions of Augustine |publisher=Warren F. Draper |year=1885 |editor=Shedd |editor-first=William G. T. |section=Chapter 7}}</ref> ] religions commonly attribute to each of ''the gods'' a gender, allowing each to interact with any of the others, and perhaps with humans, sexually. In most monotheistic religions, God has no counterpart with which to relate sexually. Thus, in classical Western philosophy the gender of this one-and-only deity is most likely to be an ] statement of how humans and God address, and relate to, each other. Namely, God is seen as begetter of the world and revelation which corresponds to the active (as opposed to the receptive) role in sexual intercourse.<ref name=":1">{{cite book |last1=Lang |first1=David |title=Why Matter Matters: Philosophical and Scriptural Reflections on the Sacraments |year=2002 |publisher=Our Sunday Visitor |chapter=Why Male Priests? |isbn=978-1931709347 |first2=Peter |last2=Kreeft}}</ref> | |||
Biblical sources usually refer to God using male or paternal words and symbolism, except {{Bibleverse|Genesis||1:26–27|KJV}},<ref>Pagels, Elaine H. {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20101123111512/http://holyspirit-shekinah.org/_/what_became_of_god_the_mother-1.htm|date=23 November 2010}} Signs, Vol. 2, No. 2 (Winter 1976), pp. 293–303.</ref><ref>{{cite book |last=Coogan |first=Michael |url=https://archive.org/details/godsexwhatbi00coog/page/175 |title=God and Sex. What the Bible Really Says |publisher=Twelve. Hachette Book Group |year=2010 |isbn=978-0446545259 |edition=1st |location=New York; Boston, Massachusetts |page= |chapter=6. Fire in Divine Loins: God's Wives in Myth and Metaphor |quote=humans are modeled on ''elohim'', specifically in their sexual differences. |access-date=5 May 2011 |chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=2_gPKQEACAAJ&q=god+and+sex}}</ref> {{Bibleverse|Psalm||123:2–3|KJV}}, and {{Bibleverse|Luke||15:8–10|KJV}} (female); {{Bibleverse|Hosea||11:3–4|KJV}}, {{Bibleverse|Deuteronomy||32:18|KJV}}, {{Bibleverse|Isaiah||66:13|KJV}}, {{Bibleverse|Isaiah||49:15|KJV}}, {{Bibleverse|Isaiah||42:14|KJV}}, {{Bibleverse|Psalm||131:2|KJV}} (a mother); {{Bibleverse|Deuteronomy||32:11–12|KJV}} (a mother eagle); and {{Bibleverse|Matthew||23:37|KJV}} and {{Bibleverse|Luke||13:34|KJV}} (a mother hen). | |||
] as a dove in ], 1472]] | |||
In ], ] is "Ajuni" (Without Incarnations), which means that God is not bound to any physical forms. This concludes that the All-pervading Lord is Gender-less.<ref>{{Cite web |url=http://www.sikhwomen.com/equality/GodsGender.htm |title=God's Gender |website=www.sikhwomen.com |access-date=5 December 2023 |archive-date=5 December 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231205122743/http://www.sikhwomen.com/equality/GodsGender.htm |url-status=live}}</ref> However, the ] constantly refers to God as 'He' and 'Father' (with some exceptions), typically because the Guru Granth Sahib was written in north Indian ]s (mixture of ] and ], Sanskrit with influences of Persian) which have no neutral gender. From further insights into the Sikh philosophy, it can be deduced that God is, sometimes, referred to as the Husband to the Soul-brides, in order to make a patriarchal society understand what the relationship with God is like. Also, God is considered to be the Father, Mother, and Companion.<ref>{{Cite web |url=https://www.gurbani.org/articles/webart270.htm |title=IS GOD MALE OR FEMALE? |website=www.gurbani.org |access-date=5 December 2023 |archive-date=5 December 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231205122754/https://www.gurbani.org/articles/webart270.htm |url-status=live}}</ref> | |||
In the Annunciation by ] in 1470, God the Father is portrayed in the red robe and a hat that resembles that of a Cardinal. However, even in the later part of the 15th century, the symbolic representation of the Father and the Holy Spirit as "hands and dove" continued, e.g. in ] in 1472.<ref>Arthur de Bles, 2004 ''How to Distinguish the Saints in Art by Their Costumes, Symbols and Attributes'' {{ISBN|1-4179-0870-X}} page 32</ref> | |||
===Depiction=== | |||
] c. 1555]] | |||
{{See also|Incorporeality|God the Father in Western art}} | |||
In Renaissance paintings of the adoration of the Trinity, God may be depicted in two ways, either with emphasis on The Father, or the three elements of the Trinity. The most usual depiction of the Trinity in Renaissance art depicts God the Father using an old man, usually with a long beard and patriarchal in appearance, sometimes with a triangular halo (as a reference to the Trinity), or with a papal crown, specially in Northern Renaissance painting. In these depictions The Father may hold a globe or book (to symbolize God's knowledge and as a reference to how knowledge is deemed divine). He is behind and above Christ on the Cross in the ] iconography. A dove, the symbol of the ] may hover above. Various people from different classes of society, e.g. kings, popes or martyrs may be present in the picture. In a Trinitarian ], God the Father is often symbolized using a man wearing a papal dress and a papal crown, supporting the dead Christ in his arms. They are depicted as floating in heaven with angels who carry the ].<ref>Irene Earls, 1987 ''Renaissance art: a topical dictionary'' {{ISBN|0-313-24658-0}} pages 8 and 283</ref> | |||
] (left) with the ring of kingship. (Relief at ], 3rd century CE)]] | |||
In Zoroastrianism, during the early ], ] was visually represented for worship. This practice ended during the beginning of the ]. Zoroastrian ], which can be traced to the end of the Parthian period and the beginning of the Sassanid, eventually put an end to the use of all images of Ahura Mazda in worship. However, Ahura Mazda continued to be symbolized by a dignified male figure, standing or on horseback, which is found in Sassanian investiture.{{Sfn|Boyce|1983|p=686}} | |||
Representations of God the Father and the Trinity were attacked both by Protestants and within Catholicism, by the ] and ] movements as well as more orthodox theologians. As with other attacks on Catholic imagery, this had the effect both of reducing Church support for the less central depictions, and strengthening it for the core ones. In the ], the pressure to restrain religious imagery resulted in the highly influential decrees of the final session of the ] in 1563. The Council of Trent decrees confirmed the traditional Catholic doctrine that images only represented the person depicted, and that veneration to them was paid to the person, not the image.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/ct25.html|title=CT25|publisher=|accessdate=30 December 2016}}</ref> | |||
Deities from Near Eastern cultures are often thought of as ] entities who have a human like body which is, however, not equal to a human body. Such bodies were often thought to be radiant or fiery, of superhuman size or extreme beauty. The ancient deity of the ] (]) too was imagined as a transcendent but still anthropomorphic deity.<ref name=Transcendent>Williams, Wesley. "A Body Unlike Bodies: Transcendent Anthropomorphism in Ancient Semitic Tradition and Early Islam". Journal of the American Oriental Society, vol. 129, no. 1, 2009, pp. 19–44. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/40593866 {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221118183524/https://www.jstor.org/stable/40593866 |date=18 November 2022 }}. Accessed 18 Nov. 2022.</ref> Humans could not see him, because of their impurity in contrast to Yahweh's holiness, Yahweh being described as radiating fire and light which could kill a human if looking at him. Further, more religious or spiritual people tend to have less anthropomorphic depictions of God.<ref name=Shaman/> In Judaism, the ] often ascribes human features to God, however, many other passages describe God as formless and otherworldly. Judaism is ], meaning it overly lacks material, physical representations of both the natural and supernatural worlds. Furthermore, the worship of idols is strictly forbidden. The traditional view, elaborated by figures such as ], reckons that God is wholly incomprehensible and therefore impossible to envision, resulting in a historical tradition of "divine incorporeality". As such, attempting to describe God's "appearance" in practical terms is considered disrespectful to the deity and thus is taboo, and arguably heretical.{{Citation needed|date=September 2021}} | |||
Artistic depictions of God the Father were uncontroversial in Catholic art thereafter, but less common depictions of the ] were condemned. In 1745 ] explicitly supported the ] depiction, referring to the "Ancient of Days", but in 1786 it was still necessary for ] to issue a ] condemning the decision of an Italian church council to remove all images of the Trinity from churches.<ref>Bigham, 73–76</ref> | |||
] cosmogony often depicts the creator god of the Old Testament as an evil lesser deity or ], while the higher benevolent god or ] is thought of as something beyond comprehension having immeasurable light and not in time or among things that exist, but rather is greater than them in a sense. All people are said to have a piece of God or ] within them which has fallen from the immaterial world into the corrupt material world and is trapped unless ] is attained.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Bataille |first1=Georges |author-link1=Georges Bataille |title=Base Materialism and Gnosticism |journal=Visions of Excess: Selected Writings, 1927–1939 |date=1930 |page=47}}</ref><ref>{{cite book |first=Marvin |last=Meyer |first2=Willis |last2=Barnstone]] |title=The Gnostic Bible |publisher=Shambhala |chapter=The Secret Book of John |url=http://gnosis.org/naghamm/apocjn-meyer.html |date=June 30, 2009 |access-date=2021-10-15 |archive-date=23 April 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210423033025/http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/apocjn-meyer.html |url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite encyclopedia |first=Rebecca |last=Denova |title=Gnosticism |url=https://www.worldhistory.org/Gnosticism/ |encyclopedia=World History Encyclopedia |date=April 9, 2021 |access-date=2021-10-15 |archive-date=22 February 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220222101411/https://www.worldhistory.org/Gnosticism/ |url-status=live}}</ref> | |||
]'' by ], c.1512|700x700px]] | |||
God the Father is symbolized in several Genesis scenes in ]'s ], most famously '']'' (whose image of near touching hands of God and Adam is iconic of humanity, being a reminder that Man is created in the Image and Likeness of God ({{Bibleref2|Gen|1:26|NRSV}})).God the Father is depicted as a powerful figure, floating in the clouds in ] in the ], long admired as a masterpiece of ] art.<ref>Louis Lohr Martz, 1991 ''From Renaissance to baroque: essays on literature and art'' {{ISBN|0-8262-0796-0}} page 222</ref> The ] in Rome includes a number of 16th century depictions of ]. In some of these paintings the ] is still alluded to in terms of three angels, but ] also depicted God the Father as a man riding on a cloud, above the scenes.<ref>Gauvin A. Bailey, 2003 ''Between Renaissance and Baroque: Jesuit art in Rome'' {{ISBN|0-8020-3721-6}} page 233</ref> | |||
] in the ] from the ], {{circa|850}}]] | |||
In both the Last Judgment and the Coronation of the Virgin paintings by ] he depicted God the Father using the image that by then had become widely accepted, a bearded patriarchal figure above the fray. In the 17th century, the two Spanish artists ] (whose father-in-law ] was in charge of the approval of new images for the Inquisition) and ] both depicted God the Father using a patriarchal figure with a white beard in a purple robe. | |||
Early Christians believed that the words of the ] 1:18: "No man has seen God at any time" and numerous other statements were meant to apply not only to God, but to all attempts at the depiction of God.<ref name="James Cornwell page 24">Cornwell, James (2009) ''Saints, Signs, and Symbols: The Symbolic Language of Christian Art'', {{ISBN|081922345X}}. p. 2.</ref> However, later depictions of God are found. Some, such as the ], are depiction borrowed from Jewish art. Prior to the 10th century no attempt was made to use a human to symbolize ] in ].<ref name="James Cornwell page 24" /> Yet, Western art eventually required some way to illustrate the presence of the Father, so through successive representations a set of artistic styles for symbolizing the Father using a man gradually emerged around the 10th century AD. A rationale for the use of a human is the belief that God created the soul of man in the image of his own (thus allowing humans to transcend the other animals). It appears that when early artists designed to represent God the Father, fear and awe restrained them from a usage of the whole human figure. Typically only a small part would be used as the image, usually the hand, or sometimes the face, but rarely a whole human. In many images, the figure of the Son supplants the Father, so a smaller portion of the person of the Father is depicted.<ref name="Adolphe Napoléon Didron pages 169">Didron, Adolphe Napoléon (2003), ''Christian iconography: or The history of Christian art in the middle ages'', {{ISBN|0-7661-4075-X}}, p. 169.</ref> By the 12th century depictions of God the Father had started to appear in French ]s, which as a less public form could often be more adventurous in their iconography, and in stained glass church windows in England. Initially the head or bust was usually shown in some form of frame of clouds in the top of the picture space, where the Hand of God had formerly appeared; the ] on the famous ] of ] is an example from 1118 (a Hand of God is used in another scene). Gradually the amount of the human symbol shown can increase to a half-length figure, then a full-length, usually enthroned, as in ]'s ] {{circa|1305}} in ].<ref name="ReferenceA">], at the top of the triumphal arch, ''God sending out the angel of the Annunciation''. See Schiller, I, figure 15.</ref> In the 14th century the ] carried a depiction of God the Father in the ]. By the early 15th century, the ] had a considerable number of symbols, including an elderly but tall and elegant full-length figure walking in the ], which show a considerable diversity of apparent ages and dress. The ] by ], begun in 1425 use a similar tall full-length symbol for the Father. The ] of about 1430 also included depictions of God the Father in half-length human form, which were now becoming standard, and the Hand of God becoming rarer. At the same period other works, such as the large Genesis ] by the Hamburg painter ], continued to use the old depiction of Christ as '']'' in Genesis scenes. In the 15th century there was a brief fashion for depicting all three persons of the Trinity as ]. In a Trinitarian ], God the Father is often symbolized using a man wearing a papal dress and a papal crown, supporting the dead Christ in his arms.<ref>Earls, Irene (1987). ''Renaissance art: a topical dictionary'', {{ISBN|0313246580}}, pp. 8, 283.</ref> In 1667 the 43rd chapter of the ] specifically included a ban on a number of symbolic depictions of God the Father and the Holy Spirit, which then also resulted in a range of other icons being placed on the forbidden list,<ref>Tarasov, Oleg (2004). ''Icon and devotion: sacred spaces in Imperial Russia'', {{ISBN|1861891180}}. p. 185.</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://genuineorthodoxchurch.com/moscow_1666.htm |title=Council of Moscow – 1666–1667 |access-date=30 December 2016 |archive-date=13 February 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210213222311/http://genuineorthodoxchurch.com/moscow_1666.htm |url-status=live}}</ref> mostly affecting Western-style depictions which had been gaining ground in Orthodox icons. The council also declared that the person of the Trinity who was the "Ancient of Days" was Christ, as ''logos'', not God the Father. However some icons continued to be produced in Russia, as well as Greece, Romania, and other Orthodox countries. | |||
], Istanbul]] | |||
]]] | |||
In Islam, Muslims believe that God (]) is beyond all comprehension, and does not resemble any of his creations in any way. Muslims tend to use the least anthropomorphism among monotheists.<ref name="Shaman">Shaman, Nicholas J.; Saide, Anondah R.; and Richert, Rebekah A. "Dimensional structure of and variation in anthropomorphic concepts of God". Frontiers in psychology 9 (2018): 1425.</ref> They are not ] and have religious calligraphy of titles of God instead of pictures.<ref name=":3">{{cite book |author=Lebron |first=Robyn |title=Searching for Spiritual Unity...Can There Be Common Ground? |year=2012 |isbn=978-1462712625 |page=117 |publisher=Crossbooks}}</ref> | |||
While representations of God the Father were growing in Italy, Spain, Germany and the Low Countries, there was resistance elsewhere in Europe, even during the 17th century. In 1632 most members of the ] court in England (except the ]) condemned the use of the images of the Trinity in church windows, and some considered them illegal.<ref>Charles Winston, 1847 ''An Inquiry Into the Difference of Style Observable in Ancient Glass Paintings, Especially in England'' {{ISBN|1-103-66622-3}}, (2009) page 229</ref> Later in the 17th century ] wrote that he considered the representation of God the Father using an old man "a dangerous act" that might lead to Egyptian symbolism.<ref name=":2">Sir Thomas Browne's Works, 1852, {{ISBN|0559376871}}, 2006 page 156</ref> In 1847, Charles Winston was still critical of such images as a "'']''" (a term used to refer to ]) that he considered best avoided in England.<ref>Charles Winston, 1847 ''An Inquiry Into the Difference of Style Observable in Ancient Glass Paintings, Especially in England'' {{ISBN|1-103-66622-3}}, (2009) page 230</ref> | |||
In 1667 the 43rd chapter of the ] specifically included a ban on a number of symbolic depictions of God the Father and the Holy Spirit, which then also resulted in a whole range of other icons being placed on the forbidden list,<ref>Oleg Tarasov, 2004 ''Icon and devotion: sacred spaces in Imperial Russia'' {{ISBN|1-86189-118-0}} page 185</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://genuineorthodoxchurch.com/moscow_1666.htm|title=Council of Moscow – 1666–1667|publisher=|accessdate=30 December 2016}}</ref> mostly affecting Western-style depictions which had been gaining ground in Orthodox icons. The Council also declared that the person of the Trinity who was the "Ancient of Days" was Christ, as ''Logos'', not God the Father. However some icons continued to be produced in Russia, as well as ], ], and other Orthodox countries. | |||
==Theological approaches== | |||
Theologians and philosophers have attributed to God such characteristics as ], ], ], perfect ], divine ], and ] and ] existence. God has been described as ], a personal being, the source of all ], and the greatest conceivable being existent.<ref name="Swinburne" /> These attributes were all claimed to varying degrees by the early ], ] and ] scholars, including ],<ref name="Edwards" /> ],<ref name="Edwards" /> and ].<ref name="autogenerated1">]. "God, Arguments for the Existence of", ''Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy'', Routledge, 2000.</ref> | |||
Many ]s developed arguments for the existence of God,<ref name="Platinga" /> while attempting to comprehend the precise implications of God's attributes. Reconciling some of those attributes generated important philosophical problems and debates. For example, God's omniscience may seem to imply that God knows how free agents will choose to act. If God does know this, their ostensible ] might be illusory, or foreknowledge does not imply predestination, and if God does not know it, God may not be omniscient.<ref name="Wierenga">Wierenga, Edward R. "Divine foreknowledge" in ]. ''The Cambridge Companion to Philosophy''. ], 2001.</ref> | |||
The last centuries of philosophy have seen vigorous questions regarding the ] raised by such philosophers as ], ] and ], although Kant held that the ] was valid. The ] response has been either to contend, as does ], that faith is "]", or to take, as does ], the ] position.<ref>{{Cite journal |first=Michael |last=Beaty |year=1991 |title=God Among the Philosophers |url=http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=53 |journal=The Christian Century |accessdate=2007-02-20 |deadurl=yes |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20070109162529/http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=53 |archivedate=2007-01-09 |df= }}</ref> Some ] agree that only some of the arguments for God's existence are compelling, but argue that ] is not a product of ], but requires risk. There would be no risk, they say, if the arguments for God's existence were as solid as the laws of logic, a position summed up by ] as "the heart has reasons of which reason does not know."<ref>]. '']'', 1669.</ref> A recent theory using concepts from physics and neurophysiology proposes that God can be conceptualized within the theory of ].<ref>Nikoletseas, Michael M. (2014). Deus Absconditus – The Hidden God. {{ISBN|978-1495336225}}</ref> | |||
Many religious believers allow for the existence of other, less powerful ]s such as ]s, ]s, ], ]s, and ].<ref>{{cite web|author=Tuesday, December 8, 2009|url=http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/more_americans_believe_in_angels_than_global_warming/|title=More Americans Believe in Angels than Global Warming|publisher=Outsidethebeltway.com|date=December 8, 2009|accessdate=2012-12-04}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|last=Van |first=David |url=http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1842179,00.html|title=Guardian Angels Are Here, Say Most Americans|publisher=TIME |date=2008-09-18 |accessdate=2012-12-04}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|author=|url=http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57347634/poll-nearly-8-in-10-americans-believe-in-angels/ |title=Poll: Nearly 8 in 10 Americans believe in angels |publisher=CBS News|date=December 23, 2011|accessdate=2012-12-04}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/06/23/ST2008062300818.html|title=Most Americans Believe in Higher Power, Poll Finds|publisher=washingtonpost.com|accessdate=2012-12-04|first=Jacqueline L.|last=Salmon}}</ref><ref>Qur'an 15:27</ref> | |||
==See also== | ==See also== | ||
{{Portal|Mythology|Philosophy|Religion}} | |||
* ] | |||
{{div col|small=no}} | |||
* {{look from|God}} | |||
* ] | |||
* ] | * ] | ||
* ] | * ] | ||
* ] | * ] | ||
* ] | * ] | ||
* ] | |||
* ] | |||
* ] | * ] | ||
{{div col end}} | |||
* ] | |||
* ] | |||
* ] | |||
* ] | |||
===In specific religions=== | |||
* ] | |||
* ] | |||
* ] | |||
* ] | |||
* ] | |||
* ] | |||
* ] | |||
* ] | |||
* ] | |||
* ] | |||
==References== | ==References== | ||
{{ |
{{Reflist}} | ||
== |
==Bibliography== | ||
{{refbegin}} | {{refbegin}} | ||
* {{cite encyclopedia |last=Boyce |first=Mary |author-link=Mary Boyce |title=Ahura Mazdā |encyclopedia=Encyclopaedia Iranica |location=New York |publisher=Routledge & Kegan Paul |year=1983 |volume=1 |pages=684–687}} | |||
* ], <cite>The Paradox of God and the Science of Omniscience</cite>, Palgrave/St Martin's Press, 2001. {{ISBN|1-4039-6457-2}} | |||
* {{cite book |last1=Bunnin |first1=Nicholas |last2=Yu |first2=Jiyuan |title=The Blackwell Dictionary of Western Philosophy |year=2008 |publisher=Blackwell |isbn=978-0470997215 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=LdbxabeToQYC |access-date=14 October 2020 |archive-date=15 August 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230815224620/https://books.google.com/books?id=LdbxabeToQYC |url-status=live}} | |||
* ], <cite>The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief</cite>, Free Press, 2006. {{ISBN|0-7432-8639-1}} | |||
* ], |
* ], ''The Paradox of God and the Science of Omniscience'', Palgrave/St Martin's Press, 2001. {{ISBN|1403964572}}. | ||
* ], |
* ], ''The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief'', Free Press, 2006. {{ISBN|0743286391}}. | ||
* ], '' |
* ], ''God: A Biography'', Vintage, 1996. {{ISBN|0679743685}}. | ||
* ], ''A History of God: The 4,000-Year Quest of Judaism, Christianity and Islam'', Ballantine Books, 1994. {{ISBN|0434024562}}. | |||
*{{cite book | |||
* ], ''Systematic Theology'', Vol. 1 (Chicago, Illinois: University of Chicago Press, 1951). {{ISBN|0226803376}}. | |||
|author= Hastings, James Rodney | |||
* {{cite book |last1=Halverson |first1=J. |title=Theology and Creed in Sunni Islam: The Muslim Brotherhood, Ash'arism, and Political Sunnism |year=2010 |publisher=Springer |isbn=978-0230106581 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=IYzGAAAAQBAJ |access-date=28 May 2023 |archive-date=23 May 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240523094748/https://books.google.com/books?id=IYzGAAAAQBAJ |url-status=live}} | |||
|authorlink=James Hastings | |||
* {{citation |last=Hastings |first=James Rodney |author-link=James Hastings |editor-first=John A. |editor-last=Selbie |title=Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics |volume=4 |publisher=Kessinger |location=Edinburgh, Scotland |year=1925–2003 |orig-date=1908–1926 |quote=The encyclopedia will contain articles on all the religions of the world and on all the great systems of ethics. It will aim at containing articles on every religious belief or custom, and on every ethical movement, every philosophical idea, every moral practice. |isbn=978-0766136731 |url=<!-- |access-date=5 March 2008--> |page=476}} | |||
|editor= | |||
|others=John A Selbie | |||
|title=] | |||
|edition=Volume 4 of 24 ( Behistun (continued) to Bunyan.) | |||
|language= | |||
|publisher=Kessinger Publishing, LLC | |||
|location=Edinburgh | |||
|year=1925–2003 | |||
|origyear=1908–26 | |||
|quote=The encyclopedia will contain articles on all the religions of the world and on all the great systems of ethics. It will aim at containing articles on every religious belief or custom, and on every ethical movement, every philosophical idea, every moral practice. | |||
|isbn=0-7661-3673-6 | |||
|oclc= | |||
|doi= | |||
|url=<!-- | |||
|accessdate=2008-03-05--> | |||
|page=476 | |||
}} | |||
{{refend}} | {{refend}} | ||
==External links== | ==External links== | ||
{{Library resources box}} | |||
{{Sister project links|s=no |b=no}} | {{Sister project links|s=no |b=no}} | ||
{{Spoken Misplaced Pages|God_Article_Spoken_2008.ogg|2008-01-06}} | {{Spoken Misplaced Pages|God_Article_Spoken_2008.ogg|date=2008-01-06}} | ||
* | * | ||
* | * {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190421081921/http://www.islam-info.ch/en/Who_is_Allah.htm |date=21 April 2019 }} | ||
* | * | ||
* | * | ||
* | * {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20101219080545/http://www.aish.com/literacy/concepts/Understanding_God.asp |date=19 December 2010 }} | ||
* | * | ||
{{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20101219080545/http://www.aish.com/literacy/concepts/Understanding_God.asp |date=19 December 2010 }} | |||
{{portal bar|Religion|Spirituality|Mythology}} | |||
{{Theism}} | {{Theism}} | ||
{{Belief systems}} | |||
{{Religion topics|hide}} | {{Religion topics|hide}} | ||
{{Theology}} | {{Theology}} | ||
{{Names of God}} | {{Names of God}} | ||
{{Authority control}} | {{Authority control}} | ||
] | ] | ||
] | ] | ||
] | |||
] | |||
] | ] | ||
] | ] | ||
] |
Latest revision as of 20:18, 8 January 2025
Principal object of faith in monotheismThis article is about the supreme being in monotheistic belief systems. For powerful supernatural beings considered divine or sacred, see Deity. For God in specific religions, see Conceptions of God. For other uses, see God (disambiguation).
Left to right, top to bottom: representations of God in Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Baháʼí Faith, Zoroastrianism, and Vaishnava Hinduism
In monotheistic belief systems, God is usually viewed as the supreme being, creator, and principal object of faith. In polytheistic belief systems, a god is "a spirit or being believed to have created, or for controlling some part of the universe or life, for which such a deity is often worshipped". Belief in the existence of at least one god is called theism.
Conceptions of God vary considerably. Many notable theologians and philosophers have developed arguments for and against the existence of God. Atheism rejects the belief in any deity. Agnosticism is the belief that the existence of God is unknown or unknowable. Some theists view knowledge concerning God as derived from faith. God is often conceived as the greatest entity in existence. God is often believed to be the cause of all things and so is seen as the creator, sustainer, and ruler of the universe. God is often thought of as incorporeal and independent of the material creation, while pantheism holds that God is the universe itself. God is sometimes seen as omnibenevolent, while deism holds that God is not involved with humanity apart from creation.
Some traditions attach spiritual significance to maintaining some form of relationship with God, often involving acts such as worship and prayer, and see God as the source of all moral obligation. God is sometimes described without reference to gender, while others use terminology that is gender-specific. God is referred to by different names depending on the language and cultural tradition, sometimes with different titles of God used in reference to God's various attributes.
Etymology and usage
Main article: God (word)The earliest written form of the Germanic word God comes from the 6th-century Codex Argenteus, containing a Gothic translation of the Bible. The English word itself is derived from the Proto-Germanic *ǥuđan. The reconstructed Proto-Indo-European form *ǵhu-tó-m was probably based on the root *ǵhau(ə)-, which meant either "to call" or "to invoke". The Germanic words for God were originally neuter, but during the process of the Christianization of the Germanic peoples from their indigenous Germanic paganism, the words became a masculine syntactic form. In English, capitalization is used when the word is used as a proper noun, as well as for other names by which a god is known. Consequently, the capitalized form of god is not used for multiple gods or when used to refer to the generic idea of a deity.
The English word God and its counterparts in other languages are normally used for any and all conceptions and, in spite of significant differences between religions, the term remains an English translation common to all.
The Hebrew word for 'god' is El, which also as a proper noun referred to the chief deity in ancient Semitic religions. In the Hebrew Bible, God is also given a personal name, Yahweh, in contrast to the genetic name, and in origin possibly the name of an Edomite or Midianite deity who was adopted into ancient Israelite religion. In many English translations of the Bible, Yahweh is translated as "the LORD" with "Lord" in all caps. Jah or Yah is an abbreviation of Jahweh/Yahweh, and often sees usage by Jews and Christians in the interjection "Hallelujah", meaning 'praise Jah', which is used to give God glory. In Judaism, some of the Hebrew titles of God are considered holy names.
Allāh (Arabic: الله) is the Arabic term with no plural used by Muslims and Arabic-speaking Christians and Jews meaning 'the God', while ʾilāh (إِلَٰه, plural `āliha آلِهَة) is the term used for a deity or a god in general. Muslims also use a multitude of other titles for God.
In Hinduism, Brahman is often considered a monistic concept of God. God may also be given a proper name in monotheistic currents of Hinduism which emphasize the personal nature of God, with early references to his name as Krishna-Vasudeva in Bhagavata or later Vishnu and Hari. Sang Hyang Widhi Wasa is the term used in Balinese Hinduism.
In Chinese religion, Shangdi is conceived as the progenitor of the universe, intrinsic to it and constantly bringing order to it.
Ahura Mazda is the name for God used in Zoroastrianism. "Mazda", or rather the Avestan stem-form Mazdā-, nominative Mazdå, reflects Proto-Iranian *Mazdāh (female). It is generally taken to be the proper name of the spirit, and like its Sanskrit cognate medhā means 'intelligence' or 'wisdom'. Both the Avestan and Sanskrit words reflect Proto-Indo-Iranian *mazdhā-, from Proto-Indo-European mn̩sdʰeh1, literally meaning 'placing (dʰeh1) one's mind (*mn̩-s)', hence 'wise'. Meanwhile 101 other names are also in use.
Waheguru (Punjabi: vāhigurū) is a term most often used in Sikhism to refer to God. It means 'Wonderful Teacher' in the Punjabi language. Vāhi (a Middle Persian borrowing) means 'wonderful', and guru (Sanskrit: guru) is a term denoting 'teacher'. Waheguru is also described by some as an experience of ecstasy which is beyond all description. The most common usage of the word Waheguru is in the greeting Sikhs use with each other—Waheguru Ji Ka Khalsa, Waheguru Ji Ki Fateh, "Wonderful Lord's Khalsa, Victory is to the Wonderful Lord."
Baha, the "greatest" name for God in the Baháʼí Faith, is Arabic for "All-Glorious".
Other names for God include Aten in ancient Egyptian Atenism where Aten was proclaimed to be the one "true" supreme being and creator of the universe, Chukwu in Igbo, and Hayyi Rabbi in Mandaeism.
General conceptions
Existence
Main article: Existence of God See also: Theism, Atheism, and AgnosticismThe existence of God is a subject of debate in theology, philosophy of religion and popular culture. In philosophical terms, the question of the existence of God involves the disciplines of epistemology (the nature and scope of knowledge) and ontology (study of the nature of being or existence) and the theory of value (since some definitions of God include "perfection").
Ontological arguments refer to any argument for the existence of God that is based on a priori reasoning. Notable ontological arguments were formulated by Anselm and René Descartes. Cosmological arguments use concepts around the origin of the universe to argue for the existence of God.
The teleological argument, also called "argument from design", uses the complexity within the universe as a proof of the existence of God. It is countered that the fine tuning required for a stable universe with life on earth is illusory, as humans are only able to observe the small part of this universe that succeeded in making such observation possible, called the anthropic principle, and so would not learn of, for example, life on other planets or of universes that did not occur because of different laws of physics. Non-theists have argued that complex processes that have natural explanations yet to be discovered are referred to the supernatural, called god of the gaps. Other theists, such as John Henry Newman who believed theistic evolution was acceptable, have also argued against versions of the teleological argument and held that it is limiting of God to view him having to only intervene specially in some instances rather than having complex processes designed to create order.
The argument from beauty states that this universe happens to contain special beauty in it and that there would be no particular reason for this over aesthetic neutrality other than God. This has been countered by pointing to the existence of ugliness in the universe. This has also been countered by arguing that beauty has no objective reality and so the universe could be seen as ugly or that humans have made what is more beautiful than nature.
The argument from morality argues for the existence of God given the assumption of the objective existence of morals. While prominent non-theistic philosophers such as the atheist J. L. Mackie agreed that the argument is valid, they disagreed with its premises. David Hume argued that there is no basis to believe in objective moral truths while biologist E. O. Wilson theorized that the feelings of morality are a by-product of natural selection in humans and would not exist independent of the mind. Philosopher Michael Lou Martin argued that a subjective account for morality can be acceptable. Similar to the argument from morality is the argument from conscience which argues for the existence of God given the existence of a conscience that informs of right and wrong, even against prevailing moral codes. Philosopher John Locke instead argued that conscience is a social construct and thus could lead to contradicting morals.
Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. Agnosticism is the view that the truth values of certain claims—especially metaphysical and religious claims such as whether God, the divine or the supernatural exist—are unknown and perhaps unknowable. Theism generally holds that God exists objectively and independently of human thought and is sometimes used to refer to any belief in God or gods.
Some view the existence of God as an empirical question. Richard Dawkins states that "a universe with a god would be a completely different kind of universe from one without, and it would be a scientific difference". Carl Sagan argued that the doctrine of a Creator of the Universe was difficult to prove or disprove and that the only conceivable scientific discovery that could disprove the existence of a Creator (not necessarily a God) would be the discovery that the universe is infinitely old. Some theologians, such as Alister McGrath, argue that the existence of God is not a question that can be answered using the scientific method.
Agnostic Stephen Jay Gould argued that science and religion are not in conflict and proposed an approach dividing the world of philosophy into what he called "non-overlapping magisteria" (NOMA). In this view, questions of the supernatural, such as those relating to the existence and nature of God, are non-empirical and are the proper domain of theology. The methods of science should then be used to answer any empirical question about the natural world, and theology should be used to answer questions about ultimate meaning and moral value. In this view, the perceived lack of any empirical footprint from the magisterium of the supernatural onto natural events makes science the sole player in the natural world. Stephen Hawking and co-author Leonard Mlodinow state in their 2010 book, The Grand Design, that it is reasonable to ask who or what created the universe, but if the answer is God, then the question has merely been deflected to that of who created God. Both authors claim, however, that it is possible to answer these questions purely within the realm of science and without invoking divine beings.
Oneness
Main articles: Deity, Monotheism, and HenotheismA deity, or "god" (with lowercase g), refers to a supernatural being. Monotheism is the belief that there is only one deity, referred to as "God" (with uppercase g). Comparing or equating other entities to God is viewed as idolatry in monotheism, and is often strongly condemned. Judaism is one of the oldest monotheistic traditions in the world. Islam's most fundamental concept is tawhid, meaning 'oneness' or "uniqueness'. The first pillar of Islam is an oath that forms the basis of the religion and which non-Muslims wishing to convert must recite, declaring that, "I testify that there is no deity except God."
In Christianity, the doctrine of the Trinity describes God as one God in Father, Son (Jesus), and Holy Spirit. In past centuries, this fundamental mystery of the Christian faith was also summarized by the Latin formula Sancta Trinitas, Unus Deus (Holy Trinity, Unique God), reported in the Litanias Lauretanas.
God in Hinduism is viewed differently by diverse strands of the religion, with most Hindus having faith in a supreme reality (Brahman) who can be manifested in numerous chosen deities. Thus, the religion is sometimes characterized as Polymorphic Monotheism. Henotheism is the belief and worship of a single god at a time while accepting the validity of worshiping other deities. Monolatry is the belief in a single deity worthy of worship while accepting the existence of other deities.
Transcendence
See also: Pantheism and PanentheismTranscendence is the aspect of God's nature that is completely independent of the material universe and its physical laws. Many supposed characteristics of God are described in human terms. Anselm thought that God did not feel emotions such as anger or love, but appeared to do so through our imperfect understanding. The incongruity of judging "being" against something that might not exist, led many medieval philosophers approach to knowledge of God through negative attributes, called Negative theology. For example, one should not say that God is wise, but can say that God is not ignorant (i.e. in some way God has some properties of knowledge). Christian theologian Alister McGrath writes that one has to understand a "personal god" as an analogy. "To say that God is like a person is to affirm the divine ability and willingness to relate to others. This does not imply that God is human, or located at a specific point in the universe."
Pantheism holds that God is the universe and the universe is God and denies that God transcends the Universe. For pantheist philosopher Baruch Spinoza, the whole of the natural universe is made of one substance, God, or its equivalent, Nature. Pantheism is sometimes objected to as not providing any meaningful explanation of God with the German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer stating, "Pantheism is only a euphemism for atheism." Pandeism holds that God was a separate entity but then became the universe. Panentheism holds that God contains, but is not identical to, the Universe.
Creator
See also: Creator deityGod is often viewed as the cause of all that exists. For Pythagoreans, Monad variously referred to divinity, the first being or an indivisible origin. The philosophy of Plato and Plotinus refers to "The One", which is the first principle of reality that is "beyond" being and is both the source of the Universe and the teleological purpose of all things. Aristotle theorized a first uncaused cause for all motion in the universe and viewed it as perfectly beautiful, immaterial, unchanging and indivisible. Aseity is the property of not depending on any cause other than itself for its existence. Avicenna held that there must be a necessarily existent guaranteed to exist by its essence—it cannot "not" exist—and that humans identify this as God. Secondary causation refers to God creating the laws of the Universe which then can change themselves within the framework of those laws. In addition to the initial creation, occasionalism refers to the idea that the Universe would not by default continue to exist from one instant to the next and so would need to rely on God as a sustainer. While divine providence refers to any intervention by God, it is usually used to refer to "special providence", where there is an extraordinary intervention by God, such as miracles.
Benevolence
See also: Deism and Thirteen Attributes of MercyDeism holds that God exists but does not intervene in the world beyond what was necessary to create it, such as answering prayers or producing miracles. Deists sometimes attribute this to God having no interest in or not being aware of humanity. Pandeists would hold that God does not intervene because God is the Universe.
Of those theists who hold that God has an interest in humanity, most hold that God is omnipotent, omniscient, and benevolent. This belief raises questions about God's responsibility for evil and suffering in the world. Dystheism, which is related to theodicy, is a form of theism that holds that God is either not wholly good or is fully malevolent as a consequence of the problem of evil.
Omniscience and omnipotence
Omnipotence (all-powerful) is an attribute often ascribed to God. The omnipotence paradox is most often framed with the example "Could God create a stone so heavy that even he could not lift it?" as God could either be unable to create that stone or lift that stone and so could not be omnipotent. This is often countered with variations of the argument that omnipotence, like any other attribute ascribed to God, only applies as far as it is noble enough to befit God and thus God cannot lie, or do what is contradictory as that would entail opposing himself.
Omniscience (all-knowing) is an attribute often ascribed to God. This implies that God knows how free agents will choose to act. If God does know this, either their free will might be illusory or foreknowledge does not imply predestination, and if God does not know it, God may not be omniscient. Open Theism limits God's omniscience by contending that, due to the nature of time, God's omniscience does not mean the deity can predict the future and process theology holds that God does not have immutability, so is affected by his creation.
Other concepts
Theologians of theistic personalism (the view held by René Descartes, Isaac Newton, Alvin Plantinga, Richard Swinburne, William Lane Craig, and most modern evangelicals) argue that God is most generally the ground of all being, immanent in and transcendent over the whole world of reality, with immanence and transcendence being the contrapletes of personality.
God has also been conceived as being incorporeal (immaterial), a personal being, the source of all moral obligation, and the "greatest conceivable existent". These attributes were all supported to varying degrees by the early Jewish, Christian and Muslim theologian philosophers, including Maimonides, Augustine of Hippo, and Al-Ghazali, respectively.
Non-theistic views
Religious traditions
Jainism has generally rejected creationism, holding that soul substances (Jīva) are uncreated and that time is beginningless.
Some interpretations and traditions of Buddhism can be conceived as being non-theistic. Buddhism has generally rejected the specific monotheistic view of a creator deity. The Buddha criticizes the theory of creationism in the early Buddhist texts. Also, major Indian Buddhist philosophers, such as Nagarjuna, Vasubandhu, Dharmakirti, and Buddhaghosa, consistently critiqued Creator God views put forth by Hindu thinkers. However, as a non-theistic religion, Buddhism leaves the existence of a supreme deity ambiguous. There are significant numbers of Buddhists who believe in God, and there are equally large numbers who deny God's existence or are unsure.
Chinese religions such as Confucianism and Taoism are silent on the existence of creator gods. However, keeping with the tradition of ancestor veneration in China, adherents worship the spirits of people such as Confucius and Laozi in a similar manner to God.
Anthropology
See also: Evolutionary origin of religions, Evolutionary psychology of religion, and AnthropomorphismSome atheists have argued that a single, omniscient God who is imagined to have created the universe and is particularly attentive to the lives of humans has been imagined and embellished over generations.
Pascal Boyer argues that while there is a wide array of supernatural concepts found around the world, in general, supernatural beings tend to behave much like people. The construction of gods and spirits like persons is one of the best known traits of religion. He cites examples from Greek mythology, which is, in his opinion, more like a modern soap opera than other religious systems.
Bertrand du Castel and Timothy Jurgensen demonstrate through formalization that Boyer's explanatory model matches physics' epistemology in positing not directly observable entities as intermediaries.
Anthropologist Stewart Guthrie contends that people project human features onto non-human aspects of the world because it makes those aspects more familiar. Sigmund Freud also suggested that god concepts are projections of one's father.
Likewise, Émile Durkheim was one of the earliest to suggest that gods represent an extension of human social life to include supernatural beings. In line with this reasoning, psychologist Matt Rossano contends that when humans began living in larger groups, they may have created gods as a means of enforcing morality. In small groups, morality can be enforced by social forces such as gossip or reputation. However, it is much harder to enforce morality using social forces in much larger groups. Rossano indicates that by including ever-watchful gods and spirits, humans discovered an effective strategy for restraining selfishness and building more cooperative groups.
Neuroscience and psychology
See also: Jungian interpretation of religionJohns Hopkins researchers studying the effects of the "spirit molecule" DMT, which is both an endogenous molecule in the human brain and the active molecule in the psychedelic ayahuasca, found that a large majority of respondents said DMT brought them into contact with a "conscious, intelligent, benevolent, and sacred entity", and describe interactions that oozed joy, trust, love, and kindness. More than half of those who had previously self-identified as atheists described some type of belief in a higher power or God after the experience.
About a quarter of those afflicted by temporal lobe seizures experience what is described as a religious experience and may become preoccupied by thoughts of God even if they were not previously. Neuroscientist V. S. Ramachandran hypothesizes that seizures in the temporal lobe, which is closely connected to the emotional center of the brain, the limbic system, may lead to those afflicted to view even banal objects with heightened meaning.
Psychologists studying feelings of awe found that participants feeling awe after watching scenes of natural wonders become more likely to believe in a supernatural being and to see events as the result of design, even when given randomly generated numbers.
Relationship with humanity
Worship
See also: Worship, Prayer, and SupplicationTheistic religious traditions often require worship of God and sometimes hold that the purpose of existence is to worship God. To address the issue of an all-powerful being demanding to be worshipped, it is held that God does not need or benefit from worship but that worship is for the benefit of the worshipper. Mahatma Gandhi expressed the view that God does not need his supplication and that, "Prayer is not an asking. It is a longing of the soul. It is a daily admission of one's weakness." Invoking God in prayer plays a significant role among many believers. Depending on the tradition, God can be viewed as a personal God who is only to be invoked directly while other traditions allow praying to intermediaries, such as saints, to intercede on their behalf. Prayer often also includes supplication such as asking forgiveness. God is often believed to be forgiving. For example, a hadith states God would replace a sinless people with one who sinned but still asked repentance. Sacrifice for the sake of God is another act of devotion that includes fasting and almsgiving. Remembrance of God in daily life include mentioning interjections thanking God when feeling gratitude or phrases of adoration, such as repeating chants while performing other activities.
Salvation
Main article: SalvationTranstheistic religious traditions may believe in the existence of deities but deny any spiritual significance to them. The term has been used to describe certain strands of Buddhism, Jainism and Stoicism.
Among religions that do attach spirituality to the relationship with God disagree as how to best worship God and what is God's plan for mankind. There are different approaches to reconciling the contradictory claims of monotheistic religions. One view is taken by exclusivists, who believe they are the chosen people or have exclusive access to absolute truth, generally through revelation or encounter with the Divine, which adherents of other religions do not. Another view is religious pluralism. A pluralist typically believes that his religion is the right one, but does not deny the partial truth of other religions. The view that all theists actually worship the same god, whether they know it or not, is especially emphasized in the Baháʼí Faith, Hinduism, and Sikhism. The Baháʼí Faith preaches that divine manifestations include great prophets and teachers of many of the major religious traditions such as Krishna, Buddha, Jesus, Zoroaster, Muhammad, Bahá'ú'lláh and also preaches the unity of all religions and focuses on these multiple epiphanies as necessary for meeting the needs of humanity at different points in history and for different cultures, and as part of a scheme of progressive revelation and education of humanity. An example of a pluralist view in Christianity is supersessionism, i.e., the belief that one's religion is the fulfillment of previous religions. A third approach is relativistic inclusivism, where everybody is seen as equally right; an example being universalism: the doctrine that salvation is eventually available for everyone. A fourth approach is syncretism, mixing different elements from different religions. An example of syncretism is the New Age movement.
Epistemology
Faith
Main article: FaithFideism is the position that in certain topics, notably theology such as in reformed epistemology, faith is superior than reason in arriving at truths. Some theists argue that there is value to the risk in having faith and that if the arguments for God's existence were as rational as the laws of physics then there would be no risk. Such theists often argue that the heart is attracted to beauty, truth and goodness and so would be best for dictating about God, as illustrated through Blaise Pascal who said, "The heart has its reasons that reason does not know." A hadith attributes a quote to God as "I am what my slave thinks of me." Inherent intuition about God is referred to in Islam as fitra, or "innate nature". In Confucian tradition, Confucius and Mencius promoted that the only justification for right conduct, called the Way, is what is dictated by Heaven, a more or less anthropomorphic higher power, and is implanted in humans and thus there is only one universal foundation for the Way.
Revelation
Main article: Revelation See also: ProphetRevelation refers to some form of message communicated by God. This is usually proposed to occur through the use of prophets or angels. Al-Maturidi argued for the need for revelation because even though humans are intellectually capable of realizing God, human desire can divert the intellect and because certain knowledge cannot be known except when specially given to prophets, such as the specifications of acts of worship. It is argued that there is also that which overlaps between what is revealed and what can be derived. According to Islam, one of the earliest revelations to ever be revealed was "If you feel no shame, then do as you wish." The term general revelation is used to refer to knowledge revealed about God outside of direct or special revelation such as scriptures. Notably, this includes studying nature, sometimes seen as the Book of Nature. An idiom in Arabic states, "The Qur'an is a Universe that speaks. The Universe is a silent Qur'an."
Reason
On matters of theology, some such as Richard Swinburne, take an evidentialist position, where a belief is only justified if it has a reason behind it, as opposed to holding it as a foundational belief. Traditionalist theology holds that one should not opinionate beyond revelation to understand God's nature and frown upon rationalizations such as speculative theology. Notably, for anthropomorphic descriptions such as the "Hand of God" and attributes of God, they neither nullify such texts nor accept a literal hand but leave any ambiguity to God, called tafwid, without asking how. Physico-theology provides arguments for theological topics based on reason.
Specific characteristics
See also: Attributes of God (disambiguation)Titles
Main article: Names of God See also: Names of God in IslamIn the Judeo-Christian tradition, "the Bible has been the principal source of the conceptions of God". That the Bible "includes many different images, concepts, and ways of thinking about" God has resulted in perpetual "disagreements about how God is to be conceived and understood". Throughout the Hebrew and Christian Bibles there are titles for God, who revealed his personal name as YHWH (often vocalized as Yahweh or Jehovah). One of them is Elohim. Another one is El Shaddai, translated 'God Almighty'. A third notable title is El Elyon, which means 'The High God'. Also noted in the Hebrew and Christian Bibles is the name "I Am that I Am".
God is described and referred in the Quran and hadith by certain names or attributes, the most common being Al-Rahman, meaning 'Most Compassionate', and Al-Rahim, meaning 'Most Merciful'. Many of these names are also used in the scriptures of the Baháʼí Faith.
Vaishnavism, a tradition in Hinduism, has a list of titles and names of Krishna.
Gender
Main article: Gender of GodThe gender of God may be viewed as either a literal or an allegorical aspect of a deity who, in classical Western philosophy, transcends bodily form. Polytheistic religions commonly attribute to each of the gods a gender, allowing each to interact with any of the others, and perhaps with humans, sexually. In most monotheistic religions, God has no counterpart with which to relate sexually. Thus, in classical Western philosophy the gender of this one-and-only deity is most likely to be an analogical statement of how humans and God address, and relate to, each other. Namely, God is seen as begetter of the world and revelation which corresponds to the active (as opposed to the receptive) role in sexual intercourse.
Biblical sources usually refer to God using male or paternal words and symbolism, except Genesis 1:26–27, Psalm 123:2–3, and Luke 15:8–10 (female); Hosea 11:3–4, Deuteronomy 32:18, Isaiah 66:13, Isaiah 49:15, Isaiah 42:14, Psalm 131:2 (a mother); Deuteronomy 32:11–12 (a mother eagle); and Matthew 23:37 and Luke 13:34 (a mother hen).
In Sikhism, God is "Ajuni" (Without Incarnations), which means that God is not bound to any physical forms. This concludes that the All-pervading Lord is Gender-less. However, the Guru Granth Sahib constantly refers to God as 'He' and 'Father' (with some exceptions), typically because the Guru Granth Sahib was written in north Indian Indo-Aryan languages (mixture of Punjabi and Sant Bhasha, Sanskrit with influences of Persian) which have no neutral gender. From further insights into the Sikh philosophy, it can be deduced that God is, sometimes, referred to as the Husband to the Soul-brides, in order to make a patriarchal society understand what the relationship with God is like. Also, God is considered to be the Father, Mother, and Companion.
Depiction
See also: Incorporeality and God the Father in Western artIn Zoroastrianism, during the early Parthian Empire, Ahura Mazda was visually represented for worship. This practice ended during the beginning of the Sasanian Empire. Zoroastrian iconoclasm, which can be traced to the end of the Parthian period and the beginning of the Sassanid, eventually put an end to the use of all images of Ahura Mazda in worship. However, Ahura Mazda continued to be symbolized by a dignified male figure, standing or on horseback, which is found in Sassanian investiture.
Deities from Near Eastern cultures are often thought of as anthropomorphic entities who have a human like body which is, however, not equal to a human body. Such bodies were often thought to be radiant or fiery, of superhuman size or extreme beauty. The ancient deity of the Israelites (Yahweh) too was imagined as a transcendent but still anthropomorphic deity. Humans could not see him, because of their impurity in contrast to Yahweh's holiness, Yahweh being described as radiating fire and light which could kill a human if looking at him. Further, more religious or spiritual people tend to have less anthropomorphic depictions of God. In Judaism, the Torah often ascribes human features to God, however, many other passages describe God as formless and otherworldly. Judaism is aniconic, meaning it overly lacks material, physical representations of both the natural and supernatural worlds. Furthermore, the worship of idols is strictly forbidden. The traditional view, elaborated by figures such as Maimonides, reckons that God is wholly incomprehensible and therefore impossible to envision, resulting in a historical tradition of "divine incorporeality". As such, attempting to describe God's "appearance" in practical terms is considered disrespectful to the deity and thus is taboo, and arguably heretical.
Gnostic cosmogony often depicts the creator god of the Old Testament as an evil lesser deity or Demiurge, while the higher benevolent god or Monad is thought of as something beyond comprehension having immeasurable light and not in time or among things that exist, but rather is greater than them in a sense. All people are said to have a piece of God or divine spark within them which has fallen from the immaterial world into the corrupt material world and is trapped unless gnosis is attained.
Early Christians believed that the words of the Gospel of John 1:18: "No man has seen God at any time" and numerous other statements were meant to apply not only to God, but to all attempts at the depiction of God. However, later depictions of God are found. Some, such as the Hand of God, are depiction borrowed from Jewish art. Prior to the 10th century no attempt was made to use a human to symbolize God the Father in Western art. Yet, Western art eventually required some way to illustrate the presence of the Father, so through successive representations a set of artistic styles for symbolizing the Father using a man gradually emerged around the 10th century AD. A rationale for the use of a human is the belief that God created the soul of man in the image of his own (thus allowing humans to transcend the other animals). It appears that when early artists designed to represent God the Father, fear and awe restrained them from a usage of the whole human figure. Typically only a small part would be used as the image, usually the hand, or sometimes the face, but rarely a whole human. In many images, the figure of the Son supplants the Father, so a smaller portion of the person of the Father is depicted. By the 12th century depictions of God the Father had started to appear in French illuminated manuscripts, which as a less public form could often be more adventurous in their iconography, and in stained glass church windows in England. Initially the head or bust was usually shown in some form of frame of clouds in the top of the picture space, where the Hand of God had formerly appeared; the Baptism of Christ on the famous baptismal font in Liège of Rainer of Huy is an example from 1118 (a Hand of God is used in another scene). Gradually the amount of the human symbol shown can increase to a half-length figure, then a full-length, usually enthroned, as in Giotto's fresco c. 1305 in Padua. In the 14th century the Naples Bible carried a depiction of God the Father in the Burning bush. By the early 15th century, the Très Riches Heures du Duc de Berry had a considerable number of symbols, including an elderly but tall and elegant full-length figure walking in the Garden of Eden, which show a considerable diversity of apparent ages and dress. The "Gates of Paradise" of the Florence Baptistry by Lorenzo Ghiberti, begun in 1425 use a similar tall full-length symbol for the Father. The Rohan Book of Hours of about 1430 also included depictions of God the Father in half-length human form, which were now becoming standard, and the Hand of God becoming rarer. At the same period other works, such as the large Genesis altarpiece by the Hamburg painter Meister Bertram, continued to use the old depiction of Christ as Logos in Genesis scenes. In the 15th century there was a brief fashion for depicting all three persons of the Trinity as similar or identical figures with the usual appearance of Christ. In a Trinitarian Pietà, God the Father is often symbolized using a man wearing a papal dress and a papal crown, supporting the dead Christ in his arms. In 1667 the 43rd chapter of the Great Moscow Synod specifically included a ban on a number of symbolic depictions of God the Father and the Holy Spirit, which then also resulted in a range of other icons being placed on the forbidden list, mostly affecting Western-style depictions which had been gaining ground in Orthodox icons. The council also declared that the person of the Trinity who was the "Ancient of Days" was Christ, as logos, not God the Father. However some icons continued to be produced in Russia, as well as Greece, Romania, and other Orthodox countries.
In Islam, Muslims believe that God (Allah) is beyond all comprehension, and does not resemble any of his creations in any way. Muslims tend to use the least anthropomorphism among monotheists. They are not iconodules and have religious calligraphy of titles of God instead of pictures.
See also
- All pages with titles beginning with God
- Apatheism
- Apeiron (cosmology)
- Demigod
- Existence of God
- God complex
- Relationship between religion and science
- Third man factor
References
- ^ Swinburne, R. G. (1995). "God". In Honderich, Ted (ed.). The Oxford Companion to Philosophy. Oxford University Press.
-
- "god". Cambridge Dictionary.
- "God". Merriam-Webster English Dictionary. Archived from the original on 20 February 2023.
-
- "Theism". Dictionary.com. Archived from the original on 2 December 2023. Retrieved 13 November 2023.
- "Theism". Merriam-Webster English Dictionary. Archived from the original on 14 May 2011. Retrieved 13 November 2023.
- ^ Plantinga, Alvin. "God, Arguments for the Existence of", Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Routledge, 2000.
- Bordwell, David (2002). Catechism of the Catholic Church. Continuum. p. 84. ISBN 978-0-860-12324-8.
- "Catechism of the Catholic Church". Archived from the original on 3 March 2013. Retrieved 30 December 2016 – via IntraText.
- The ulterior etymology is disputed. Apart from the unlikely hypothesis of adoption from a foreign tongue, the OTeut. "ghuba" implies as its preTeut-type either "*ghodho-m" or "*ghodto-m". The former does not appear to admit of explanation; but the latter would represent the neut. pple. of a root "gheu-". There are two Aryan roots of the required form ("*g,heu-" with palatal aspirate) one with meaning 'to invoke' (Skr. "hu") the other 'to pour, to offer sacrifice' (Skr "hu", Gr. χεηi;ν, OE "geotàn" Yete v). Oxford English Dictionary Compact Edition, G, p. 267.
- Barnhart, Robert K. (1995). The Barnhart Concise Dictionary of Etymology: the Origins of American English Words, p. 323. HarperCollins. ISBN 0062700847.
- Webster's New World Dictionary; "God n. ME < OE , akin to Ger gott, Goth guth, prob. < IE base *ĝhau-, to call out to, invoke > Sans havaté, (he) calls upon; 1. any of various beings conceived of as supernatural, immortal, and having special powers over the lives and affairs of people and the course of nature; deity, esp. a male deity: typically considered objects of worship; 2. an image that is worshiped; idol 3. a person or thing deified or excessively honored and admired; 4. in monotheistic religions, the creator and ruler of the universe, regarded as eternal, infinite, all-powerful, and all-knowing; Supreme Being; the Almighty"
- Dictionary.com Archived 19 April 2009 at the Wayback Machine; "God /gɒd/ noun: 1. the one Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe. 2. the Supreme Being considered with reference to a particular attribute. 3. (lowercase) one of several deities, esp. a male deity, presiding over some portion of worldly affairs. 4. (often lowercase) a supreme being according to some particular conception: the God of mercy. 5. Christian Science. the Supreme Being, understood as Life, Truth, Love, Mind, Soul, Spirit, Principle. 6. (lowercase) an image of a deity; an idol. 7. (lowercase) any deified person or object. 8. (often lowercase) Gods, Theater. 8a. the upper balcony in a theater. 8b. the spectators in this part of the balcony."
- ^ Parke-Taylor, G. H. (1 January 2006). Yahweh: The Divine Name in the Bible. Wilfrid Laurier University Press. p. 4. ISBN 978-0889206526.
- Barton, G. A. (2006). A Sketch of Semitic Origins: Social and Religious. Kessinger Publishing. ISBN 978-1428615755.
- Loewen, Jacob A. (1 June 2020). The Bible in Cross Cultural Perspective (Revised ed.). William Carey. p. 182. ISBN 978-1645083047.
- "God". Islam: Empire of Faith. PBS. Archived from the original on 27 March 2014. Retrieved 18 December 2010.
- "Islam and Christianity", Encyclopedia of Christianity (2001): Arabic-speaking Christians and Jews also refer to God as Allāh.
- Gardet, L. "Allah". Encyclopaedia of Islam Online.
- Levine, Michael P. (2002). Pantheism: A Non-Theistic Concept of Deity, p. 136.
- Hastings 1925–2003, p. 540.
- McDaniel, June (2013), A Modern Hindu Monotheism: Indonesian Hindus as 'People of the Book'. The Journal of Hindu Studies, Oxford University Press, doi:10.1093/jhs/hit030.
- Boyce 1983, p. 685.
- Kidder, David S.; Oppenheim, Noah D. The Intellectual Devotional: Revive Your Mind, Complete Your Education, and Roam confidently with the cultured class, p. 364.
- Duggal, Kartar Singh (1988). Philosophy and Faith of Sikhism, p. ix.
- Baháʾuʾlláh, Joyce Watanabe (2006). A Feast for the Soul: Meditations on the Attributes of God : ... p. x.
- Assmann, Jan. Religion and Cultural Memory: Ten Studies, Stanford University Press 2005, p. 59.
- Lichtheim, M. (1980). Ancient Egyptian Literature, Vol. 2, p. 96.
- Afigbo, A. E; Falola, Toyin (2006). Myth, history and society: the collected works of Adiele Afigbo. Trenton, New Jersey: Africa World Press. ISBN 978-1592214198. OCLC 61361536. Archived from the original on 23 May 2024. Retrieved 11 March 2023.
- Buckley, Jorunn Jacobsen (2002). The Mandaeans: ancient texts and modern people. New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0195153855. OCLC 65198443.
- Nashmi, Yuhana (24 April 2013), "Contemporary Issues for the Mandaean Faith", Mandaean Associations Union, archived from the original on 31 October 2021, retrieved 28 December 2021
- See e.g. The Rationality of Theism quoting Quentin Smith, "God is not 'dead' in academia; it returned to life in the late 1960s." They cite the shift from hostility towards theism in Paul Edwards's Encyclopedia of Philosophy (1967) to sympathy towards theism in the more recent Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
- "Ontological Arguments". Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Archived from the original on 25 May 2023. Retrieved 27 December 2022.
- Aquinas, Thomas (1990). Kreeft, Peter (ed.). Summa of the Summa. Ignatius Press. pp. 65–69.
- Ratzsch, Del; Koperski, Jeffrey (10 June 2005) . "Teleological Arguments for God's Existence". Teleological Arguments for God's Existence. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Archived from the original on 7 October 2019. Retrieved 30 December 2022.
- "Fine-Tuning". The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Center for the Study of Language and Information (CSLI), Stanford University. 22 August 2017. Archived from the original on 10 October 2023. Retrieved 29 December 2022.
- Chappell, Jonathan (2015). "A Grammar of Descent: John Henry Newman and the Compatibility of Evolution with Christian Doctrine". Science and Christian Belief. 27 (2): 180–206.
- Swinburne, Richard (2004). The Existence of God (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press. pp. 190–91. ISBN 978-0199271689.
- The existence of God (1 ed.). Watts & Co. p. 75.
- Minority Report, H. L. Mencken's Notebooks, Knopf, 1956.
- Martin, Michael (1992). Atheism: A Philosophical Justification. Temple University Press. pp. 213–214. ISBN 978-0877229438.
- Craig, William Lane; Moreland, J. P. (2011). The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology. John Wiley & Sons. p. 393. ISBN 978-1444350852.
- Parkinson, G. H. R. (1988). An Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Taylor & Francis. pp. 344–345. ISBN 978-0415003230.
- Nielsen 2013
- Edwards 2005"
- Thomas Henry Huxley, an English biologist, was the first to come up with the word agnostic in 1869 Dixon, Thomas (2008). Science and Religion: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. p. 63. ISBN 978-0199295517. However, earlier authors and published works have promoted an agnostic points of view. They include Protagoras, a 5th-century BCE Greek philosopher. "The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy – Protagoras (c. 490 – c. 420 BCE)". Archived from the original on 14 October 2008. Retrieved 6 October 2008.
- Hepburn, Ronald W. (2005) . "Agnosticism". In Borchert, Donald M. (ed.). The Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Vol. 1 (2nd ed.). MacMillan Reference US (Gale). p. 92. ISBN 978-0028657806.
In the most general use of the term, agnosticism is the view that we do not know whether there is a God or not.
(p. 56 in 1967 edition). - Rowe, William L. (1998). "Agnosticism". In Craig, Edward (ed.). Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Taylor & Francis. ISBN 978-0415073103. Archived from the original on 23 May 2024. Retrieved 11 November 2020.
- {{cite encyclopedia |year=2012 |entry=agnostic, agnosticism |dictionary=Oxford English Dictionary Online |publisher=Oxford University Press |edition=3rd}
- Dawkins, Richard (23 October 2006). "Why There Almost Certainly Is No God". The Huffington Post. Archived from the original on 6 October 2018. Retrieved 10 January 2007.
- Sagan, Carl (1996). The Demon Haunted World. New York: Ballantine Books. p. 278. ISBN 978-0345409461.
- McGrath, Alister E. (2005). Dawkins' God: genes, memes, and the meaning of life. Wiley-Blackwell. ISBN 978-1405125390.
- Barackman, Floyd H. (2001). Practical Christian Theology: Examining the Great Doctrines of the Faith. Kregel Academic. ISBN 978-0825423802.
- Gould, Stephen J. (1998). Leonardo's Mountain of Clams and the Diet of Worms. Jonathan Cape. p. 274. ISBN 978-0224050432.
- Dawkins, Richard (2006). The God Delusion. Great Britain: Bantam Press. ISBN 978-0618680009.
- Hawking, Stephen; Mlodinow, Leonard (2010). The Grand Design. Bantam Books. p. 172. ISBN 978-0553805376.
- Krauss, L. A Universe from Nothing. Free Press, New York. 2012. ISBN 978-1451624458.
- O'Brien, Jodi (2009). Encyclopedia of Gender and Society. Los Angeles: Sage. p. 191. ISBN 978-1412909167. Archived from the original on 13 January 2023. Retrieved 28 June 2017.
- "BBC – Religion: Judaism". www.bbc.co.uk. Archived from the original on 5 August 2022. Retrieved 31 August 2022.
- Gimaret, D. "Allah, Tawhid". Encyclopædia Britannica Online.
- Mohammad, N. 1985. "The doctrine of jihad: An introduction". Journal of Law and Religion 3(2): 381–397.
- "What Is the Trinity?". Archived from the original on 19 February 2014.
- Lipner, Julius. "Hindu deities". Archived from the original on 7 September 2022. Retrieved 6 September 2022.
- Müller, Max. (1878) Lectures on the Origin and Growth of Religion: As Illustrated by the Religions of India. London, England: Longmans, Green and Company.
- McConkie, Bruce R. (1979), Mormon Doctrine (2nd ed.), Salt Lake City, Utah: Bookcraft, p. 351.
- McGrath, Alister (2006). Christian Theology: An Introduction. Blackwell. p. 205. ISBN 978-1405153607.
- "Pantheism". Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 17 May 2007. Archived from the original on 11 September 2022. Retrieved 11 September 2022.
- Curley, Edwin M. (1985). The Collected Works of Spinoza. Princeton University Press. ISBN 978-0691072227.
- Nadler, Steven (21 August 2012) . "Baruch Spinoza". Baruch Spinoza. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Archived from the original on 13 November 2022. Retrieved 6 December 2012.
- "Pantheism". Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 1 October 2012. Archived from the original on 15 September 2018. Retrieved 18 November 2022.
- Dawe, Alan H. (2011). The God Franchise: A Theory of Everything. Alan H. Dawe. p. 48. ISBN 978-0473201142.
- Bradley, Paul (2011). This Strange Eventful History: A Philosophy of Meaning. Algora. p. 156. ISBN 978-0875868769.
Pandeism combines the concepts of Deism and Pantheism with a god who creates the universe and then becomes it.
- Culp, John (2013). "Panentheism," Archived 16 October 2015 at the Wayback Machine Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Spring.
- Rogers, Peter C. (2009). Ultimate Truth, Book 1. AuthorHouse. p. 121. ISBN 978-1438979687.
- Fairbanks, Arthur, Ed., "The First Philosophers of Greece". K. Paul, Trench, Trubner. London, England, 1898, p. 145.
- Dodds, E. R. "The Parmenides of Plato and the Origin of the Neoplatonic 'One'". The Classical Quarterly, Jul–Oct 1928, vol. 22, p. 136.
- Brenk, Frederick (January 2016). "Pagan Monotheism and Pagan Cult". "Theism" and Related Categories in the Study of Ancient Religions. Vol. 75. Philadelphia: Society for Classical Studies, University of Pennsylvania. Archived from the original on 6 May 2017. Retrieved 5 November 2022. SCS/AIA Annual Meeting Archived 3 March 2022 at the Wayback Machine
- Adamson, Peter (2013). "From the necessary existent to God". In Adamson, Peter (ed.). Interpreting Avicenna: Critical Essays. Cambridge University Press. p. 170. ISBN 978-0521190732.
- "Providence". The Concise Oxford Dictionary of World Religions. Archived from the original on 17 April 2011. Retrieved 17 July 2014.
- "Creation, Providence, and Miracle". Reasonable Faith. Archived from the original on 13 May 2017. Retrieved 20 May 2014.
- Lemos, Ramon M. (2001). A Neomedieval Essay in Philosophical Theology. Lexington Books. p. 34. ISBN 978-0739102503.
- Fuller, Allan R. (2010). Thought: The Only Reality. Dog Ear. p. 79. ISBN 978-1608445905.
- Perry, M.; Schuon, F.; Lafouge, J. (2008). Christianity/Islam : perspectives on esoteric ecumenism : a new translation with selected letters. United Kingdom: World Wisdom. p. 135. ISBN 978-1933316499.
- Wierenga, Edward R. "Divine foreknowledge" in Audi, Robert. The Cambridge Companion to Philosophy. Cambridge University Press, 2001.
- "www.ditext.com". Archived from the original on 4 February 2018. Retrieved 7 February 2018.
- ^ Edwards, Paul. "God and the philosophers" in Honderich, Ted. (ed)The Oxford Companion to Philosophy, Oxford University Press, 1995. ISBN 978-1615924462.
- Nayanar, Prof. A. Chakravarti (2005). Samayasāra of Ācārya Kundakunda. Gāthā 10.310, New Delhi, India: Today & Tomorrows Printer and Publisher. p. 190.
- Thera, Narada (2006). "The Buddha and His Teachings", Jaico Publishing House. pp. 268–269.
- Hayes, Richard P., "Principled Atheism in the Buddhist Scholastic Tradition", Journal of Indian Philosophy, 16:1 (1988: Mar) p. 2.
- Cheng, Hsueh-Li. "Nāgārjuna's Approach to the Problem of the Existence of God" in Religious Studies, Vol. 12, No. 2 (June 1976), Cambridge University Press, pp. 207–216.
- Hayes, Richard P., "Principled Atheism in the Buddhist Scholastic Tradition", Journal of Indian Philosophy, 16:1 (1988: Mar.).
- Harvey, Peter (2019). "Buddhism and Monotheism", Cambridge University Press. p. 1.
- Khan, Razib (23 June 2008). "Buddhists do Believe in God". Discover. Kalmbach Publishing. Archived from the original on 26 April 2023. Retrieved 26 April 2023.
- "Buddhists". Pew Research Center. The Pew Charitable Trusts. Archived from the original on 26 April 2023. Retrieved 26 April 2023.
- "Confucianism". National Geographic. National Geographic Society. Archived from the original on 26 April 2023. Retrieved 26 April 2023.
- "Taoism". National Geographic. National Geographic Society. Archived from the original on 26 April 2023. Retrieved 26 April 2023.
- Culotta, E. (2009). "The origins of religion". Science. 326 (5954): 784–787. Bibcode:2009Sci...326..784C. doi:10.1126/science.326_784. ISSN 0036-8075. PMID 19892955.
- Boyer, Pascal (2001). Religion Explained. New York: Basic Books. pp. 142–243. ISBN 978-0465006960.
Admittedly, the Greek gods were extraordinarily anthropomorphic, and Greek mythology really is like the modern soap opera, much more so than other religious systems.
- du Castel, Bertrand; Jurgensen, Timothy M. (2008). Computer Theology. Austin, Texas: Midori Press. pp. 221–222 -us. ISBN 978-0980182118.
- Barrett, Justin (1996). "Conceptualizing a Nonnatural Entity: Anthropomorphism in God Concepts" (PDF). Cognitive Psychology. 31 (3): 219–47. doi:10.1006/cogp.1996.0017. PMID 8975683. S2CID 7646340. Archived (PDF) from the original on 19 March 2015. Retrieved 20 November 2015.
- Rossano, Matt (2007). "Supernaturalizing Social Life: Religion and the Evolution of Human Cooperation" (PDF). Human Nature. 18 (3). Hawthorne, New York: 272–294. doi:10.1007/s12110-007-9002-4. PMID 26181064. S2CID 1585551. Archived from the original (PDF) on 3 March 2012. Retrieved 25 June 2009.
- "A spiritual experience". 17 September 2020. Archived from the original on 19 October 2022. Retrieved 11 October 2022.
- Sample, Ian (23 February 2005). "Tests of faith". The Guardian. Archived from the original on 23 May 2024. Retrieved 15 October 2022.
- Ramachandran, Vilayanur; Blakeslee, Sandra (1998). Phantoms in the brain. New York: HarperCollins. pp. 174–187. ISBN 0688152473.
- Kluger, Jeffrey (27 November 2013). "Why There Are No Atheists at the Grand Canyon". Time. Archived from the original on 19 October 2022. Retrieved 12 October 2022.
- "Human Nature and the Purpose of Existence". Patheos.com. Archived from the original on 29 August 2011. Retrieved 29 January 2011.
- Quran 51:56.
- "Salat: daily prayers". BBC. Archived from the original on 22 March 2022. Retrieved 12 April 2022.
- Richards, Glyn (2005). The Philosophy of Gandhi: A Study of his Basic Ideas. Routledge. ISBN 1135799342.
- "Allah would replace you with a people who sin". islamtoday.net. Archived from the original on 14 October 2013. Retrieved 13 October 2013.
- Rigopoulos, Antonio. The Life and Teachings of Sai Baba of Shirdi (1993), p. 372; Houlden, J. L. (Ed.), Jesus: The Complete Guide (2005), p. 390.
- de Gruyter, Walter (1988), Writings on Religion, p. 145.
- See Swami Bhaskarananda, Essentials of Hinduism (Viveka Press, 2002), ISBN 1884852041.
- "Sri Guru Granth Sahib". Sri Granth. Archived from the original on 28 July 2011. Retrieved 30 June 2011.
- D’Antuono, Matt (1 August 2022). "The Heart Has Its Reasons That Reason Does Not Know". National Catholic Register. Archived from the original on 8 June 2023. Retrieved 1 June 2023.
- Ibn Daqiq al-'Id (2014). A Treasury of Hadith: A Commentary on Nawawi's Selection of Prophetic Traditions. Kube Publishing Limited. p. 199. ISBN 978-1847740694.
- Hoover, Jon (2 March 2016), "Fiṭra", Encyclopaedia of Islam, THREE, Brill, doi:10.1163/1573-3912_ei3_com_27155, archived from the original on 28 December 2022, retrieved 13 November 2023.
- "The Second Sage". Aeon. Archived from the original on 24 March 2023. Retrieved 24 March 2023.
- Çakmak, Cenap. Islam: A Worldwide Encyclopedia ABC-CLIO 2017, ISBN 978-1610692175, p. 1014.
- Siddiqui, A. R. (2015). Qur'anic Keywords: A Reference Guide. Kube Publishing Limited. p. 53. ISBN 9780860376767.
- Hutchinson, Ian (14 January 1996). "Michael Faraday: Scientist and Nonconformist". Archived from the original on 1 December 2022. Retrieved 30 November 2022.
Faraday believed that in his scientific researches he was reading the book of nature, which pointed to its creator, and he delighted in it: 'for the book of nature, which we have to read is written by the finger of God.'
- Hofmann, Murad (2007). Islam and Qur'an. Amana publications. p. 121. ISBN 978-1590080474.
- Beaty, Michael (1991). "God Among the Philosophers". The Christian Century. Archived from the original on 9 January 2007. Retrieved 20 February 2007.
- Halverson (2010, p. 36).
- Hoover, John (2020). "Early Mamlūk Ashʿarism against Ibn Taymiyya on the Nonliteral Reinterpretation (taʾwīl) of God's Attributes". In Shihadeh, Ayman; Thiele, Jan (eds.). Philosophical Theology in Islam: Later Ashʿarism East and West. Islamicate Intellectual History. Vol. 5. Leiden and Boston: Brill. pp. 195–230. doi:10.1163/9789004426610_009. ISBN 978-9004426610. ISSN 2212-8662. S2CID 219026357. Archived from the original on 6 April 2023. Retrieved 13 November 2022.
- Halverson (2010, pp. 36–37).
- Chignell, Andrew; Pereboom, Derk (2020). "Natural Theology and Natural Religion". In Zalta, Edward N. (ed.). The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2020 ed.). Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. Archived from the original on 18 February 2022. Retrieved 9 October 2020..
- Fiorenza, Francis Schüssler and Kaufman, Gordon D., "God", Ch 6, in Taylor, Mark C., ed., Critical Terms for Religious Studies (University of Chicago, 1998/2008), pp. 136–140.
- Gen. 17:1; 28:3; 35:11; Ex. 6:31; Ps. 91:1, 2.
- Gen. 14:19; Ps. 9:2; Dan. 7:18, 22, 25.
- Exodus 3:13–15.
- Bentley, David (1999). The 99 Beautiful Names for God for All the People of the Book. William Carey Library. ISBN 978-0878082995.
- Aquinas, Thomas. "First part: Question 3: The simplicity of God: Article 1: Whether God is a body?". Summa Theologica. New Advent. Archived from the original on 9 November 2011. Retrieved 22 June 2012.
- Shedd, William G. T., ed. (1885). "Chapter 7". The Confessions of Augustine. Warren F. Draper.
- Lang, David; Kreeft, Peter (2002). "Why Male Priests?". Why Matter Matters: Philosophical and Scriptural Reflections on the Sacraments. Our Sunday Visitor. ISBN 978-1931709347.
- Pagels, Elaine H. "What Became of God the Mother? Conflicting Images of God in Early Christianity" Archived 23 November 2010 at the Wayback Machine Signs, Vol. 2, No. 2 (Winter 1976), pp. 293–303.
- Coogan, Michael (2010). "6. Fire in Divine Loins: God's Wives in Myth and Metaphor". God and Sex. What the Bible Really Says (1st ed.). New York; Boston, Massachusetts: Twelve. Hachette Book Group. p. 175. ISBN 978-0446545259. Retrieved 5 May 2011.
humans are modeled on elohim, specifically in their sexual differences.
- "God's Gender". www.sikhwomen.com. Archived from the original on 5 December 2023. Retrieved 5 December 2023.
- "IS GOD MALE OR FEMALE?". www.gurbani.org. Archived from the original on 5 December 2023. Retrieved 5 December 2023.
- Boyce 1983, p. 686.
- Williams, Wesley. "A Body Unlike Bodies: Transcendent Anthropomorphism in Ancient Semitic Tradition and Early Islam". Journal of the American Oriental Society, vol. 129, no. 1, 2009, pp. 19–44. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/40593866 Archived 18 November 2022 at the Wayback Machine. Accessed 18 Nov. 2022.
- ^ Shaman, Nicholas J.; Saide, Anondah R.; and Richert, Rebekah A. "Dimensional structure of and variation in anthropomorphic concepts of God". Frontiers in psychology 9 (2018): 1425.
- Bataille, Georges (1930). "Base Materialism and Gnosticism". Visions of Excess: Selected Writings, 1927–1939: 47.
- Meyer, Marvin; Barnstone]], Willis (30 June 2009). "The Secret Book of John". The Gnostic Bible. Shambhala. Archived from the original on 23 April 2021. Retrieved 15 October 2021.
- Denova, Rebecca (9 April 2021). "Gnosticism". World History Encyclopedia. Archived from the original on 22 February 2022. Retrieved 15 October 2021.
- ^ Cornwell, James (2009) Saints, Signs, and Symbols: The Symbolic Language of Christian Art, ISBN 081922345X. p. 2.
- Didron, Adolphe Napoléon (2003), Christian iconography: or The history of Christian art in the middle ages, ISBN 0-7661-4075-X, p. 169.
- Arena Chapel, at the top of the triumphal arch, God sending out the angel of the Annunciation. See Schiller, I, figure 15.
- Earls, Irene (1987). Renaissance art: a topical dictionary, ISBN 0313246580, pp. 8, 283.
- Tarasov, Oleg (2004). Icon and devotion: sacred spaces in Imperial Russia, ISBN 1861891180. p. 185.
- "Council of Moscow – 1666–1667". Archived from the original on 13 February 2021. Retrieved 30 December 2016.
- Lebron, Robyn (2012). Searching for Spiritual Unity...Can There Be Common Ground?. Crossbooks. p. 117. ISBN 978-1462712625.
Bibliography
- Boyce, Mary (1983). "Ahura Mazdā". Encyclopaedia Iranica. Vol. 1. New York: Routledge & Kegan Paul. pp. 684–687.
- Bunnin, Nicholas; Yu, Jiyuan (2008). The Blackwell Dictionary of Western Philosophy. Blackwell. ISBN 978-0470997215. Archived from the original on 15 August 2023. Retrieved 14 October 2020.
- Pickover, Cliff, The Paradox of God and the Science of Omniscience, Palgrave/St Martin's Press, 2001. ISBN 1403964572.
- Collins, Francis, The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief, Free Press, 2006. ISBN 0743286391.
- Miles, Jack, God: A Biography, Vintage, 1996. ISBN 0679743685.
- Armstrong, Karen, A History of God: The 4,000-Year Quest of Judaism, Christianity and Islam, Ballantine Books, 1994. ISBN 0434024562.
- Paul Tillich, Systematic Theology, Vol. 1 (Chicago, Illinois: University of Chicago Press, 1951). ISBN 0226803376.
- Halverson, J. (2010). Theology and Creed in Sunni Islam: The Muslim Brotherhood, Ash'arism, and Political Sunnism. Springer. ISBN 978-0230106581. Archived from the original on 23 May 2024. Retrieved 28 May 2023.
- Hastings, James Rodney (1925–2003) , Selbie, John A. (ed.), Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, vol. 4, Edinburgh, Scotland: Kessinger, p. 476, ISBN 978-0766136731,
The encyclopedia will contain articles on all the religions of the world and on all the great systems of ethics. It will aim at containing articles on every religious belief or custom, and on every ethical movement, every philosophical idea, every moral practice.
External links
Library resources aboutGod
Listen to this article (17 minutes) This audio file was created from a revision of this article dated 6 January 2008 (2008-01-06), and does not reflect subsequent edits.(Audio help · More spoken articles)
- Concept of God in Christianity
- Concept of God in Islam Archived 21 April 2019 at the Wayback Machine
- God Christian perspective
- Hindu Concept of God
- Jewish Literacy Archived 19 December 2010 at the Wayback Machine
- Who is God
Archived 19 December 2010 at the Wayback Machine
Theology | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Religion portal |
Names of God | |
---|---|
|