View source for Religion:God

{{Short description|Principal object of faith in monotheism}}
{{multiple image
| footer            = Representation (for the purpose of art or worship) of God in (left to right from top) [[Religion:Christianity|Christianity]], [[Religion:Islam|Islam]], [[Religion:Hinduism|Hinduism]], [[Religion:Sikhism|Sikhism]], [[Religion:Judaism|Judaism]], and the [[Social:Baháʼí Faith|Baháʼí Faith]] 
| perrow            = 2
| total_width       = 300
| image1            = Michelangelo, Creation of Adam 06.jpg
| image2            = Allah3.svg
| image3            = Vishnu Surrounded by his Avatars.jpg
| image4            = Ek onkar.svg
| image5            = Tetragrammaton Sefardi.jpg
| image6            = 051907 Wilmette IMG 1404 The Greatest Name.jpg
| align             = 
| direction         = 
| alt1              = 
| caption1          = 
| caption2          = 
| image7            = 
}}
In monotheistic belief systems, '''God''' is usually viewed as the supreme being, [[Religion:Creator deity|creator]], and principal object of [[Philosophy:Faith#Religious faith|faith]].<ref name="Swinburne">[[Biography:Richard Swinburne|Swinburne, R. G.]] "God" in [[Biography:Ted Honderich|Honderich, Ted]]. (ed) ''The Oxford Companion to Philosophy'', [[Organization:Oxford University Press|Oxford University Press]], 1995.</ref> In polytheistic belief systems, [[Religion:Deity|a god]] is "a spirit or being believed to have created, or for controlling some part of the [[Astronomy:Universe|universe]] or life, for which such a deity is often worshipped".<ref>{{Cite web |title=god |url=https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/god |website=Cambridge Dictionary}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |title=Definition of GOD |url=https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/god |access-date=2023-02-27 |website=www.merriam-webster.com |language=en}}</ref> Belief in the existence of at least one god is called [[Philosophy:Theism|theism]].<ref>{{Cite web |title=THEISM Definition & Usage Examples |url=https://www.dictionary.com/browse/theism |access-date=2023-11-13 |website=Dictionary.com |language=en}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |title=Definition of THEISM |url=https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/theism |access-date=2023-11-13 |website=www.merriam-webster.com |language=en}}</ref>

[[Religion:Conceptions of God|View]]s regarding God vary considerably. Many notable theologians and philosophers have developed arguments for and against the [[Philosophy:Existence of God|existence of God]].<ref name="Plantinga" /> [[Philosophy:Atheism|Atheism]] rejects the belief in any [[Religion:Deity|deity]]. [[Philosophy:Agnosticism|Agnosticism]] is the belief that the existence of God is unknown or [[Philosophy:Unknowability|unknowable]]. Some theists view knowledge concerning God as derived from faith. God is often conceived as the greatest entity in existence.<ref name="Swinburne"/> God is often believed to be the cause of all things and so is seen as the creator, [[Religion:God the Sustainer|sustainer]], and ruler of the [[Astronomy:Universe|universe]]. God is often thought of as [[Philosophy:Incorporeality|incorporeal]] and [[Religion:Transcendence|independent]] of the material creation,<ref name="Swinburne" /><ref>Bordwell, David (2002). ''Catechism of the Catholic Church'', Continuum International Publishing, {{ISBN|978-0860123248}}. p. 84.</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P17.HTM|title=Catechism of the Catholic Church – IntraText|access-date=30 December 2016|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130303003725/https://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P17.HTM|archive-date=3 March 2013}}</ref> while [[Philosophy:Pantheism|pantheism]] holds that God is the universe itself. God is sometimes seen as omnibenevolent, while [[Philosophy:Deism|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 [[Unsolved:Prayer|prayer]], and see God as the source of all moral obligation.<ref name="Swinburne"/> God is sometimes described without reference [[Religion:Gender of God|to gender]], while others use terminology that is gender-specific. God is referred to by different [[Unsolved:Names of God|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==

[[File:Mesha Stele (511142469) (cropped).jpg|thumb|upright=1.2|The Mesha Stele bears the earliest known reference (840&nbsp;BCE) to the Israelite God Yahweh.]]
{{pp-semi-indef}}The earliest written form of the Germanic word ''God'' comes from the 6th-century [[Religion:Christianity|Christian]] ''[[Astronomy:Codex Argenteus|Codex Argenteus]]''. The English word itself is derived from the Proto-Germanic *ǥuđan. The reconstructed [[Social:Proto-Indo-European language|Proto-Indo-European]] 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). Oxford English Dictionary Compact Edition, G, p. 267.</ref> The Germanic words for ''God'' were originally neuter, but during the process of the [[Religion:Christianization|Christianization]] of the Germanic peoples from their indigenous Germanic paganism, the words became a masculine syntactic form.<ref name="BARNHART323">Barnhart, Robert K. (1995). ''The Barnhart Concise Dictionary of Etymology: the Origins of American English Words'', p. 323. HarperCollins. {{ISBN|0062700847}}.</ref> In the [[Social:English language|English language]], capitalization is used when the word is used as a proper noun, as well as for other names by which a god is known.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/god|title='God' in Merriam-Webster (online)|publisher=Merriam-Webster, Inc.|access-date=19 July 2012}}</ref> Consequently, the capitalized form of ''god'' is not used for multiple gods or when used to refer to the generic idea of a [[Religion:Deity|deity]].<ref>Webster's New World Dictionary; "God n. ME [Middle English] < OE [Old English], 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"
</ref><ref>[http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/God Dictionary.com] {{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.

''El'' means ''God'' in Hebrew, but [[Unsolved:Names of God in Judaism|in Judaism]] and [[Unsolved:Names of God in Christianity|in Christianity]], God is also given a personal name, the tetragrammaton YHWH, in origin possibly the name of an Edomite or Midianite deity, Yahweh.<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=Wilfrid Laurier University Press |isbn=978-0889206526 |page=4 |language=en|quote=The Old Testament contains various titles and surrogates for God, such as El Shaddai, El Elyon, Haqqadosh (The Holy One), and Adonai. In chapter three, consideration will be given to names ascribed to God in the patriarchal period. Gerhard von Rad reminds us that these names became secondary after the name YHWH had been known to Israel, for "these rudimentary names which derive from old traditions, and from the oldest of them, never had the function of extending the name so as to stand alongside the name Jahweh to serve as fuller forms of address; rather, they were occasionally made use of in place of the name Jahweh." In this respect YHWH stands in contrast to the principal deities of the Babylonians and the Egyptians. "Jahweh had only one name; Marduk had fifty with which his praises as victor over Tiamat were sung in hymns. Similarly, the Egyptian god Re is the god with many names.}}</ref> In many English translations of the [[Religion:Bible|Bible]], when the word ''LORD'' is in all capitals, it signifies that the word represents the tetragrammaton.<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> [[Religion:Jah|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.<ref name="Loewen2020">{{cite book |last1=Loewen |first1=Jacob A. |title=The Bible in Cross Cultural Perspective |date=1 June 2020 |publisher=William Carey Publishing |isbn=978-1645083047 |page=182 |language=English|quote=Shorter forms of Yahweh: The name Yahweh also appears in a shortened form, transliterated Jah (pronounced Yah) in the Revised Version and the American Standard Version, either in the text or footnote: "my song is Jah" (Ex 15:2); "by Jah, his name" (Ps 68:4); "I shall not see Jah in Jah's land (Is 38:11). It is common also in such often untranslated compounds as hallelujah 'praise Jah' (Ps 135:3; 146:10, 148:14), and in proper names like Elijah, 'my God is Jah,' Adonijah, 'my Lord is Jah,' Isaiah, 'Jah has saved.'|edition=Revised }}</ref> In [[Religion:Judaism|Judaism]] some of the Hebrew titles of God are considered [[Unsolved:Names of God in Judaism|holy names]].

''Allāh'' ({{lang-ar|الله}}) is the [[Social:Arabic|Arabic]] term with no plural used by Muslims and Arabic speaking Christians and Jews meaning "The God", while ''ʾilāh'' ({{lang-ar|إِلَٰه}} plural ''`āliha'' 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}}</ref><ref>"Islam and Christianity", ''Encyclopedia of Christianity'' (2001): Arabic-speaking [[Religion:Christians|Christians]] and Jews also refer to God as ''Allāh''.</ref><ref>{{Cite encyclopedia |title=Allah |encyclopedia=Encyclopaedia of Islam Online |last=Gardet |first=L.}}</ref> [[Religion:Muslims|Muslims]] also use a [[Religion:Names of God in Islam|multitude of other titles]] for God.

In [[Religion:Hinduism|Hinduism]], [[Philosophy:Brahman|Brahman]] is often considered a [[Philosophy:Monism|monistic]] 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 [[Religion:Personal god|personal nature of God]], with early references to his name as [[Religion:Krishna|Krishna]]-Vasudeva in [[Religion:Bhagavata|Bhagavata]] or later [[Religion:Vishnu|Vishnu]] and [[Hari]].<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> [[Religion:Sang Hyang Widhi Wasa|Sang Hyang Widhi Wasa]] is the term used in Balinese Hinduism.<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>

In [[Religion:Chinese folk religion|Chinese religion]], [[Philosophy:Shangdi|Shangdi]] is conceived as the [[Social:Progenitor|progenitor]] (first ancestor) of the universe, intrinsic to it and constantly bringing [[Astronomy:Cosmos|order]] to it.

[[Religion:Ahura Mazda|Ahura Mazda]] is the name for God used in [[Religion:Zoroastrianism|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 [[Social:Sanskrit|Sanskrit]] cognate ''medhā'', means "intelligence" or "wisdom". Both the Avestan and Sanskrit words reflect [[Social:Proto-Indo-Iranian language|Proto-Indo-Iranian]] ''*mazdhā-'', from [[Social:Proto-Indo-European language|Proto-Indo-European]] mn̩sdʰeh<sub>1</sub>, literally meaning "placing (''dʰeh<sub>1</sub>'') one's mind (''*mn̩-s'')", hence "wise".{{Sfn|Boyce|1983|p=685}} Meanwhile [[Religion:Names of God in Zoroastrianism|101 other names]] 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>

[[Religion:Waheguru|Waheguru]] (''{{lang-pa|{{IAST|vāhigurū}}}}'') is a term most often used in [[Religion:Sikhism|Sikhism]] 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 [[Social:Middle Persian|Middle Persian]] borrowing) means "wonderful" and ''[[Biography:Guru|guru]]'' (''{{lang-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 Khalsa, Victory is to the Wonderful Lord."

''Baha'', the "greatest" name for God in the [[Social:Baháʼí Faith|Baháʼí Faith]], is Arabic for "All-Glorious".<ref>Baháʾuʾlláh, Joyce Watanabe (2006). A Feast for the Soul: Meditations on the Attributes of God : ... p. x.</ref>

Other names for God include Aten<ref>Assmann, Jan. ''Religion and Cultural Memory: Ten Studies'', Stanford University Press 2005, p. 59.</ref> in ancient Egyptian Atenism where Aten was proclaimed to be the one "true" supreme being and creator of the universe,<ref>Lichtheim, M. (1980). ''Ancient Egyptian Literature'', Vol. 2, p. 96.</ref> [[Religion:Chukwu|Chukwu]] in Igbo,<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}}</ref> and [[Religion:Hayyi Rabbi|Hayyi Rabbi]] in [[Unsolved:Mandaeism|Mandaeism]].<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 |language=en |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}}</ref>

==General conceptions==

===Existence===
{{Main|Philosophy:Existence of God}}
[[File:St-thomas-aquinas.jpg|thumb|upright|[[Biography:Thomas Aquinas|Thomas Aquinas]] summed up five main arguments as proofs for God's existence (painting by Carlo Crivelli, 1476).]]
[[File:Portrait of Sir Isaac Newton, 1689.jpg|thumb|upright|Isaac Newton saw the existence of a Creator necessary in the movement of astronomical objects (painting by Godfrey Kneller, 1689).]]

The existence of God is a subject of debate in [[Religion:Theology|theology]], [[Religion:Philosophy of religion|philosophy of religion]] and [[Social:Popular culture|popular culture]].<ref>See e.g. ''The Rationality of Theism'' quoting [[Biography:Quentin Smith|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]]''.</ref> In [[Philosophy:Philosophy|philosophical]] terms, the question of the existence of God involves the disciplines of [[Philosophy:Epistemology|epistemology]] (the nature and scope of [[Philosophy:Knowledge|knowledge]]) and [[Philosophy:Ontology|ontology]] (study of the nature of [[Philosophy:Being|being]] or [[Philosophy:Existence|existence]]) and the [[Philosophy:Value theory|theory of value]] (since some definitions of God include "perfection").

[[Philosophy:Ontological argument|Ontological argument]]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}}</ref> Notable ontological arguments were formulated by [[Biography:Anselm of Canterbury|Anselm]] and René Descartes.<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> [[Philosophy:Cosmological argument|Cosmological argument]]s, such as those described below, use concepts around the origin of the universe to argue for the existence of God.

The ''[[Astronomy:Teleological argument|Teleological argument]]'', also called the ‘’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 }}</ref> It is countered that the [[Astronomy:Fine-tuned universe|fine tuning]] required for a stable universe with life on earth is illusionary, as humans are only able to observe the small part of this universe that succeeded in making such observation possible, called the [[Astronomy:Anthropic principle|anthropic principle]], and so would not learn of, for example, life on other planets or of [[Physics:Multiverse|universes]] that did not occur because of different [[Physics:Dimensionless physical constant|laws of physics]].<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}}</ref> Non-theists have argued that complex processes that have natural explanations yet to be discovered are referred to the supernatural, called [[Religion:God of the gaps|god of the gaps]]. Other theists, such as [[Biography:John Henry Newman|John Henry Newman]] who believed [[Religion:Theistic evolution|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.<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>

The ''[[Philosophy:Argument from beauty|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 aesthetically 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=2 |pages=190–91 |language=en}}</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>

The ''[[Philosophy:Argument from morality|Argument from morality]]'' argues for the existence of God given the assumption of the objective existence of [[Philosophy:Moral realism|moral]]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 [[Biography:J. L. Mackie|J. L. Mackie]] agreed that the argument is valid, they disagreed with its premises. [[Biography:David Hume|David Hume]] argued that there is no basis to believe in objective moral truths while biologist [[Biography:E. O. Wilson|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.<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 |language=en}}</ref> Philosopher [[Biography:Michael Lou Martin|Michael Lou Martin]] argued that a subjective account for morality can be acceptable. Similar to the argument from morality is the ''[[Philosophy:Argument from morality#Argument for conscience|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 [[Biography:John Locke|John Locke]] 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 |language=en}}</ref>

[[Philosophy:Atheism|Atheism]] is, in a broad sense, the rejection of [[Philosophy:Belief|belief]] in the existence of [[Religion:Deity|deities]].<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> [[Philosophy:Agnosticism|Agnosticism]] is the view that the [[Philosophy:Truth value|truth value]]s of certain claims—especially [[Philosophy:Metaphysics|metaphysical]] and religious claims such as [[Philosophy:Existence of God|whether God]], the [[Philosophy:Divinity|divine]] or the [[Philosophy:Supernatural|supernatural]] exist—are unknown and perhaps unknowable.<ref>[[Biography:Thomas Henry Huxley|Thomas Henry Huxley]], 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 [[Biography:Protagoras|Protagoras]], a 5th-century [[History:Before Common Era|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|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.'|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=[[Philosophy:Encyclopedia of Philosophy|The Encyclopedia of Philosophy]] |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=[[Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy]]|publisher=Taylor & Francis|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=VQ-GhVWTH84C&q=agnosticism&pg=PA122|last=Rowe|first=William L.|isbn=978-0415073103|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 encyclopedia |year=2012 <!--|access-date=22 July 2013--> |entry=agnostic, agnosticism |dictionary=Oxford English Dictionary Online |publisher=Oxford University Press |edition=3rd |quote='''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.}}</ref> [[Philosophy:Theism|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.<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|access-date=16 July 2008|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080424071443/http://www.philosophyofreligion.info/definitions.html|archive-date=24 April 2008}}</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=[[Company:TheFreeDictionary.com|TheFreeDictionary.com]]|access-date=16 July 2008}}</ref>

Some view the existence of God as an empirical question. [[Biography:Richard Dawkins|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."<ref name="Dawkins">{{cite news

Agnostic [[Biography:Stephen Jay Gould|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 "[[Religion:Non-overlapping magisteria|non-overlapping magisteria]]" (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 [[Philosophy:Supernatural|supernatural]], such as those relating to the [[Philosophy:Existence|existence]] and [[Earth:Nature|nature]] of God, are [[Philosophy:Metaphysics|non]]-empirical and are the proper domain of [[Religion:Theology|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.<ref name="Dawkins-Delusion">{{cite book |title=The God Delusion |last=Dawkins |first=Richard |year=2006 |publisher=Bantam Press |location=Great Britain |isbn=978-0618680009}}</ref> [[Biography:Stephen Hawking|Stephen Hawking]] and co-author [[Biography:Leonard Mlodinow|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.<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=[https://archive.org/details/granddesign0000hawk/page/172 172] |language=en |url-access=registration}}</ref><ref>Krauss, L. ''A Universe from Nothing''. Free Press, New York. 2012. {{ISBN|978-1451624458}}.</ref>

===Oneness===
{{Main|Religion:Deity|Philosophy:Monotheism|Philosophy:Henotheism}}
[[File:Shield-Trinity-Scutum-Fidei-English.svg|thumb|upright|Trinitarians believe that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are three distinct persons sharing a single nature or essence.]]
A [[Religion:Deity|deity]], or "god" (with [[Social:Letter case|lowercase]] ''g''), refers to a supernatural being.<ref name="OBrien">{{cite book |last1=O'Brien |first1=Jodi |url={{google books |plainurl=y |id=_nyHS4WyUKEC}} |title=Encyclopedia of Gender and Society |publisher=Sage |year=2009 |isbn=978-1412909167 |location=Los Angeles, California |page=191 |language=en-us |access-date=28 June 2017}}</ref> [[Philosophy:Monotheism|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. [[Religion:God in Judaism|Judaism]] 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}}</ref> Islam's most fundamental concept is ''[[Religion:Tawhid|tawhid]]'' meaning "oneness" or "uniqueness".<ref>{{Cite encyclopedia |title=Allah, Tawhid |encyclopedia=Encyclopædia Britannica Online |last=Gimaret |first=D.}}</ref> The first pillar of Islam is an [[Religion:Shahada|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 [[Religion:Deity|deity]] except God."<ref>Mohammad, N. 1985. "The doctrine of jihad: An introduction." ''Journal of Law and Religion'' 3(2): 381–397.</ref>

In Christianity, the doctrine of the Trinity describes God as one God in [[Religion:God the Father|Father]], [[Religion:God the Son|Son]] ([[Biography:Jesus|Jesus]]), and Holy Spirit.<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 ''Litanias Lauretanas''.

[[Philosophy:God in Hinduism|God in Hinduism]] is viewed differently by diverse strands of the religion, with most Hindus having faith in a [[Philosophy:Brahman|supreme reality]] (''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}}</ref> [[Philosophy:Henotheism|Henotheism]] 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> [[Philosophy:Monolatry|Monolatry]] 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=Mormon Doctrine |page=351 |year=1979 |edition=2nd |location=Salt Lake City, Utah |publisher=Bookcraft |}}.</ref>

===Transcendence===
[[Religion:Transcendence|Transcendence]] 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. [[Biography:Anselm of Canterbury|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 [[Biography:Alister McGrath|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."<ref>{{Cite book|first=Alister|last=McGrath|title=Christian Theology: An Introduction|publisher=Blackwell Publishing|year=2006|isbn=978-1405153607|page=205}}</ref>

[[Philosophy:Pantheism|Pantheism]] 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}}</ref> For pantheist philosopher [[Biography:Baruch Spinoza|Baruch 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=978-0691072227}}</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 }}</ref> Pantheism is sometimes objected to as not providing any meaningful explanation of God with the German philosopher Schopenhauer 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}}</ref> [[Philosophy:Pandeism|Pandeism]] holds that God was a separate entity but then became the Universe.<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 |language=en |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><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 |language=en |quote=Pandeism combines the concepts of Deism and Pantheism with a god who creates the universe and then becomes it.}}</ref> [[Religion:Panentheism|Panentheism]] holds that God contains, but is not identical to, the Universe.<ref>Culp, John (2013). [http://plato.stanford.edu/cgi-bin/encyclopedia/archinfo.cgi?entry=panentheism "Panentheism,"] {{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 |language=en |quote=As with [[Religion:Panentheism|Panentheism]], [[Philosophy:Pantheism|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 that 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>

===Creator===
[[File:Blake God Blessing.jpg|thumb|upright|''God Blessing the Seventh Day'', 1805 watercolor painting by [[Biography:William Blake|William Blake]]]]
God is often viewed as the cause of all that exists. For [[Philosophy:Pythagoreanism|Pythagorean]]s, [[Philosophy:Monad|Monad]] 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 [[Biography:Plato|Plato]] and [[Biography:Plotinus|Plotinus]] refers to “[[Philosophy:Henology|The One]]” 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 [[Philosophy:Teleology|teleological]] 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=Society for Classical Studies ([[Organization:University of Pennsylvania|University of Pennsylvania]]) |location=Philadelphia |volume=75 |issue=4 |access-date=5 November 2022 |quote=Historical authors generally refer to "the divine" (''to theion'') or "the supernatural" (''to daimonion'') rather than simply "God." [...] The [[Philosophy:Stoicism|Stoics]], believed in a God identifiable with the ''[[Philosophy:Logos|logos]]'' or ''hegemonikon'' (reason or leading principle) of the universe and downgraded the [[Religion:Ancient Greek religion|traditional gods]], who even disappear during the conflagration (''[[Philosophy:Ekpyrosis|ekpyrosis]]''). Yet, the Stoics apparently did not practice a cult to this God. [[Philosophy:Middle Platonism|Middle]] and Later Platonists, who spoke of a supreme God, in philosophical discourse, generally speak of this God, not the gods, as responsible for the creation and providence of the universe. They, too, however, do not seem to have directly practiced a religious cult to their God. }} [https://samreligions.org/2014/12/30/theism-and-related-categories-in-the-study-of-ancient-religions/ SCS/AIA Annual Meeting] {{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> [[Biography:Aristotle|Aristotle]] theorized a ''[[Philosophy:Unmoved mover|first uncaused cause]]'' for all motion in the universe and viewed it as perfectly beautiful, immaterial, unchanging and indivisible. [[Religion:Aseity|Aseity]] is the property of not depending on any cause other than itself for its existence. [[Biography:Avicenna|Avicenna]] held that there must be a [[Religion:Proof of the Truthful|necessarily existent]] 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={{wipe|Cambridge University Press}}|isbn=978-0521190732|page=170}}</ref> [[Philosophy:Secondary causation|Secondary causation]] refers to God creating the laws of the Universe which then can change themselves within the [[Astronomy:Clockwork universe|framework of those laws]]. In addition to the initial creation, [[Philosophy:Occasionalism|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 [[Religion:God the Sustainer|sustainer]]. While [[Philosophy:Divine providence|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 [[Philosophy:Miracle|miracle]]s.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/Providence.aspx#1O101-Providence |title=Providence |work=The Concise Oxford Dictionary of World Religions |publisher=[[Encyclopedia.com]] |access-date=2014-07-17}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |title=Creation, Providence, and Miracle |url=http://www.reasonablefaith.org/creation-providence-and-miracle |publisher=Reasonable Faith |access-date=2014-05-20}}</ref>

===Benevolence===
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 |language=en |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>

Of those theists who hold that God has an interest in humanity, most hold that God is [[Philosophy:Omnipotence|omnipotent]], omniscient, and benevolent. This belief raises questions about God's responsibility for evil and suffering in the world. [[Philosophy:Dystheism|Dystheism]], which is related to [[Philosophy:Theodicy|theodicy]], is a form of theism which holds that God is either not wholly good or is fully malevolent as a consequence of the [[Philosophy:Problem of evil|problem of evil]].

===Omniscience and omnipotence===
[[Philosophy:Omnipotence|Omnipotence]] (all-powerful) is an attribute often ascribed to God. The [[Philosophy:Omnipotence paradox|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.<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.| url = | 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 [[Philosophy:Free will|free will]] 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 [[Biography:Robert Audi|Audi, Robert]]. ''The Cambridge Companion to Philosophy''. {{wipe|Cambridge University Press}}, 2001.</ref> 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 [[Religion:Process theology|process theology]] holds that God does not have [[Religion:Immutability (theology)|immutability]], so is affected by his creation.

===Other concepts===
Classical theists (such as ancient Greco-Medieval philosophers, Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox Christians, many [[Religion:Jews|Jews]] and [[Religion:Muslims|Muslims]], and some Protestants){{efn|The attributes of the God of classical theism{{clarify|reason=What attributes? Those mentioned in this paragraph or some others?|date=October 2019}} were all claimed to varying degrees by early Jewish, Christian and Muslim scholars, including [[Biography:Maimonides|Maimonides]],<ref name="Edwards" /> [[Biography:Augustine of Hippo|St Augustine]],<ref name="Edwards" /> and [[Biography:Al-Ghazali|Al-Ghazali]].<ref name="Plantinga" />}} speak of God as a [[Philosophy:Divine simplicity|divinely simple]] '[[Philosophy:Incorporeality|nothing]]' that is completely [[Religion:Transcendence|transcendent]] (totally independent of all else), and having attributes such as [[Religion:Immutability (theology)|immutability]], [[Religion:Impassibility|impassibility]], and timelessness.<ref name="Craig98">{{Cite book |last=Craig |first=Edward |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=5m5z_ca-qDkC |title=Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy: Index |date=1998 |publisher=Taylor & Francis |isbn=978-0-415-07310-3 |language=en}}</ref> [[Religion:Theology|Theologians]] of theistic personalism (the view held by Rene Descartes, [[Biography:Isaac Newton|Isaac Newton]], [[Biography:Alvin Plantinga|Alvin Plantinga]], [[Biography:Richard Swinburne|Richard Swinburne]], [[Biography:William Lane Craig|William Lane Craig]], and most [[Religion:Evangelicalism|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.<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 [[Philosophy:Incorporeality|incorporeal]] (immaterial), a [[Religion:Personal god|personal]] being, the source of all moral obligation, 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 [[Biography:Maimonides|Maimonides]],<ref name=Edwards /> [[Biography:Augustine of Hippo|Augustine of Hippo]],<ref name="Edwards">[[Biography:Paul Edwards (philosopher)|Edwards, Paul]]. "God and the philosophers" in [[Biography:Ted Honderich|Honderich, Ted]]. (ed)''The Oxford Companion to Philosophy'', [[Organization:Oxford University Press|Oxford University Press]], 1995. {{ISBN|978-1615924462}}.</ref> and [[Biography:Al-Ghazali|Al-Ghazali]],<ref name=Plantinga>[[Biography:Alvin Plantinga|Plantinga, Alvin]]. "God, Arguments for the Existence of", ''Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy'', Routledge, 2000.</ref> respectively.

==Non-theistic views==

===Religious traditions===
[[Philosophy:Jainism|Jainism]] has [[Unsolved:Jainism and non-creationism|generally rejected creationism]], holding that soul substances ([[Philosophy:Jīva (Jainism)|Jīva]]) 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 [[Religion:Buddhism|Buddhism]] can be conceived as being non-theistic. [[Philosophy:Creator in Buddhism|Buddhism has generally rejected]] the specific monotheistic view of a [[Religion:Creator deity|Creator God]]. The Buddha criticizes the theory of creationism in the [[Religion:Early Buddhist Texts|early Buddhist texts]].<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 [[Biography:Nagarjuna|Nagarjuna]], [[Biography:Vasubandhu|Vasubandhu]], [[Philosophy:Dharmakirti|Dharmakirti]] and Buddhaghosa, 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}}</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}}</ref>

Taoic religions such as [[Philosophy:Confucianism|Confucianism]] and [[Philosophy:Taoism|Taoism]] are silent on the existence of creator gods. However, keeping with the tradition of [[Philosophy:Ancestor veneration in China|ancestor veneration in China]], adherents worship the spirits of people such as [[Biography:Confucius|Confucius]] and Lao Tzu 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}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/taoism/ |title=Taoism |website=National Geographic |publisher=National Geographic Society}}</ref>

===Anthropology===

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}}</ref>

[[Biography:Pascal Boyer|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 [[Religion:Greek mythology|Greek mythology]], which is, in his opinion, more like a modern [[Engineering:Soap opera|soap opera]] than other religious systems.<ref name="boyer">{{cite book
|title=Religion Explained
|isbn=978-0465006960
|year=2001
|last=Boyer
|first=Pascal
|url=https://archive.org/details/religionexplaine00boye
|url-access=registration
|quote=boyer modern soap opera.
|pages=[https://archive.org/details/religionexplaine00boye/page/142 142]–243
|publisher=Basic Books
|location=New York
}}</ref>

Bertrand du Castel and Timothy Jurgensen demonstrate through formalization that Boyer's explanatory model matches physics' [[Philosophy:Epistemology|epistemology]] 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 |language=en-us |}}</ref>

[[Social:Anthropology|Anthropologist]] Stewart Guthrie contends that people project human features onto non-human aspects of the world because it makes those aspects more familiar. [[Biography:Sigmund Freud|Sigmund Freud]] 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
}}</ref>

Likewise, [[Biography:Émile Durkheim|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.<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 |language=en-us |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>

===Neuroscience and psychology===

[[Biography:Sam Harris|Sam Harris]] has interpreted some findings in [[Biology:Neuroscience|neuroscience]] to argue that God is an imaginary entity only, with no basis in reality.<ref name="Harris, S 2005">Harris, Sam. ''The end of faith''. W. W. Norton and Company, New York. 2005. {{ISBN|0393035158}}.</ref>

Johns Hopkins researchers studying the effects of the “spirit molecule” [[Chemistry:N,N-Dimethyltryptamine|DMT]], which is both an endogenous molecule in the human brain and the active molecule in the [[Chemistry:Psychedelic|psychedelic]] [[Chemistry:Ayahuasca|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.<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=}}</ref>

About a quarter of those afflicted by temporal lobe seizures 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}}</ref> and may become preoccupied by thoughts of God even if they were not previously. Neuroscientist [[Biography:V. S. Ramachandran|V. S. Ramachandran]] hypothesizes that seizures in the temporal lobe, which is closely connected to the emotional center of the brain, the [[Philosophy:Limbic system|limbic system]], 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>

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}}</ref>

==Relationship with humanity==
{{anchor|Relationship with creation}}
[[File:Duerer-Prayer.jpg|right|thumb|upright=0.8|''Praying Hands'' by Albrecht Dürer]]

===Worship===
Theistic religious traditions often require worship of God and sometimes hold that the purpose of existence 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}}</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}}</ref> 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".<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 [[Unsolved:Prayer|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 [[Religion:Saint|saint]]s, to [[Religion:Intercession|intercede]] on their behalf. Prayer often also includes [[Religion:Supplication|supplication]] such as [[Philosophy:Forgiveness#Religious views|asking forgiveness]]. God is often believed to be forgiving. For example, a [[Religion:Hadith|hadith]] 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> Sacrifice for the sake of God is another act of devotion that includes [[Philosophy:Fasting#religious views|fasting]] and almsgiving. [[Religion:Dhikr|Remembrance]] of God in daily life include mentioning interjections [[Religion:Alhamdulillah|thanking God]] when feeling gratitude or [[Religion:Tasbih|phrases of adoration]], such as repeating [[Unsolved:Japa|chant]]s while performing other activities.

===Salvation===
{{Main|Religion:Salvation}}
[[Philosophy:Transtheism|Transtheistic]] 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 [[Philosophy:Stoicism|Stoicism]].<ref>de Gruyter, Walter (1988), ''Writings on Religion'', p. 145.</ref>

Among religions that do attach spirituality to the relationship with God disagree as how to best worship God and what is [[Philosophy:Divine providence|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 [[Religion:Chosen people|chosen people]] or have exclusive access to absolute truth, generally through [[Unsolved:Revelation|revelation]] or encounter with the Divine, which adherents of other religions do not. Another view is [[Religion:Religious pluralism|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<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}}</ref> The [[Social:Baháʼí Faith|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 [[Religion:Supersessionism|supersessionism]], i.e., the belief that one's religion is the fulfillment of previous religions. A third approach is [[Religion:Inclusivism|relativistic inclusivism]], where everybody is seen as equally right; an example being [[Philosophy:Universalism|universalism]]: the doctrine that [[Religion:Salvation|salvation]] is eventually available for everyone. A fourth approach is syncretism, mixing different elements from different religions. An example of syncretism is the [[Philosophy:New Age|New Age]] movement.

==Epistemology==
===Faith===
{{Main|Philosophy:Faith}}
[[Philosophy:Fideism|Fideism]] is the position that in certain topics, notably theology such as in [[Philosophy:Reformed epistemology|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 [[Biography:Blaise Pascal|Blaise Pascal]] 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}}</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 ''[[Religion:Fitra|fitra]],'' 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 |language=en |doi=10.1163/1573-3912_ei3_com_27155}}.</ref> In Confucian tradition, [[Biography:Confucius|Confucius]] and [[Biography:Mencius|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.<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}}</ref>

===Revelation===
{{Main|Unsolved:Revelation}}
Revelation refers to some form of message communicated by God. This is usually proposed to occur through the use of [[Religion:Prophet|prophet]]s or [[Unsolved:Angel|angel]]s. 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 [[Religion:Al-Ghaib|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'' [4 volumes] 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 [[Unsolved:General revelation|General revelation]] is used to refer to knowledge revealed about God outside of [[Religion:Direct revelation|direct]] or [[Unsolved:Special revelation|special]] revelation such as scriptures. Notably, this includes studying nature, sometimes seen as the [[Philosophy:Book of Nature|Book of Nature]].<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=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'.|access-date=30 November 2022}}</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===
On matters of theology, some such as [[Biography:Richard Swinburne|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 [[Philosophy:Foundationalism|foundational belief]].<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> [[Religion:Athari|Traditionalist theology]] holds that one should not opinionate beyond revelation to understand God's nature and frown upon rationalizations such as [[Religion:Kalam|speculative theology]].<ref name=Halverson-36>{{Harvtxt|Halverson|2010|page=[https://archive.org/details/theologycreedsun00halv/page/n44 36]}}.</ref> 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 ''[[Religion:Tafwid|tafwid]]'', without [[Religion:Bi-la kaifa|asking how]].<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=[[Company:Brill Publishers|Brill Publishers]] |series=Islamicate Intellectual History |volume=5 |pages=195–230 |doi=10.1163/9789004426610_009 |isbn=978-9004426610 |s2cid=219026357 |issn=2212-8662 |lccn=2020008682}}</ref><ref name=Halverson-3637>{{harvtxt|Halverson|2010|pages=[https://archive.org/details/theologycreedsun00halv/page/n44 36–37]}}.</ref> Physico-theology provides arguments for theological topics based on reason.<ref>{{Citation |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}}.</ref>

==Specific characteristics==

===Titles===
[[File:Allah Names in Chinese Arabic Script.jpg|thumb|upright|99 names of Allah, in Chinese Sini]]
{{Main|Unsolved:Names of God}}
In the [[Religion:Judeo-Christian|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".<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 YHWH (often vocalized as ''Yahweh'' or ''Jehovah'').<ref name="Parke-Taylor2006"/> One of them is ''[[Religion:Elohim|Elohim]]''. Another one is ''[[Religion:El Shaddai|El Shaddai]]'', translated "God Almighty".<ref>Gen. 17:1; 28:3; 35:11; Ex. 6:31; Ps. 91:1, 2.</ref> A third notable title is ''El Elyon'', which means "The High God".<ref>Gen. 14:19; Ps. 9:2; Dan. 7:18, 22, 25.</ref> Also noted in the [[Religion:Hebrew Bible|Hebrew]] and [[Religion:Bible#Christian Bible|Christian]] Bibles is the name "[[Unsolved:I Am that I Am|I Am that I Am]]".<ref>Exodus 3:13–15.</ref><ref name="Parke-Taylor2006"/>

God is described and referred in the [[Religion:Quran|Quran]] and [[Religion:Hadith|hadith]] by certain [[Religion:Names of God in Islam|names or attributes]], the most common being ''Al-Rahman'', 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 [[Social:Baháʼí Faith|Baháʼí Faith]].

[[Religion:Vaishnavism|Vaishnavism]], a tradition in Hinduism, has a list of titles and names of Krishna.

===Gender===
{{Main|Religion:Gender of God}}
The gender of God may be viewed as either a literal or an allegorical aspect of a [[Religion:Deity|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}}</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> 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 [[Biology:Gender|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.<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. [http://holyspirit-shekinah.org/_/what_became_of_god_the_mother-1.htm "What Became of God the Mother? Conflicting Images of God in Early Christianity"] {{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=[https://archive.org/details/godsexwhatbi00coog/page/175 175] |chapter=6. Fire in Divine Loins: God's Wives in Myth and Metaphor |quote=humans are modeled on ''elohim'', specifically in their sexual differences. |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).

In [[Religion:Sikhism|Sikhism]], [[Religion:God 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.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.sikhwomen.com/equality/GodsGender.htm|title=God's Gender|website=www.sikhwomen.com}}</ref> However, the [[Biography:Guru Granth Sahib|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 [[Social:Punjabi language|Punjabi]] and [[Social:Sant Bhasha|Sant Bhasha]], [[Social:Sanskrit|Sanskrit]] with influences of [[Social:Persian language|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}}</ref>

===Depiction===
[[File:Naqsh i Rustam. Investiture d'Ardashir 1.jpg|thumb|left|Ahura Mazda (depiction is on the right, with high crown) presents Ardashir I (left) with the ring of kingship. (Relief at Naqsh-e Rustam, 3rd century CE)]]
In Zoroastrianism, during the early [[History:Parthian Empire|Parthian Empire]], [[Religion:Ahura Mazda|Ahura Mazda]] was visually represented for worship. This practice ended during the beginning of the Sasanian Empire. Zoroastrian [[Religion:Iconoclasm|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.{{Sfn|Boyce|1983|p=686}}

Deities from [[Place:Near East|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 ([[Religion:Yahweh|Yahweh]]) 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 Torah often ascribes human features to God, however, many other passages describe God as formless and otherworldly. Judaism is [[Religion:Aniconism|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 [[Biography:Maimonides|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.{{citation needed|date=September 2021}}

[[Philosophy:Gnosticism|Gnostic]] cosmogony often depicts the creator god of the Old Testament as an evil lesser deity or [[Philosophy:Demiurge#Gnosticism|Demiurge]], while the higher benevolent god or [[Religion:Monad (Gnosticism)|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 [[Philosophy:Divine spark|divine spark]] within them which has fallen from the immaterial world into the corrupt material world and is trapped unless [[Philosophy:Gnosis|gnosis]] is attained.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Bataille |first1=Georges |title=Base Materialism and Gnosticism |journal=Visions of Excess: Selected Writings, 1927–1939 |date=1930 |page=47}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|author1=Marvin Meyer|author2=Willis 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}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|first=Rebecca|last=Denova|title=Gnosticism|url=https://www.worldhistory.org/Gnosticism/|publisher=[[Organization:World History Encyclopedia|World History Encyclopedia]]|date=April 9, 2021|access-date=2021-10-15}}</ref>

[[File:Ascension, sacramentaire de Drogon.jpg|thumb|upright=1.2|Use of the symbolic Hand of God in the Ascension from the Drogo Sacramentary, c. 850]]
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.<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, like 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 [[Religion:God the Father|God the Father]] in Western art.<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 [[Engineering:Illuminated manuscript|illuminated manuscript]]s, which as a less public form could often be more adventurous in their iconography, and in [[Engineering:Stained glass|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 [[Religion:Baptism of Jesus|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 in Padua.<ref name="ReferenceA">Arena Chapel, 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 Naples Bible carried a depiction of God the Father in the [[Religion:Burning bush|Burning bush]]. By the early 15th century, the [[Unsolved:Très Riches Heures du Duc de Berry|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 [[Religion:Garden of Eden|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, like the large Genesis altarpiece by the Hamburg painter Meister Bertram, continued to use the old depiction of Christ as ''[[Religion:Logos (Christianity)|Logos]]'' in Genesis scenes. In the 15th century there was a brief fashion for depicting all three persons of the Trinity as [[Religion:Trinity#Less common types of depiction|similar or identical figures with the usual appearance of Christ]]. In a Trinitarian [[Religion:Pietà|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.<ref>Earls, Irene (1987). ''Renaissance art: a topical dictionary,'' {{ISBN|0313246580}}, pp. 8, 283.</ref> 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 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}}</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.

[[File:Istanbul 027 (6445021161).jpg|thumb|left|upright|The Arabic script of "Allah" in Hagia Sophia, Istanbul]]
In Islam, Muslims believe that God ([[Religion:Allah|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.<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 [[Religion:Iconodulism|iconodules]] 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>

==See also==
{{Div col|small=no}}
* {{look from|God}}
;By religion
* [[Religion:God in Abrahamic religions|God in Abrahamic religions]]
** [[Religion:God in Judaism|God in Judaism]] and God of Israel (disambiguation)
** [[Religion:God in Christianity|God in Christianity]]
** [[Religion:God in Islam|God in Islam]]
* [[Religion:God in Sikhism|God in Sikhism]]
* [[Philosophy:God in Hinduism|God in Hinduism]]
; Other
* [[Philosophy:Absolute|Absolute]]
* [[Philosophy:Apatheism|Apatheism]]
* Apeiron (cosmology)
* [[Religion:Deity|Deity]]
* [[Religion:Demigod|Demigod]]
* [[Philosophy:Existence of God|Existence of God]]
* [[Philosophy:God complex|God complex]]
* God (disambiguation) 
* [[Religion:God (word)|God (word)]]
* [[Religion:Relationship between religion and science|Relationship between religion and science]]
{{Div col end}}

== References ==
'''Footnotes'''
{{notelist}}

'''Citations'''
{{reflist}}

==Bibliography==
{{refbegin}}
* {{citation |last=Boyce |first=Mary |chapter=Ahura Mazdā |title=Encyclopaedia Iranica |location=New York |publisher=Routledge & Kegan Paul |year=1983 |volume=1 |pages=684–687}}
* {{cite book |last1=Bunnin |first1=Nicholas |last2=Yu |first2=Jiyuan |title=The Blackwell Dictionary of Western Philosophy |year=2008 |publisher=Blackwells |isbn=978-0470997215 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=LdbxabeToQYC}}
* 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}}
* [[Biography:Jack Miles|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}}
* [[Biography:Paul Tillich|Paul Tillich]], ''Systematic Theology'', Vol. 1 (Chicago, Illinois: University of Chicago Press, 1951). {{ISBN|0226803376}}
* {{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 |language=en}}
* {{cite book |last=Hastings |first=James Rodney |author-link=James Hastings |others=John A. Selbie |title=Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics |edition=Volume 4 of 24 (Behistun (continued) to Bunyan.) |publisher=Kessinger Publishing, LLC |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}}
{{refend}}

==External links==
{{Library resources box}}
* [http://www.armatabianca.org/eng/padre.php?sottomenu=4 Concept of God in Christianity]
* [http://www.islam-info.ch/en/Who_is_Allah.htm Concept of God in Islam] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190421081921/http://www.islam-info.ch/en/Who_is_Allah.htm |date=21 April 2019 }}
* [http://www.allaboutgod.com/ God Christian perspective]
* [https://web.archive.org/web/20030504073425/http://www.shaivam.org/hipgodco.htm Hindu Concept of God]
* [http://www.aish.com/literacy/concepts/Understanding_God.asp Jewish Literacy] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20101219080545/http://www.aish.com/literacy/concepts/Understanding_God.asp |date=19 December 2010 }}{{Dead link|date=December 2023 |fix-attempted=yes }}  
* [https://www.godsyou.com/who-is-god/ Who is God]

{{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20101219080545/http://www.aish.com/literacy/concepts/Understanding_God.asp |date=19 December 2010 }}

{{Theism}}
{{Theology}}
{{Names of God}}


[[Category:God| ]]
[[Category:Singular God| ]]
[[Category:Creator gods]]
[[Category:Deities]]

{{Sourceattribution|God}}