On The Nature of God

On the Nature of God

The debate on whether God exists or not has been based on a faulty definition of God. Suppose we redefine God, or rather change our definition of God, then with this new, more rigorous and certain definition, not only does God exist but it also remains compatible with religious definitions; without negating them.

As far as I can tell, while my new definition is unique and novel, it has only the slightest and tenuous similarity with scientific pantheism but it clearly isn’t.

I am proud to reveal it in public, for the first time ever - Reza Aslan, here is something philosophically profound for you to ponder upon - my new definition of God.

Firstly, let me start by explaining that, in my definition, God is not a being to which we ascribe various attributes, most notably omniscient, all present, all knowing and the fatal attribute, perfection. Adding perfection as an attribute of God is a fatal error for there is no such thing as a perfect being - we can always add one more attribute to this being. For example, if we define this perfect being to have n attributes, by mathematical induction we can always add one more attribute, and make it n+1. As we can do this ad infinitum, our perfect being cannot exist and therefore that is why I say defining God as a being is a fatal error.

Instead, let us proceed to define God not as a being, but as the superset of all laws (natural, physical, biological, spiritual, psychological, and etc) that govern how the Universe and everything in it was created, operates and will continue to operate. Hence, all scientific endeavour can be viewed as work towards discovering and understanding the nature of God. The fact that scientific endeavour is still incomplete requires that our current understanding of God is still a work-in-progress. 

When a Muslim says, “By the Will of Allah,” he is not being incompatible with this new definition.

This new definition also obviates thorny and tricky questions like, “if God exists, why is there evil, famine, wars, injustices in the world?”

I wish to put on record the kind assistance of Professor Kenneth Surin of Duke University for reviewing the literature to see if anyone else had proposed a definition of God similar to what I had expoused above. He informs me that the closest is scientific pantheism, which, again, does not exactly define God as I have done above.