2016/03/31

God - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

God - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



God

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This article is about the concept of a supreme "God" in the context of monotheism and henotheism. For the general concept of a being superior to humans that is worshiped as "a god", see Deity. For God in specific religions, see § In specific religions. For discussion of the existence of God, see Existence of God. For other uses of the term, see God (disambiguation).
Detail of "God the Father" from the frescoKing David and the 24 Elders adoring God the Father by Johann Jakob Zeiller (1744-48).
Part of a series on
God
In monotheism andhenotheism, God is conceived of as the Supreme Being and principal object of faith.[1]The concept of God as described by theologianscommonly includes the attributes of omniscience(infinite knowledge),omnipotence (unlimited power), omnipresence(present everywhere),omnibenevolence (perfect goodness), divine simplicity, and eternal and necessary existence. God is also usually defined as a non-corporeal[1]being without any human biological gender,[2][3] but the concept of God actively (as opposed to receptively)[4] creating the universe has caused some religions to give "Him" the metaphorical name of "Father". Because God is conceived as not being a corporeal being, God cannot[5](some say should not[5]) be portrayed in a literal visual image; some religious groups use a man[6] (sometimes old and bearded[6]) to symbolize God because of "His deed of creating man's mind in the image of His own".[citation needed]
In theism, God is the creator and sustainer of the universe, while indeism, God is the creator, but not the sustainer, of the universe.Monotheism is the belief in the existence of one God or in the oneness of God. In pantheism, God is the universe itself. In atheism, God is not believed to exist, while God is deemed unknown or unknowable within the context of agnosticism. God has also been conceived as beingincorporeal (immaterial), a personal being, the source of all moral obligation, and the "greatest conceivable existent".[1] Many notable philosophers have developed arguments for and against the existence of God.[7]
There are many names for God, and different names are attached to different cultural ideas about God's identity and attributes. In the ancient Egyptian era of Atenism, possibly the earliest recorded monotheistic religion, this deity was called Aten,[8] premised on being the one "true" Supreme Being and Creator of the Universe.[9] In theHebrew Bible and Judaism, "He Who Is", "I Am that I Am", and thetetragrammaton YHWH (Hebrew: יהוה‎, which means: "I am who am"; "He Who Exists") are used as names of God, while Yahweh and Jehovahare sometimes used in Christianity as vocalizations of YHWH. In the Christian doctrine of the Trinity, God, consubstantial in three persons, is called the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. In Judaism, it is common to refer to God by the titular names Elohim or Adonai, the latter of which is believed by some scholars to descend from the Egyptian Aten.[10][11][12][13][14] In Islam, the name Allah, "Al-El", or "Al-Elah" ("the God") is used, while Muslims also have a multitude of titular names for God. In Hinduism, Brahman is often considered amonistic deity.[15] Other religions have names for God, for instance,Baha in the Bahá'í Faith,[16] Waheguru in Sikhism,[17] and Ahura Mazda in Zoroastrianism.[18]
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 omnitheism, pandeism,[19][20] or a perennial philosophy, 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."[21]

Etymology and usage

The Mesha Stele bears the earliest known reference (840 BCE) to the Israelite God Yahweh.
Main article: God (word)
The earliest written form of the Germanic word God (always, in this usage, capitalized[22]) comes from the 6th-century Christian Codex Argenteus. The English word itself is derived from the Proto-Germanic * ǥuđan. The reconstructed Proto-Indo-European form * ǵhu-tó-m was likely based on the root * ǵhau(ə)-, which meant either "to call" or "to invoke".[23] The Germanic words forGod were originally neuter—applying to both genders—but during the process of the Christianization of theGermanic peoples from their indigenous Germanic paganism, the words became a masculine syntactic form.[24]
The word 'Allah' in Arabic calligraphy
In the English language, the capitalized form of God continues to represent a distinction between monotheistic "God" and "gods" inpolytheism.[25][26] 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 El, but in Judaism, God is also given a proper name, the tetragrammatonYHWH, in origin possibly the name of an Edomite or Midianite deity,Yahweh. In many translations of the Bible, when the word LORD is in all capitals, it signifies that the word represents the tetragrammaton.[27]
Allāh (Arabic: الله‎) is the Arabic term with no plural used by Muslims and Arabic speaking Christians and Jews meaning "The God" (with a capital G), while "ʾilāh" (Arabic: إله‎) is the term used for a deity or a god in general.[28][29][30] 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 inBhagavata or later Vishnu and Hari.[31]
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 reflectProto-Indo-Iranian *mazdhā-, from Proto-Indo-European *mn̩sdʰeh1, literally meaning "placing (*dʰeh1) one's mind (*mn̩-s)", hence "wise".[32] Waheguru (Punjabi: vāhigurū) is a term most often used inSikhism to refer to God. It means "Wonderful Teacher" in the Punjabi language. Vāhi (a Middle Persian borrowing) means "wonderful" andguru (Sanskrit: 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 Khalsa, Victory is to the Wonderful Lord.
Baha, the "greatest" name for God in the Baha'i faith, is Arabic for "All-Glorious".

General conceptions

Main article: Conceptions of God
There is no clear consensus on the nature or even the existence of God.[33] The Abrahamic conceptions of God include the monotheisticdefinition of God in Judaism, the trinitarian view of Christians, and theIslamic concept of God. The dharmic religions differ in their view of the divine: views of God in Hinduism vary by region, sect, and caste, ranging from monotheistic to polytheistic. Divinity was recognized by the historical Buddha, particularly Śakra and Brahma. However, other sentient beings, including gods, can at best only play a supportive role in one's personal path to salvation. Conceptions of God in the latter developments of the Mahayana tradition give a more prominent place to notions of the divine.[citation needed]

Oneness

Main articles: Monotheism and Henotheism
The Trinity is the belief that God is composed of The Father,The Son (embodied metaphysically in the physical realm by Jesus), and The Holy Spirit.
Monotheists 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 inHinduism[34] and Sikhism.[35] InChristianity, the doctrine of the Trinity describes God as one God in three persons. The Trinity comprisesGod the Father, God the Son(embodied metaphysically by Jesus), and God the Holy Spirit.[36] Islam's most fundamental concept is tawhid(meaning "oneness" or "uniqueness"). God is described in the Quran 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."[37][38] Muslims repudiate the Christian doctrine of the Trinity and the divinity of Jesus, comparing it to polytheism. In Islam, God is beyond all comprehension or equal and does not resemble any of his creations in any way. Thus, Muslimsare not iconodules, and are not expected to visualize God.[39]
Henotheism is the belief and worship of a single god while accepting the existence or possible existence of other deities.[40]

Theism, deism and pantheism

Main articles: Theism, Deism and Pantheism
Theism 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,religious experience and the prayers of humans.[41] 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.[42] Not all theists subscribe to all of these propositions, but each usually subscribes to some of them (see, by way of comparison, family resemblance).[41] Catholic theology holds that God is infinitely simpleand 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. Open Theism, by contrast, asserts 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 orpolytheism.[43][44]
"God blessing the seventh day", a watercolor painting depicting God, by William Blake (1757 – 1827)
Deism holds that God is whollytranscendent: God exists, but does not intervene in the world beyond what was necessary to create it.[42] In this view, God is not anthropomorphic, 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. Pandeism and Panendeism, respectively, combine Deism with the Pantheistic or Panentheistic beliefs.[20][45][46] Pandeism is proposed to explain as to Deism why God would create a universe and then abandon it,[47] and as to Pantheism, the origin and purpose of the universe.[47][48]
Pantheism holds that God is the universe and the universe is God, whereas Panentheism holds that God contains, but is not identical to, the Universe.[49] It is also the view of the Liberal Catholic Church;Theosophy; some views of Hinduism except Vaishnavism, which believes in panentheism; Sikhism; some divisions of Neopaganism andTaoism, along with many varying denominations and individuals within denominations. Kabbalah, Jewish mysticism, paints a pantheistic/panentheistic view of God—which has wide acceptance inHasidic Judaism, particularly from their founder The Baal Shem Tov—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]

Other concepts

Dystheism, which is related to theodicy, is a form of theism which holds that God is either not wholly good or is fully malevolent as a consequence of the problem of evil. One such example comes fromDostoevsky's The Brothers Karamazov, in which Ivan Karamazov rejects God on the grounds that he allows children to suffer.[50]
In modern times, some more abstract concepts have been developed, such as process theology and open theism. The contemporaneous French philosopher Michel Henry has however proposed aphenomenological approach and definition of God as phenomenologicalessence of Life.[51]
God has also been conceived as being incorporeal (immaterial), apersonal being, the source of all moral obligation, and the "greatest conceivable existent".[1] These attributes were all supported to varying degrees by the early Jewish, Christian and Muslim theologian philosophers, including Maimonides,[52] Augustine of Hippo,[52] and Al-Ghazali,[7] respectively.

Non-theistic views of God

See also: Evolutionary origin of religions and Evolutionary psychology of religion
Non-theist views about God 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 atheist Charles Bradlaugh 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";[53] he said more specifically that he disbelieved in the Christian god. Stephen Jay Gouldproposed 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.[54]
Another view, advanced by Richard Dawkins, 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."[55] 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 would be the discovery that the universe is infinitely old.[56]
Stephen Hawking and co-author Leonard Mlodinow state in their 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 any divine beings.[57] 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.[58]

Agnosticism

Main article: Agnosticism
Agnosticism is the view that, the truth values of certain claims – especially metaphysical and religious claims such as whether God, thedivine or the supernatural exist – are unknown and perhaps unknowable.[59][60][61]

Atheism

Main article: Atheism
Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence ofdeities, or a God.[62][63] In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.[64]

Anthropomorphism

Depiction of God in a Catholic church in Latin America.
Main article: Anthropomorphism
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 operathan other religious systems.[65] 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.[66]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.[67]
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.[68]

Existence of God

Main article: Existence of God
St. Thomas Aquinas summed up five arguments as proofs for God's existence.
Arguments about the existence of God typically include empirical, deductive, and inductive types. Conclusions reached include views that: "God does not exist" (strong atheism); "God almost certainly does not exist" (de factoatheism); "no one knows whether God exists" (agnosticism[69]);"God exists, but this cannot be proven or disproven" (theoretical theism); and that "God exists and this can be proven" (strong theism). There are numerous variations on these positions.[citation needed]
Countless arguments have been proposed in attempt to prove the existence of God.[70] Some of the most notable arguments are the Five Ways of Aquinas, theArgument from Desire proposed by C.S. Lewis, and the Ontological Argument formulated both by St. Anselm and René Descartes.[71] Even among theists, these proofs are debated, and some, such as the Ontological Argument, are highly controversial. Aquinas spends a section of his treatise on God refuting St. Anselm's proof.[72][not in citation given]
Richard Dawkins, an atheist who argues against the existence of a divine Creator.
St. Anselm's approach was to define God as, "that than which nothing greater can be conceived". Famed pantheist philosopher Baruch Spinoza 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.[73]His proof for the existence of God was a variation of the Ontological argument.[74]
St. Thomas believed that the existence of God 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."[75]
St. Thomas believed that the existence of God can be demonstrated. Briefly in the Summa theologiae and more extensively in the Summa contra Gentiles, he considered in great detail five arguments for the existence of God, widely known as the quinque viae (Five Ways).
For the original text of the five proofs, see quinque viae
  1. 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 First Mover not moved by anything else, and this is what everyone understands by God.
  2. Causation: As in the case of motion, nothing can cause itself, and an infinite chain of causation is impossible, so there must be aFirst Cause, called God.
  3. 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.
  4. 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).
  5. 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).[76]
Alister McGrath, a formerly atheisticscientist andtheologian who has been highly critical of Richard Dawkins.
Some theologians, such as the scientist and theologian A.E. McGrath, argue that the existence of God is not a question that can be answered using the scientific method.[77][78]Agnostic Stephen Jay Gould argues that science and religion are not in conflict and do notoverlap.[79]
Some findings in the fields of cosmology,evolutionary biology and neuroscience are interpreted by some atheists (includingLawrence M. Krauss and Sam Harris) as evidence that God is an imaginary entity only, with no basis in reality.[80][81][82] 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.[83] Richard Dawkinsinterprets various findings not only as a lack of evidence for the material existence of such a God, but as extensive evidence to the contrary.[84]
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.[58]

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 conceptions of God in the culture from which they arise. For example, attributes of God in Christianity, attributes ofGod in Islam, and the Thirteen Attributes of Mercy in Judaism share certain similarities arising from their common roots.

Names

Main article: Names of God
99 names of Allah, inChinese Sini (script).
The word God is "one of the most complex and difficult in the English language." In theJudeo-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".[85]
Throughout the Hebrew and Christian Bibles there are many names for God. One of them is Elohim. Another one is El Shaddai, meaning "God Almighty".[86] A third notable name is El Elyon, which means "The Most High God".[87]
God is described and referred in the Quranand hadith by certain names or attributes, the most common being Al-Rahman, meaning "Most Compassionate" and Al-Rahim, meaning "Most Merciful" (See Names of God in Islam).[88]
Vaishnavism, a tradition in Hinduism, has list of titles and names of Krishna.

Gender

Main article: Gender of God
The gender of God may be viewed as either a literal or an allegoricalaspect of a deity who, in classical western philosophy, transcends bodily form.[89][90] 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 ananalogical 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.[4]
Biblical sources usually refer to God using male words, except Genesis 1:26-27,[91][92] 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).

Relationship with creation

See also: Creator deity, Prayer and Worship
God the Father, a symbolic representation of the theistic version of God, by Cima da Conegliano, c. 1515
Prayer plays a significant role among many believers. Muslims believe that the purpose of existence is toworship God.[93][94] He is viewed as a personal God and there are no intermediaries, such as clergy, to contact God. Prayer often also includes supplication and asking forgiveness. God is often believed to be forgiving. For example, a hadithstates God would replace a sinless people with one who sinned but still asked repentance.[95] Christian theologian Alister McGrath 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."[96]
Adherents of different religions generally disagree as to how to bestworship God and what is God's plan 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 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. 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.

Depiction of God

God is defined as incorporeal,[1] and invisible from direct sight, and thus cannot be portrayed in a literal visual image.
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 .

In Zoroastrianism

Ahura Mazda (depiction is on the right, with high crown) presents Ardashir I (left) with the ring of kingship. (Relief atNaqsh-e Rustam, 3rd century CE)
During the early Parthian Empire, Ahura Mazda was visual represented for worship. This practice ended during the beginning of the Sassanid 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.[97]

In Islam

Muslims believe that God is beyond all comprehension or equal and does not resemble any of His creations in any way. Thus, Muslims are not iconodules, are not expected to visualize God.[39]

In Judaism

At least some Jews do not use any image for God, since God is the unimageable Being who cannot be represented in material forms.[98]However, sometimes God, or at least his intervention

In Christianity

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.[5]
Use of the symbolic Hand of God in the Ascension from theDrogo Sacramentary, c. 850.
However, later on the Hand of Godsymbol is found several times in the only ancient synagogue with a large surviving decorative scheme, theDura Europos Synagogue of the mid-3rd century, and was probably adopted into Early Christian art fromJewish art. It was common in Late Antique art in both East and West, and remained the main way of symbolizing the actions or approval of God the Father in the West until about the end of the Romanesque period.
In situations, such as the Baptism of Christ, where a specific representation of God the Father was indicated, the Hand of God was used, with increasing freedom from the Carolingian period until the end of the Romanesque. This motif now, since the discovery of the 3rd century Dura Europos synagogue, seems to have been borrowed fromJewish art, and is found in Christian art almost from its beginnings.
The use of religious images in general continued to increase up to the end of the 7th century, to the point that in 695, upon assuming the throne, Byzantine emperor Justinian II put an image of Christ on the obverse side of his gold coins, resulting in a rift which ended the use ofByzantine coin types in the Islamic world.[99] However, the increase in religious imagery did not include depictions of God the Father. For instance, while the eighty second canon of the Council of Trullo in 692 did not specifically condemn images of The Father, it suggested that icons of Christ were preferred over Old Testament shadows and figures.[100]
The beginning of the 8th century witnessed the suppression and destruction of religious icons as the period of Byzantine iconoclasm(literally image-breaking) started. Emperor Leo III (717–741), suppressed the use of icons by imperial edict of the Byzantine Empire, presumably due to a military loss which he attributed to the undue veneration of icons.[101] The edict (which was issued without consulting the Church) forbade the veneration of religious images but did not apply to other forms of art, including the image of the emperor, or religious symbols such as the cross.[102] Theological arguments against icons then began to appear with iconoclasts arguing that icons could not represent both the divine and the human natures of Jesus at the same time. In this atmosphere, no public depictions of God the Father were even attempted and such depictions only began to appear two centuries later.
The Second Council of Nicaea in 787 effectively ended the first period ofByzantine iconoclasm and restored the honouring of icons and holy images in general.[103] 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 John of Damascus, drew a distinction between images of God the Father and those of Christ.
In his treatise On the Divine Images John of Damascus wrote: "In former times, God who is without form or body, could never be depicted. But now when God is seen in the flesh conversing with men, I make an image of the God whom I see".[104] The implication here is that insofar as God the Father or the Spirit did not become man, visible and tangible, images and portrait icons can not be depicted. So what was true for the whole Trinity before Christ remains true for the Father and the Spirit but not for the Word. John of Damascus wrote:[105]
"If we attempt to make an image of the invisible God, this would be sinful indeed. It is impossible to portray one who is without body:invisible, uncircumscribed and without form."
Around 790 Charlemagne ordered a set of four books that became known as the Libri Carolini (i.e. "Charles' books") to refute what his court mistakenly understood to be the iconoclast decrees of the Byzantine Second Council of Nicaea regarding sacred images. Although not well known during the Middle Ages, these books describe the key elements of the Catholic theological position on sacred images. To theWestern Church, images were just objects made by craftsmen, to be utilized for stimulating the senses of the faithful, and to be respected for the sake of the subject represented, not in themselves. The Council of Constantinople (869) (considered ecumenical by the Western Church, but not the Eastern Church) reaffirmed the decisions of the Second Council of Nicaea and helped stamp out any remaining coals oficonoclasm. Specifically, its third canon required the image of Christ to have veneration equal with that of a Gospel book:[106]
We decree that the sacred image of our Lord Jesus Christ, the liberator and Savior of all people, must be venerated with the same honor as is given the book of the holy Gospels. For as through the language of the words contained in this book all can reach salvation, so, due to the action which these images exercise by their colors, all wise and simple alike, can derive profit from them.
But images of God the Father were not directly addressed in Constantinople in 869. A list of permitted icons was enumerated at this Council, but symbols of God the Father were not among them.[107]However, the general acceptance of icons and holy images began to create an atmosphere in which God the Father could be symbolized.
Prior to the 10th century no attempt was made to use a human to symbolize God the Father in Western art.[5] 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).
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.[108]
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 glasschurch 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 of c. 1305 inPadua.[109] 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 has a considerable number of symbols, including an elderly but tall and elegant full-length figure walking in theGarden 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, like the large Genesis altarpiece by the Hamburg painterMeister 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 an early Venetian school Coronation of the Virgin by Giovanni d'Alemagna and Antonio Vivarini, (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 Ancient of Days.[110]
. ...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. (Daniel 7:9)
Usage of two "Hands of God" (relatively unusual) and the Holy Spirit as a dove in Baptism of Christ, by Verrocchio, 1472.
In the Annunciation by Benvenuto di Giovanni 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 Verrocchio's Baptism of Christ in 1472.[111]
God the Father with His Right Hand Raised in Blessing, with a triangular halo representing the Trinity, Girolamo dai Libri c. 1555.
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 Throne of Mercy iconography. A dove, the symbol of the Holy Spirit 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 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. They are depicted as floating in heaven with angels who carry the instruments of the Passion.[112]
Representations of God the Father and the Trinity were attacked both by Protestants and within Catholicism, by the Jansenist and Baianistmovements 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 Western Church, the pressure to restrain religious imagery resulted in the highly influential decrees of the final session of the Council of Trent 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.[113]
Artistic depictions of God the Father were uncontroversial in Catholic art thereafter, but less common depictions of the Trinity were condemned. In 1745 Pope Benedict XIV explicitly supported the Throne of Mercydepiction, referring to the "Ancient of Days", but in 1786 it was still necessary for Pope Pius VI to issue a papal bull condemning the decision of an Italian church council to remove all images of the Trinity from churches.[114]
The Creation of Adam.jpg
God the Father is symbolized in several Genesis scenes inMichelangelo's Sistine Chapel ceiling, most famously The Creation of Adam God the Father is depicted as a powerful figure, floating in the clouds in Titian's Assumption of the Virgin in the Frari of Venice, long admired as a masterpiece of High Renaissance art.[115] The Church of the Gesù in Rome includes a number of 16th century depictions of God the Father. In some of these paintings the Trinity is still alluded to in terms of three angels, butGiovanni Battista Fiammeri also depicted God the Father as a man riding on a cloud, above the scenes.[116]
In both the Last Judgment and the Coronation of the Virgin paintings byRubens 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 Velázquez (whose father-in-law Francisco Pacheco was in charge of the approval of new images for the Inquisition) and Murillo both depicted God the Father using a patriarchal figure with a white beard in a purple robe.
The Ancient of Days (1794) Watercolor etching by William Blake
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 Star Chamber court in England (except the Archbishop of York) condemned the use of the images of the Trinity in church windows, and some considered them illegal.[117]Later in the 17th century Sir Thomas Browne wrote that he considered the representation of God the Father using an old man "a dangerous act" that might lead to Egyptian symbolism.[6] In 1847, Charles Winston was still critical of such images as a "Romish trend" (a term used to refer to Roman Catholics) that he considered best avoided in England.[118]
In 1667 the 43rd chapter of the Great Moscow Council 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,[119][120] 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 asGreece, Romania, and other Orthodox countries.

Theological approaches

Theologians and philosophers have attributed to God such characteristics as omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence, perfectgoodness, divine simplicity, and eternal and necessary existence. God has been described as incorporeal, a personal being, the source of allmoral obligation, and the greatest conceivable being existent.[1] These attributes were all claimed to varying degrees by the early Jewish,Christian and Muslim scholars, including Maimonides,[52] St Augustine,[52] and Al-Ghazali.[121]
Many philosophers developed arguments for the existence of God,[7]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 free will might be illusory, or foreknowledge does not imply predestination, and if God does not know it, God may not be omniscient.[122]
However, if by its essential nature, free will is not predetermined, then the effect of its will can never be perfectly predicted by anyone, regardless of intelligence and knowledge. Although knowledge of the options presented to that will, combined with perfectly infinite intelligence, could be said to provide God with omniscience if omniscience is defined as knowledge or understanding of all that is.
The last centuries of philosophy have seen vigorous questions regarding the arguments for God's existence raised by such philosophers asImmanuel Kant, David Hume and Antony Flew, although Kant held that the argument from morality was valid. The theist response has been either to contend, as does Alvin Plantinga, that faith is "properly basic", or to take, as does Richard Swinburne, the evidentialist position.[123]Some theists agree that only some of the arguments for God's existence are compelling, but argue that faith is not a product ofreason, 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 Pascal as "the heart has reasons of which reason does not know."[124] A recent theory using concepts from physics and neurophysiology proposes that God can be conceptualized within the theory of integrative level.[125]
Many religious believers allow for the existence of other, less powerfulspiritual beings such as angels, saints, jinn, demons, anddevas.[126][127][128][129][130]

Distribution of belief in God

Size of Major Religious Groups, 2012
ReligionPercent
Christianity
  
31.5%
Islam
  
23.2%
Unaffiliated
  
16.3%
Hinduism
  
15.0%
Buddhism *
  
7.1%
Folk
  
5.9%
Other
  
0.8%
Judaism
  
0.2%
Pew Research Center, 2012[131]
Main article: List of religious populations

See also

In specific religions

References

  1. ^ Jump up to:a b c d e f Swinburne, R.G. "God" in Honderich, Ted. (ed)The Oxford Companion to Philosophy, Oxford University Press, 1995.
  2. Jump up^ David Bordwell, 2002, Catechism of the Catholic Church,Continuum International Publishing ISBN 978-0-86012-324-8 page 84
  3. Jump up^ Catechism at the Vatican website
  4. ^ Jump up to:a b Lang, David; Kreeft, Peter (2002). Why Matter Matters: Philosophical and Scriptural Reflections on the Sacraments. Chapter Five: Why Male Priests?: Our Sunday Visitor. ISBN 978-1931709347.
  5. ^ Jump up to:a b c d James Cornwell, 2009 Saints, Signs, and Symbols: The Symbolic Language of Christian Art ISBN 0-8192-2345-X page 2
  6. ^ Jump up to:a b c Sir Thomas Browne's Works, 1852, ISBN 0559376871, 2006 page 156
  7. ^ Jump up to:a b c Platinga, Alvin. "God, Arguments for the Existence of",Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Routledge, 2000.
  8. Jump up^ Jan Assmann, Religion and Cultural Memory: Ten Studies, Stanford University Press 2005, p.59
  9. Jump up^ M. Lichtheim, Ancient Egyptian Literature, Vol.2, 1980, p.96
  10. Jump up^ Freud, S. (1939). Moses and Monotheism: Three Essays.
  11. Jump up^ Gunther Siegmund Stent, Paradoxes of Free Will. American Philosophical Society, DIANE, 2002. 284 pages. Pages 34 - 38. ISBN 0-87169-926-5
  12. Jump up^ Jan Assmann, Moses the Egyptian: The Memory of Egypt in Western Monotheism. Harvard University Press, 1997. 288 pages. ISBN 0-674-58739-1
  13. Jump up^ N. Shupak, The Monotheism of Moses and the Monotheism of Akhenaten. Sevivot, 1995.
  14. Jump up^ 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
  15. Jump up^ Pantheism: A Non-Theistic Concept of Deity - Page 136, Michael P. Levine - 2002
  16. Jump up^ A Feast for the Soul: Meditations on the Attributes of God : ... - Page x, Baháʾuʾlláh, Joyce Watanabe - 2006
  17. Jump up^ Philosophy and Faith of Sikhism - Page ix, Kartar Singh Duggal - 1988
  18. Jump up^ The Intellectual Devotional: Revive Your Mind, Complete Your Education, and Roam confidently with the cultured class, David S. Kidder, Noah D. Oppenheim, page 364
  19. Jump up^ Raphael Lataster (2013). There was no Jesus, there is no God: A Scholarly Examination of the Scientific, Historical, and Philosophical Evidence & Arguments for Monotheism. p. 165. ISBN 1492234419. 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.
  20. ^ Jump up to:a b Alan H. Dawe (2011). The God Franchise: A Theory of Everything. p. 48. ISBN 0473201143. 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).
  21. Jump up^ Christianity and Other Religions, by John Hick and Brian Hebblethwaite. 1980. Page 178.
  22. Jump up^ "'God' in Merriam-Webster (online)". Merriam-Webster, Inc. Retrieved 2012-07-19.
  23. Jump up^ 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). OED Compact Edition, G, p. 267
  24. Jump up^ Barnhart, Robert K (1995). The Barnhart Concise Dictionary of Etymology: the Origins of American English Words, page 323.HarperCollins. ISBN 0-06-270084-7
  25. Jump up^ 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. [G-] in monotheistic religions, the creator and ruler of the universe, regarded as eternal, infinite, all-powerful, and all-knowing; Supreme Being; the Almighty"
  26. Jump up^ Dictionary.com; "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."
  27. Jump up^ Barton, G.A. (2006). A Sketch of Semitic Origins: Social and Religious. Kessinger Publishing. ISBN 1-4286-1575-X.
  28. Jump up^ "God". Islam: Empire of Faith. PBS. Retrieved 2010-12-18.
  29. Jump up^ "Islam and Christianity", Encyclopedia of Christianity (2001): Arabic-speaking Christians and Jews also refer to God as Allāh.
  30. Jump up^ L. Gardet. "Allah". Encyclopaedia of Islam Online.
  31. Jump up^ Hastings 2003, p. 540
  32. Jump up^ Boyce 1983, p. 685.
  33. Jump up^ Froese, Paul; Christopher Bader (Fall–Winter 2004). "Does God Matter? A Social-Science Critique". Harvard Divinity Bulletin. 4 32.
  34. Jump up^ See Swami Bhaskarananda, Essentials of Hinduism (Viveka Press 2002) ISBN 1-884852-04-1
  35. Jump up^ "Sri Guru Granth Sahib". Sri Granth. Retrieved 2011-06-30.
  36. Jump up^ "What Is the Trinity?".
  37. Jump up^ Quran 112:1–4
  38. Jump up^ D. Gimaret. "Allah, Tawhid". Encyclopaedia Britannica Online.
  39. ^ Jump up to:a b Robyn Lebron (2012). Searching for Spiritual Unity...Can There Be Common Ground?. p. 117. ISBN 1-4627-1262-2.
  40. Jump up^ Müller, Max. (1878) Lectures on the Origin and Growth of Religion: As Illustrated by the Religions of India. London:Longmans, Green and Co.
  41. ^ Jump up to:a b Smart, Jack; John Haldane (2003). Atheism and Theism. Blackwell Publishing. p. 8. ISBN 0-631-23259-1.
  42. ^ Jump up to:a b Lemos, Ramon M. (2001). A Neomedieval Essay in Philosophical Theology. Lexington Books. p. 34. ISBN 0-7391-0250-8.
  43. Jump up^ "Philosophy of Religion.info – Glossary – Theism, Atheism, and Agonisticism". Philosophy of Religion.info. Archived from the originalon 2008-04-24. Retrieved 2008-07-16.
  44. Jump up^ "Theism – definition of theism by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia". TheFreeDictionary.com. Retrieved2008-07-16.
  45. Jump up^ Sean F. Johnston (2009). The History of Science: A Beginner's Guide. p. 90. ISBN 1-85168-681-9. 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).
  46. Jump up^ Paul Bradley (2011). This Strange Eventful History: A Philosophy of Meaning. p. 156. ISBN 0875868762. Pandeism combines the concepts of Deism and Pantheism with a god who creates the universe and then becomes it.
  47. ^ Jump up to:a b Allan R. Fuller (2010). Thought: The Only Reality. p. 79.ISBN 1608445909. 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?
  48. Jump up^ Peter C. Rogers (2009). Ultimate Truth, Book 1. p. 121.ISBN 1438979681. 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.
  49. Jump up^ John Culp (2013). "Panentheism," Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Spring.
  50. Jump up^ The Project Gutenberg EBook of The Brothers Karamazov by Fyodor Dostoyevsky pp259-261
  51. Jump up^ Henry, Michel (2003). I am the Truth. Toward a philosophy of Christianity. Translated by Susan Emanuel. Stanford University Press.ISBN 0-8047-3780-0.
  52. ^ Jump up to:a b c d Edwards, Paul. "God and the philosophers" in Honderich, Ted. (ed)The Oxford Companion to Philosophy, Oxford University Press, 1995. ISBN 978-1-61592-446-2.
  53. Jump up^ "A Plea for Atheism. By 'Iconoclast'", London, Austin & Co., 1876, p. 2.
  54. Jump up^ Dawkins, Richard (2006). The God Delusion. Great Britain: Bantam Press. ISBN 0-618-68000-4.
  55. Jump up^ Dawkins, Richard (2006-10-23). "Why There Almost Certainly Is No God". The Huffington Post. Retrieved 2007-01-10.
  56. Jump up^ Sagan, Carl (1996). The Demon Haunted World p.278. New York: Ballantine Books. ISBN 0-345-40946-9.
  57. Jump up^ Stephen Hawking; Leonard Mlodinow (2010). The Grand Design. Bantam Books. p. 172. ISBN 978-0-553-80537-6.
  58. ^ Jump up to:a b Nikoletseas, Michael M. (2014). Deus Absconditus - The Hidden God. ISBN 978-1495336225.
  59. Jump up^ Hepburn, Ronald W. (2005) [1967]. "Agnosticism". In Donald M. Borchert. The Encyclopedia of Philosophy 1 (2nd ed.). MacMillan Reference USA (Gale). p. 92. ISBN 0-02-865780-2. In the most general use of the term, agnosticism is the view that we do not know whether there is a God or not. (page 56 in 1967 edition)
  60. Jump up^ Rowe, William L. (1998). "Agnosticism". In Edward Craig. Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Taylor & Francis. ISBN 978-0-415-07310-3.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.
  61. Jump up^ "agnostic, agnosticism". OED Online, 3rd ed. Oxford University Press. September 2012. agnostic. : A. n[oun]. :# 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[ective]. :# 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.
  62. Jump up^ 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."
  63. Jump up^ 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."
  64. Jump up^ 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."
  65. Jump up^ Boyer, Pascal (2001). Religion Explained,. New York: Basic Books. pp. 142–243. ISBN 0-465-00696-5.
  66. Jump up^ du Castel, Bertrand; Jurgensen, Timothy M. (2008). Computer Theology,. Austin, Texas: Midori Press. pp. 221–222. ISBN 0-9801821-1-5.
  67. Jump up^ Barrett, Justin (1996). "Conceptualizing a Nonnatural Entity: Anthropomorphism in God Concepts" (PDF).
  68. Jump up^ Rossano, Matt (2007). "Supernaturalizing Social Life: Religion and the Evolution of Human Cooperation" (PDF). Retrieved 2009-06-25.
  69. Jump up^ 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 978-0-19-929551-7. However, earlier authors and published works have promoted an agnostic points of view. They includeProtagoras, a 5th-century BCE Greek philosopher. "The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy - Protagoras (c. 490 - c. 420 BCE)".Archived from the original on 2008-10-14. Retrieved 2008-10-06.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.'
  70. Jump up^ Aquinas, Thomas (1990). Kreeft, Peter, ed. Summa of the Summa. Ignatius Press. p. 63.
  71. Jump up^ Aquinas, Thomas (1990). Kreeft, Peter, ed. Summa of the Summa. Ignatius Press. pp. 65–69.
  72. Jump up^ Aquinas, Thomas (1274). Summa Theologica. Part 1, Question 2, Article 3.
  73. Jump up^ Curley, Edwin M. (1985). The Collected Works of Spinoza. Princeton University Press. ISBN 978-0-691-07222-7.
  74. Jump up^ "Baruch Spinoza".
  75. Jump up^ http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1002.htm#article1
  76. Jump up^ Summa of Theology I, q.2, The Five Ways Philosophers Have Proven God's Existence
  77. Jump up^ Alister E. McGrath (2005). Dawkins' God: genes, memes, and the meaning of life. Wiley-Blackwell. ISBN 978-1-4051-2539-0.
  78. Jump up^ Floyd H. Barackman (2001). Practical Christian Theology: Examining the Great Doctrines of the Faith. Kregel Academic. ISBN 978-0-8254-2380-2.
  79. Jump up^ Gould, Stephen J. (1998). Leonardo's Mountain of Clams and the Diet of Worms. Jonathan Cape. p. 274. ISBN 0-224-05043-5.
  80. Jump up^ Krauss L. A Universe from Nothing. Free Press, New York. 2012. ISBN 978-1-4516-2445-8
  81. Jump up^ Harris, S. The end of faith. W. W. Norton and Company, New York. 2005. ISBN 0-393-03515-8
  82. Jump up^ Mattson MP. Superior pattern processing is the essence of the evolved human brain. Front Neurosci. 2014 Aug 22; 8:265.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4141622/pdf/fnins-08-00265.pdf
  83. Jump up^ Culotta E. The origins of religion. Science 2009; 326: 784-787
  84. Jump up^ Dawkins, R. The God Delusion. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. 2006. ISBN 0-618-68000-4
  85. Jump up^ 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.
  86. Jump up^ Gen. 17:1; 28:3; 35:11; Ex. 6:31; Ps. 91:1, 2
  87. Jump up^ Gen. 14:19; Ps. 9:2; Dan. 7:18, 22, 25
  88. Jump up^ Bentley, David (September 1999). The 99 Beautiful Names for God for All the People of the Book. William Carey Library. ISBN 0-87808-299-9.
  89. Jump up^ Aquinas, Thomas (1274). Summa Theologica. Part 1, Question 3, Article 1.
  90. Jump up^ Augustine of Hippo (397). Confessions. Book 7.
  91. Jump up^ Elaine H. Pagels "What Became of God the Mother? Conflicting Images of God in Early Christianity" Signs, Vol. 2, No. 2 (Winter, 1976), pp. 293-303
  92. Jump up^ Coogan, Michael (October 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: Twelve. Hachette Book Group. p. 175.ISBN 978-0-446-54525-9. Retrieved 2011-05-05. humans are modeled on elohim, specifically in their sexual differences.
  93. Jump up^ "Human Nature and the Purpose of Existence". Patheos.com. Retrieved 2011-01-29.
  94. Jump up^ Quran 51:56
  95. Jump up^ "Allah would replace you with a people who sin". islamtoday.net. Retrieved 13 October 2013.
  96. Jump up^ McGrath, Alister (2006). Christian Theology: An Introduction. Blackwell Publishing. p. 205. ISBN 1-4051-5360-1.
  97. Jump up^ Boyce 1983, p. 686.
  98. Jump up^ "Moses - Hebrew prophet". Encyclopedia Britannica. Retrieved2016-03-19.
  99. Jump up^ Robin Cormack, 1985 Writing in Gold, Byzantine Society and its Icons, ISBN 0-540-01085-5
  100. Jump up^ Steven Bigham, 1995 Image of God the Father in Orthodox Theology and Iconography ISBN 1-879038-15-3 page 27
  101. Jump up^ According to accounts by Patriarch Nikephoros and the chronicler Theophanes
  102. Jump up^ Warren Treadgold, A History of the Byzantine State and Society, Stanford University Press, 1997
  103. Jump up^ Edward Gibbon, 1995 The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire ISBN 0-679-60148-1 page 1693
  104. Jump up^ St. John of Damascus, Three Treatises on the Divine Images ISBN 0-88141-245-7
  105. Jump up^ Steven Bigham, 1995 Image of God the Father in Orthodox Theology and Iconography ISBN 1-879038-15-3 page 29
  106. Jump up^ Gesa Elsbeth Thiessen, 2005 Theological aesthetics ISBN 0-8028-2888-4 page 65
  107. Jump up^ Steven Bigham, 1995 Image of God the Father in Orthodox Theology and Iconography ISBN 1-879038-15-3 page 41
  108. Jump up^ Adolphe Napoléon Didron, 2003 Christian iconography: or The history of Christian art in the middle ages ISBN 0-7661-4075-X pages 169
  109. Jump up^ Arena Chapel, at the top of the triumphal arch, God sending out the angel of the Annunciation. See Schiller, I, fig 15
  110. Jump up^ Bigham Chapter 7
  111. Jump up^ Arthur de Bles, 2004 How to Distinguish the Saints in Art by Their Costumes, Symbols and Attributes ISBN 1-4179-0870-X page 32
  112. Jump up^ Irene Earls, 1987 Renaissance art: a topical dictionary ISBN 0-313-24658-0 pages 8 and 283
  113. Jump up^ Text of the 25th decree of the Council of Trent
  114. Jump up^ Bigham, 73-76
  115. Jump up^ Louis Lohr Martz, 1991 From Renaissance to baroque: essays on literature and art ISBN 0-8262-0796-0 page 222
  116. Jump up^ Gauvin A. Bailey, 2003 Between Renaissance and Baroque: Jesuit art in Rome ISBN 0-8020-3721-6 page 233
  117. Jump up^ 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
  118. Jump up^ 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
  119. Jump up^ Oleg Tarasov, 2004 Icon and devotion: sacred spaces in Imperial Russia ISBN 1-86189-118-0 page 185
  120. Jump up^ Orthodox church web site
  121. Jump up^ Plantinga, Alvin. "God, Arguments for the Existence of", Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Routledge, 2000.
  122. Jump up^ Wierenga, Edward R. "Divine foreknowledge" in Audi, Robert. The Cambridge Companion to Philosophy. Cambridge University Press, 2001.
  123. Jump up^ Beaty, Michael (1991). "God Among the Philosophers". The Christian Century. Retrieved 2007-02-20.
  124. Jump up^ Pascal, Blaise. Pensées, 1669.
  125. Jump up^ Nikoletseas, Michael M. (2014). Deus Absconditus - The Hidden God.ISBN 978-1495336225
  126. Jump up^ Tuesday, December 8, 2009 (December 8, 2009). "More Americans Believe in Angels than Global Warming". Outsidethebeltway.com. Retrieved 2012-12-04.
  127. Jump up^ Van, David (2008-09-18). "Guardian Angels Are Here, Say Most Americans". TIME. Retrieved 2012-12-04.
  128. Jump up^ "Poll: Nearly 8 in 10 Americans believe in angels". CBS News. December 23, 2011. Retrieved 2012-12-04.
  129. Jump up^ Salmon, Jacqueline L. "Most Americans Believe in Higher Power, Poll Finds". washingtonpost.com. Retrieved 2012-12-04.
  130. Jump up^ Qur'an 15:27
  131. Jump up^ "The Global Religious Landscape". The Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life. Pew Research center. 18 December 2012. Retrieved 18 March2013.

Further reading

External links

Find more about
God
at Wikipedia's sister projects
Search WiktionaryDefinitions from Wiktionary
Search CommonsMedia from Commons
Search WikinewsNews stories from Wikinews
Search WikiquoteQuotations from Wikiquote
Search WikiversityLearning resources from Wikiversity
Posted by at
Labels: , , , ,