What is God?

A discussion about God often leads to the question: "Why do you believe in God?" or "Why don't you believe in God?" But when you dig deeper, you find that there is no agreement on what "God" is. Non-believers often tune out at this point. After all, why should they bother discussing the existence of something that is not clearly defined? And that is legitimate. But when discussing things that do not belong to the ontological category of "physical object," it is always difficult to define them. (By the way, it is also difficult to define physical objects. However, we are more willing to accept a definition there.)

Consider, for example, numbers. Numbers do not exist in the physical sense. However, most people would agree that they do exist. Or that numbers are something. 1 + 1 = 2 not because of experience. Because we have added one apple to another apple many times to see that there are now two apples. It is due to the properties of the numbers "1" and "2" and what "+" and "=" mean. This has nothing to do with the physical world. But if we were to start discussing the existence of "1," we would see some challenges. I once witnessed a debate between a well-known Christian and an atheist. At one point, the atheist challenged the Christian by saying, "God, show yourself!" and then claimed, "Why should I bother if he doesn't?" But no one would ever say this to the number "2." Numbers are simply a different ontological category.

No believer would claim that God is a physical object that exists in space and time. He is something else. But when one does not speak about this ontological category, it immediately becomes difficult to make a positive statement about his existence. When I talk to scientists, they feel comfortable with perhaps three ontological categories. These are: 'Physical Objects,' 'Laws of Nature,' and 'Mathematical Objects.' They squeeze everything into these categories, no matter how poorly it fits. They also force consciousness into the "Laws of Nature" and so "God." Although the former is obviously of a completely different nature. (If it is not clear to you, I might write an article about it in the future). In a recent article of mine about the Kalam Cosmological Argument for God, we concluded that the cause of the first instance of a certain ontological category must come from another category. This means that either the "Laws of Nature" have always existed and were able to cause the Big Bang, or something else caused the laws of nature and thus the Big Bang (or something like that). However, if one assumes that the universe began at some point and there was either no time before or an infinite time of nothingness, then the laws of nature must also have a creator outside themselves, which requires another ontological category that can cause the beginning of practical time.

Since God is neither an instance of the three ontological categories nor the categories themselves, he is of another kind. This means it is difficult to talk about his properties and existence because we do not know what God is. The religious claim, however, is more concrete. They believe they can pray to God, and he hears them. So instead of following the rabbit hole of ontology, I apply a different strategy in my life. Instead of trying to concretize the abstract, I try to find lower bounds for God.

I complete the following sentence: "God is at least ..." Where others try to say things like: "God is omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and omniscient." I will not do this, as these claims are hard to substantiate. Therefore, I provide the following lower bounds for God. God is at least ...

• ... the person to whom I direct my prayers.
• ... the voice in my head that wants the good for me.
• ... the cause of cognitive dissonance.
• ... the enforcer of sociological laws like: "The rich get richer." and "Love your neighbor."

The list could go on, but I will stop here. One could argue that certain, if not all, of the above statements can be explained by psychology or sociology. But I found it helpful to have the concept that there is indeed a unifying force or concept that cares about my life. If one accepts thinking in this category, one can explore the properties of such a God. One can build a relationship with him and find out whether he is loving or not.

If you go down either of the two rabbit holes, you might feel the urge to merge the uncaused cause with the God estimated by the sentences I just mentioned. But that is an adventure you must embark on yourself.