In monotheistic thought, God is usually viewed as the supreme being, creator, and principal object of faith.[1] God is typically conceived as being omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, and omnibenevolent, as well as having an eternal and necessary existence. God is often thought to be incorporeal, evoking transcendence or immanence.[1][2][3]

Representation (for the purpose of art or worship) of God in (left to right from top) Christianity, Islam, Atenism, the Monad, Balinese Hinduism, and Zoroastrianism

Some religions describe God without reference to gender, while others use terminology that is gender-specific and gender-biased. God has been conceived as either personal or impersonal. In theism, God is the creator and sustainer of the universe, while in deism, God is the creator, but not the sustainer, of the universe. In pantheism, God is the universe itself, while in panentheism, the universe is part (but not the whole) of God. Atheism is an absence of belief in God or any other deity, while agnosticism is the belief that the existence of God is unknown or unknowable. God has also been conceived as the source of all moral obligation, and the "greatest conceivable existent".[1]

Many notable theologians and philosophers have developed arguments for and against the existence of God.[4] God is referred to by different names depending on the language and cultural tradition with titles sometimes used referring to God's attributes.

Etymology and usage

The Mesha Stele bears the earliest known reference (840 BCE) to the Israelite God Yahweh.

The earliest written form of the Germanic word God comes from the 6th-century Christian Codex Argenteus. The English word itself is derived from the Proto-Germanic *ǥuđan. The reconstructed Proto-Indo-European form *ǵhu-tó-m was likely based on the root *ǵhau(ə)-, which meant either "to call" or "to invoke".[5] The Germanic words for God were originally neuter—applying to both genders—but during the process of the Christianization of the Germanic peoples from their indigenous Germanic paganism, the words became a masculine syntactic form.[6] In the 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.[7] Consequently, the capitalized form of god is not used for multiple gods or when used to refer to the generic idea of a deity.[8][9] 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 in Judaism and in Christianity, God is also given a personal name, the tetragrammaton YHWH, in origin possibly the name of an Edomite or Midianite deity, Yahweh.[10] In many English translations of the Bible, when the word LORD is in all capitals, it signifies that the word represents the tetragrammaton.[11] 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.[12] In Judaism some of the Hebrew titles of God are considered holy names.

Allāh (Arabic: الله) is the Arabic term with no plural used by Muslims and Arabic speaking Christians and Jews meaning "The God", while ʾilāh (Arabic: إِلَٰه plural `āliha آلِهَة) is the term used for a deity or a god in general.[13][14][15] Muslims also use a multitude of other titles for God.

In Hinduism, Brahman is often considered a monistic concept of God.[16] God may also be given a proper name in monotheistic currents of Hinduism which emphasize the personal nature of God, with early references to his name as Krishna-Vasudeva in Bhagavata or later Vishnu and Hari.[17] Sang Hyang Widhi Wasa is the term used in Balinese Hinduism.[18]

In Chinese religion, Shangdi is conceived as the progenitor (first ancestor) of the universe, intrinsic to it and constantly bringing order to it.

Ahura Mazda is the name for God used in Zoroastrianism. "Mazda", or rather the Avestan stem-form Mazdā-, nominative Mazdå, reflects Proto-Iranian *Mazdāh (female). It is generally taken to be the proper name of the spirit, and like its Sanskrit cognate medhā, means "intelligence" or "wisdom". Both the Avestan and Sanskrit words reflect Proto-Indo-Iranian *mazdhā-, from Proto-Indo-European mn̩sdʰeh1, literally meaning "placing (dʰeh1) one's mind (*mn̩-s)", hence "wise".[19] Meanwhile 101 other names are also in use.[20]

Waheguru (Punjabi: vāhigurū) is a term most often used in Sikhism to refer to God.[21] It means "Wonderful Teacher" in the Punjabi language. Vāhi (a Middle Persian borrowing) means "wonderful" and guru (Sanskrit: guru) is a term denoting "teacher". Waheguru is also described by some as an experience of ecstasy which is beyond all descriptions. The most common usage of the word "Waheguru" is in the greeting Sikhs use with each other - Waheguru Ji Ka Khalsa, Waheguru Ji Ki Fateh "Wonderful Lord's Khalsa, Victory is to the Wonderful Lord."

Baha, the "greatest" name for God in the Baháʼí Faith, is Arabic for "All-Glorious".[22]

Other names for God include Aten[23] in ancient Egyptian Atenism where Aten was proclaimed to be the one "true" supreme being and creator of the universe,[24] Chukwu in Igbo,[25] and Hayyi Rabbi in Mandaeism.[26][27]

General conceptions


Thomas Aquinas summed up five main arguments as proofs for God's existence. (Painting by Carlo Crivelli, 1476)
Isaac Newton saw the existence of a Creator necessary in the movement of astronomical objects. (Painting by Godfrey Kneller, 1689)

Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.[28][29] Agnosticism is the view that the truth values of certain claims—especially metaphysical and religious claims such as whether God, the divine or the supernatural exist—are unknown and perhaps unknowable.[30][31][32][33] 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.[34][35]

Some view the existence of God as an empirical question. Richard Dawkins states that "a universe with a god would be a completely different kind of universe from one without, and it would be a scientific difference."[36] Carl Sagan argued that the doctrine of a Creator of the Universe was difficult to prove or disprove and that the only conceivable scientific discovery that could disprove the existence of a Creator (not necessarily a God) would be the discovery that the universe is infinitely old.[37] Some theologians, such as Alister McGrath, argue that the existence of God is not a question that can be answered using the scientific method.[38][39] Agnostic Stephen Jay Gould argued that science and religion are not in conflict and proposed an approach dividing the world of philosophy into what he called "non-overlapping magisteria" (NOMA).[40] In this view, questions of the supernatural, such as those relating to the existence and nature of God, are non-empirical and are the proper domain of theology. The methods of science should then be used to answer any empirical question about the natural world, and theology should be used to answer questions about ultimate meaning and moral value. In this view, the perceived lack of any empirical footprint from the magisterium of the supernatural onto natural events makes science the sole player in the natural world.[41] Stephen Hawking and co-author Leonard Mlodinow state in their 2010 book, The Grand Design, that it is reasonable to ask who or what created the universe, but if the answer is God, then the question has merely been deflected to that of who created God. Both authors claim however, that it is possible to answer these questions purely within the realm of science, and without invoking any divine beings.[42][43]

Ontological arguments refer to any argument for the existence of God that is based on a priori reasoning.[44] Notable ontological arguments were formulated by Anselm and René Descartes.[45] Cosmological arguments, such as those described below, utilizes concepts around the origin of the universe to argue for the existence of God.

The Teleological argument, also called the ‘’argument from design’’, utilizes the complexity within the universe as a proof of the existence of God.[46] It is countered that the 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 anthropic principle, and so would not learn of, for example, life on other planets or universes that did not occur because of different laws of physics.[47] Non-theists have argued that complex processes that have natural explanations yet to be discovered are referred to the supernatural, called god of the gaps. Other theists, such as John Henry Newman who believed theistic evolution was acceptable, have also argued against versions of the teleological argument and held that it is limiting of God to view him having to only intervene specially in some instances rather than having complex processes designed to create order.[48]

The Argument from beauty states that this universe happens to contain special beauty in it and that there would be no particular reason for this over aesthetically neutrality other than God.[49] This has been countered by pointing to the existence of ugliness in the universe.[50] 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.[51]

The Argument from morality argues for the existence of God given the assumption of the objective existence of morals.[52] While prominent non-theistic philosophers such as the atheist J. L. Mackie agreed that the argument is valid, they disagreed with its premises. Concerning the assumption of objective morals, David Hume argued that there is no basis to believe in objective moral truths while biologist E. O. Wilson theorized that the feelings of morality is a by product of natural selection in humans and would not exist independent of the mind.[53] Philosopher Michael Lou Martin argued that a subjective account for morality can be acceptable and also opposed the premise that objective morality entails God pointing out that the argument can similarly entail the existence of polytheistic deities instead. Similar to the arguement from morality is the Argument from conscience which argues for the existence of God given the existence of a conscience that informs of right and wrong. Philosopher John Locke argued that conscience is a social construct and thus would lead to contradicting morals.[54]


Trinitarians believe that God is composed of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

A deity, or ‘’god’’ (with lowercase g), refers to a supernatural being.[55] Monotheism is the belief that there is only one deity, referred to as ‘’God’’ (with uppercase g). Monotheistic traditions view God as incomparable and idolatry, equating others to God in some way, is often strongly condemned. Judaism includes some of the oldest monotheistic traditions in the world.[56] Islam's most fundamental concept is tawhid meaning "oneness" or "uniqueness".[57] The first pillar of Islam is an oath that forms the basis of the religion and which non-Muslims wishing to convert must recite, declares that "I testify that there is no deity except God."[58]

In Christianity, the doctrine of the Trinity describes God as one God in Father, Son (Jesus), and Holy Spirit.[59] In the past centuries, this fundamental mystery of the Christian faith was also summarized by the Latin formula Sancta Trinitas, Unus Deus (Holy Trinity, Unique God), reported in the Litanias Lauretanas. God in Hinduism is viewed differently by diverse strands of the religion with most Hindus having faith in a supreme reality (Brahman) who can be manifested in numerous chosen deities. Thus, the religion is sometimes characterized as Polymorphic Monotheism.[60] Henotheism is the belief and worship of a single god at a time while accepting the validity of worshiping other deities.[61] Monolatry is the belief in only a single deity worthy of worship while accepting the existence of other dieties.[62]


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. Anselm thought that God did not feel emotions such as anger or love, but appeared to do so through our imperfect understanding. The incongruity of judging "being" against something that might not exist, led many medieval philosophers approach to knowledge of God through negative attributes, called Negative theology. For example, one should not say that God is wise, but can say that God is not ignorant (i.e. in some way God has some properties of knowledge). Christian theologian Alister McGrath writes that one has to understand a "personal god" as an analogy. "To say that God is like a person is to affirm the divine ability and willingness to relate to others. This does not imply that God is human, or located at a specific point in the universe."[63]

Pantheism holds that God is the universe and the universe is God and denies that God transcends the Universe.[64] For famed pantheist philosopher Baruch Spinoza, the whole of the natural universe is made of one substance, God, or its equivalent, Nature.[65][66] 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”.[67] Pandeism holds that God was a separate entity but then became the Universe.[68][69] Panentheism holds that God contains, but is not identical to, the Universe.[70][71]


God Blessing the Seventh Day, 1805 watercolor painting by William Blake

God is often viewed as the cause of all that exists. For Pythagoreans, Monad variously referred to divinity, the first being or an indivisible origin.[72] The philosophy of Plato and Plotinus refers to “The One” which is the first principle of reality that is ‘’beyond’’ being[73] and is both the source of the Universe and the teleological purpose of all things.[74] Aristotle theorized a first uncaused cause for all motion in the universe and viewed it as perfectly beautiful, immaterial, unchanging and indivisible. Aseity is the property of not depending on any cause other than itself for its existence. Avicenna held that there must be a necessarily existent guaranteed to exist by its essence- it cannot ‘’not’’ exist – and that humans identify this as God.[75] Secondary causation refers to God creating the laws of the Universe which then can change themselves within the framework of those laws. In addition to the initial creation, occasionalism refers to the idea that the Universe would not by default continue to exist from one instant to the next and so would need to rely on God as a sustainer. While divine providence refers to any intervention by God it is usually used to refer to "special providence" where there is an extraordinary intervention by God, such as miracles.[76][77]


Deism holds that God is exists but does not intervene in the world beyond what was necessary to create it,[78] 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.[79]

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

Omniscience and omnipotence

Omniscience (all-knowing) and omnipotence (all-powerful) are attributes often ascribed to God. Omniscience implies that God knows how free agents will choose to act. If God does know this, either their free will might be illusory or foreknowledge does not imply predestination, and if God does not know it, God may not be omniscient.[80] Open Theism limits God’s omniscience by contending that, due to the nature of time, God's omniscience does not mean the deity can predict the future and process theology holds that God does not have immutability, so is affected by his creation.

Other concepts

Classical theists (such as ancient Greco-Medieval philosophers, Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox Christians, many Jews and Muslims, and some Protestants)[lower-alpha 1] speak of God as a divinely simple 'nothing' that is completely transcendent (totally independent of all else), and having attributes such as immutability, impassibility, and timelessness.[83] Theologians of theistic personalism (the view held by Rene Descartes, Isaac Newton, Alvin Plantinga, Richard Swinburne, William Lane Craig, and most modern evangelicals) argue that God is most generally the ground of all being, immanent in and transcendent over the whole world of reality, with immanence and transcendence being the contrapletes of personality.[84]

God has also been conceived as being incorporeal (immaterial), a personal being, the source of all moral obligation, and the "greatest conceivable existent".[1] These attributes were all supported to varying degrees by the early Jewish, Christian and Muslim theologian philosophers, including Maimonides,[81] Augustine of Hippo,[81] and Al-Ghazali,[4] respectively.

Non-theistic views

Religious traditions

Jainism has generally rejected creationism, holding that soul substances (Jīva) are uncreated and that time is beginningless.[85] Some interpretations and traditions of Buddhism can be conceived as being non-theistic. Buddhism has generally rejected the specific monotheistic view of a Creator God. The Buddha criticizes the theory of creationism in the early Buddhist texts.[86][87] Also, major Indian Buddhist philosophers, such as Nagarjuna, Vasubandhu, Dharmakirti and Buddhaghosa, consistently critiqued Creator God views put forth by Hindu thinkers.[88][89][90]


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, embellished and promulgated in a trans-generational manner.[91]

Pascal Boyer argues that while there is a wide array of supernatural concepts found around the world, in general, supernatural beings tend to behave much like people. The construction of gods and spirits like persons is one of the best known traits of religion. He cites examples from Greek mythology, which is, in his opinion, more like a modern soap opera than other religious systems.[92] Bertrand du Castel and Timothy Jurgensen demonstrate through formalization that Boyer's explanatory model matches physics' epistemology in positing not directly observable entities as intermediaries.[93] Anthropologist Stewart Guthrie contends that people project human features onto non-human aspects of the world because it makes those aspects more familiar. Sigmund Freud also suggested that god concepts are projections of one's father.[94]

Likewise, Émile Durkheim was one of the earliest to suggest that gods represent an extension of human social life to include supernatural beings. In line with this reasoning, psychologist Matt Rossano contends that when humans began living in larger groups, they may have created gods as a means of enforcing morality. In small groups, morality can be enforced by social forces such as gossip or reputation. However, it is much harder to enforce morality using social forces in much larger groups. Rossano indicates that by including ever-watchful gods and spirits, humans discovered an effective strategy for restraining selfishness and building more cooperative groups.[95]

Neuroscience and psychology

Sam Harris has interpreted some findings in neuroscience to argue that God is an imaginary entity only, with no basis in reality.[96]

Johns Hopkins researchers studying the effects of the “spirit molecule” DMT, which is both an endogenous molecule in the human brain and the active molecule in the psychedelic ayahuasca, found that a large majority of respondents said DMT brought them into contact with a "conscious, intelligent, benevolent, and sacred entity," and describe interactions that oozed joy, trust, love, and kindness. More than half of those who had previously self-identified as atheists described some type of belief in a higher power or God after the experience.[97]

About a quarter of those afflicted by temporal lobe seizures experience what is described as a religious experience[98] and may become preoccupied by thoughts of God even if they were not previously. Neuroscientist V. S. Ramachandran hypothesizes that seizures in the temporal lobe, which is closely connected to the emotional center of the brain, the limbic system, may lead to those afflicted to view even banal objects with heightened meaning.[99]

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.[100]

Relationship with creation

Praying Hands by Albrecht Dürer


Theistic religious traditions often require worship of God. Muslims believe that the purpose of existence is to worship God.[101][102] 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.[103] 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".[104] Invoking God in prayer plays a significant role among many believers. Depending on the tradition, God can be viewed as a personal God who is only to be invoked directly while other traditions allow praying to intermediaries, such as saints, to intercede on their behalf. Prayer often also includes supplication such as asking forgiveness. God is often believed to be forgiving. For example, a hadith states God would replace a sinless people with one who sinned but still asked repentance.[105] Sacrifice for the sake of God is another act of devotion that includes fasting and almsgiving. Remembrance of God in daily life include mentioning interjections thanking God when feeling gratitude or phrases of adoration such as repeating chants while performing other activities.


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,[106] Jainism and Stoicism.[107]

Among religions that do attach spirituality to the relationship with God disagree as how to best worship God and what is God's plan for mankind. There are different approaches to reconciling the contradictory claims of monotheistic religions. One view is taken by exclusivists, who believe they are the chosen people or have exclusive access to absolute truth, generally through revelation or encounter with the Divine, which adherents of other religions do not. Another view is religious pluralism. A pluralist typically believes that his religion is the right one, but does not deny the partial truth of other religions. The view that all theists actually worship the same god, whether they know it or not, is especially emphasized in the Baháʼí Faith, Hinduism[108] and Sikhism.[109] The Baháʼí Faith preaches that divine manifestations include great prophets and teachers of many of the major religious traditions such as Krishna, Buddha, Jesus, Zoroaster, Muhammad, Bahá'ú'lláh and also preaches the unity of all religions and focuses on these multiple epiphanies as necessary for meeting the needs of humanity at different points in history and for different cultures, and as part of a scheme of progressive revelation and education of humanity. An example of a pluralist view in Christianity is supersessionism, i.e., the belief that one's religion is the fulfillment of previous religions. A third approach is relativistic inclusivism, where everybody is seen as equally right; an example being universalism: the doctrine that salvation is eventually available for everyone. A fourth approach is syncretism, mixing different elements from different religions. An example of syncretism is the New Age movement.



As opposed to the evidentialist position taken by those such as Richard Swinburne, faith in God is also sometimes held to be "properly basic".[110] Some theists agree that only some of the arguments for God's existence are compelling, but argue that faith is not a product of reason, but requires risk. There would be no risk, they say, if the arguments for God's existence were as solid as the laws of logic, a position summed up by Pascal as "the heart has reasons of which reason does not know."[111] Inherent intuition about God is referred to in Islam as fitra, or “innate nature”.[112]


Revelation refers to some form of message communicated by God. This is usually proposed to occur through the use of prophets or angels. Al-Maturidi argued for the need for revelation because even though humans are intellectually capable of realizing God, human desire can divert the intellect and because certain knowledge cannot be known except for been specially given to prophets.[113] The term General revelation is used to refer to knowledge revealed about God outside of direct or special revelation such as scriptures. Notably, this includes studying nature, sometimes seen as the Book of Nature.[114] An idiom in Arabic states, "The Qur’an is a Universe that speaks. The Universe is a silent Qur’an".[115]


Traditionalist theology holds that one should not opinionate beyond revelation to understand God's nature and frown upon rationalizations such as speculative theology.[116] Notably, for anthropomorphic descriptions such as the “Hand of God” and attributes of God, they neither nullify such texts nor accept a literal hand but leave any ambiguity to God, called tafwid, without asking how.[117][118] Prima scriptura is the doctrine that biblical canon is the primary guide over other sources such as reason or expert opinion while Sola scriptura is the doctrine that the Bible is the only source of authority for the Christian faith and practice.[119]

Specific characteristics


99 names of Allah, in Chinese Sini (script)

In the Judeo-Christian tradition, "the Bible has been the principal source of the conceptions of God". That the Bible "includes many different images, concepts, and ways of thinking about" God has resulted in perpetual "disagreements about how God is to be conceived and understood".[120] Throughout the Hebrew and Christian Bibles there are titles for God, who revealed his personal name as YHWH (often vocalized as Yahweh or Jehovah).[10] One of them is Elohim. Another one is El Shaddai, translated "God Almighty".[121] A third notable title is El Elyon, which means "The High God".[122] Also noted in the Hebrew and Christian Bibles is the name "I Am that I Am".[123][10]

God is described and referred in the Quran and hadith by certain names or attributes, the most common being Al-Rahman, meaning "Most Compassionate" and Al-Rahim, meaning "Most Merciful".[124] Many of these names are also used in the scriptures of the Baháʼí Faith.

Vaishnavism, a tradition in Hinduism, has a list of titles and names of Krishna.


The gender of God may be viewed as either a literal or an allegorical aspect of a deity who, in classical western philosophy, transcends bodily form.[125][126] Polytheistic religions commonly attribute to each of the gods a gender, allowing each to interact with any of the others, and perhaps with humans, sexually. In most monotheistic religions, God has no counterpart with which to relate sexually. Thus, in classical western philosophy the gender of this one-and-only deity is most likely to be an analogical statement of how humans and God address, and relate to, each other. Namely, God is seen as begetter of the world and revelation which corresponds to the active (as opposed to the receptive) role in sexual intercourse.[127]

Biblical sources usually refer to God using male or paternal words and symbolism, except Genesis 1:26–27,[128][129] Psalm 123:2–3, and Luke 15:8–10 (female); Hosea 11:3–4, Deuteronomy 32:18, Isaiah 66:13, Isaiah 49:15, Isaiah 42:14, Psalm 131:2 (a mother); Deuteronomy 32:11–12 (a mother eagle); and Matthew 23:37 and Luke 13:34 (a mother hen).


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 Parthian Empire, Ahura Mazda was visually represented for worship. This practice ended during the beginning of the Sasanian Empire. Zoroastrian iconoclasm, which can be traced to the end of the Parthian period and the beginning of the Sassanid, eventually put an end to the use of all images of Ahura Mazda in worship. However, Ahura Mazda continued to be symbolized by a dignified male figure, standing or on horseback, which is found in Sassanian investiture.[130]

Deities from Near Eastern cultures are often thought of as anthropomorphic entities who have a human like body which is, however, not equal to a human body. Such bodies were often thought to be radiant or fiery, of superhuman size or extreme beauty. The ancient deity of the Israelites (Yahweh) too was imagined as a transcendent but still anthropomorphic deity.[131] 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.[132] In Judaism, the Torah often ascribes human features to God, however, many other passages describe God as formless and otherworldly. Judaism is aniconic, meaning it overly lacks material, physical representations of both the natural and supernatural worlds. Furthermore, the worship of idols is strictly forbidden. The traditional view, elaborated by figures such as Maimonides, reckons that God is wholly incomprehensible and therefore impossible to envision, resulting in a historical tradition of "divine incorporeality". As such, attempting to describe God's "appearance" in practical terms is considered disrespectful to the deity and thus is deeply taboo, and arguably heretical.

Gnostic cosmogony often depicts the creator god of the Old Testament as an evil lesser deity or Demiurge, while the higher benevolent god or Monad is thought of as something beyond comprehension having immeasurable light and not in time or among things that exist, but rather is greater than them in a sense. All people are said to have a piece of God or divine spark within them which has fallen from the immaterial world into the corrupt material world and is trapped unless gnosis is attained.[133][134][135]

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.[136] 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 God the Father in Western art.[136] Yet, Western art eventually required some way to illustrate the presence of the Father, so through successive representations a set of artistic styles for symbolizing the Father using a man gradually emerged around the 10th century AD. A rationale for the use of a human is the belief that God created the soul of man in the image of his own (thus allowing human to transcend the other animals). It appears that when early artists designed to represent God the Father, fear and awe restrained them from a usage of the whole human figure. Typically only a small part would be used as the image, usually the hand, or sometimes the face, but rarely a whole human. In many images, the figure of the Son supplants the Father, so a smaller portion of the person of the Father is depicted.[137] By the 12th century depictions of God the Father had started to appear in French illuminated manuscripts, which as a less public form could often be more adventurous in their iconography, and in stained glass church windows in England. Initially the head or bust was usually shown in some form of frame of clouds in the top of the picture space, where the Hand of God had formerly appeared; the Baptism of Christ on the famous baptismal font in Liège of Rainer of Huy is an example from 1118 (a Hand of God is used in another scene). Gradually the amount of the human symbol shown can increase to a half-length figure, then a full-length, usually enthroned, as in Giotto's fresco of c. 1305 in Padua.[138] In the 14th century the Naples Bible carried a depiction of God the Father in the Burning bush. By the early 15th century, the Très Riches Heures du Duc de Berry has a considerable number of symbols, including an elderly but tall and elegant full-length figure walking in the Garden of Eden, which show a considerable diversity of apparent ages and dress. The "Gates of Paradise" of the Florence Baptistry by Lorenzo Ghiberti, begun in 1425 use a similar tall full-length symbol for the Father. The Rohan Book of Hours of about 1430 also included depictions of God the Father in half-length human form, which were now becoming standard, and the Hand of God becoming rarer. At the same period other works, like the large Genesis altarpiece by the Hamburg painter Meister Bertram, continued to use the old depiction of Christ as Logos in Genesis scenes. In the 15th century there was a brief fashion for depicting all three persons of the Trinity as similar or identical figures with the usual appearance of Christ. In a Trinitarian Pietà, God the Father is often symbolized using a man wearing a papal dress and a papal crown, supporting the dead Christ in his arms.[139] In 1667 the 43rd chapter of the Great Moscow Council specifically included a ban on a number of symbolic depictions of God the Father and the Holy Spirit, which then also resulted in a whole range of other icons being placed on the forbidden list,[140][141] 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.

The Arabic script of "Allah" in the Hagia Sophia, Istanbul

In Islam, Muslims believe that God (Allah) is beyond all comprehension and equal, and does not resemble any of his creations in any way. Muslims tend to use the least anthropomorphism among monotheists.[132] They are not iconodules and have religious calligraphy of titles of God instead of pictures.[142]

See also

Write your essay about God on Wikiversity



  1. The attributes of the God of classical theism were all claimed to varying degrees by early Jewish, Christian and Muslim scholars, including Maimonides,[81] St Augustine,[81] and Al-Ghazali.[82]


  1. Swinburne, R.G. "God" in Honderich, Ted. (ed)The Oxford Companion to Philosophy, Oxford University Press, 1995.
  2. David Bordwell (2002). Catechism of the Catholic Church, Continuum International Publishing ISBN 978-0-86012-324-8 p. 84
  3. "Catechism of the Catholic Church – IntraText". Archived from the original on 3 March 2013. Retrieved 30 December 2016.
  4. Platinga, Alvin. "God, Arguments for the Existence of", Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Routledge, 2000.
  5. The ulterior etymology is disputed. Apart from the unlikely hypothesis of adoption from a foreign tongue, the OTeut. "ghuba" implies as its preTeut-type either "*ghodho-m" or "*ghodto-m". The former does not appear to admit of explanation; but the latter would represent the neut. pple. of a root "gheu-". There are two Aryan roots of the required form ("*g,heu-" with palatal aspirate) one with meaning 'to invoke' (Skr. "hu") the other 'to pour, to offer sacrifice' (Skr "hu", Gr. χεηi;ν, OE "geotàn" Yete v). OED Compact Edition, G, p. 267
  6. Barnhart, Robert K. (1995). The Barnhart Concise Dictionary of Etymology: the Origins of American English Words, p. 323. HarperCollins. ISBN 0-06-270084-7
  7. "'God' in Merriam-Webster (online)". Merriam-Webster, Inc. Retrieved 19 July 2012.
  8. Webster's New World Dictionary; "God n. ME < OE, akin to Ger gott, Goth guth, prob. < IE base *ĝhau-, to call out to, invoke > Sans havaté, (he) calls upon; 1. any of various beings conceived of as supernatural, immortal, and having special powers over the lives and affairs of people and the course of nature; deity, esp. a male deity: typically considered objects of worship; 2. an image that is worshiped; idol 3. a person or thing deified or excessively honored and admired; 4. [G-] in monotheistic religions, the creator and ruler of the universe, regarded as eternal, infinite, all-powerful, and all-knowing; Supreme Being; the Almighty"
  9. Dictionary.com Archived 19 April 2009 at the Wayback Machine; "God /gɒd/ noun: 1. the one Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe. 2. the Supreme Being considered with reference to a particular attribute. 3. (lowercase) one of several deities, esp. a male deity, presiding over some portion of worldly affairs. 4. (often lowercase) a supreme being according to some particular conception: the God of mercy. 5. Christian Science. the Supreme Being, understood as Life, Truth, Love, Mind, Soul, Spirit, Principle. 6. (lowercase) an image of a deity; an idol. 7. (lowercase) any deified person or object. 8. (often lowercase) Gods, Theater. 8a. the upper balcony in a theater. 8b. the spectators in this part of the balcony."
  10. Parke-Taylor, G. H. (1 January 2006). Yahweh: The Divine Name in the Bible. Wilfrid Laurier University Press. p. 4. ISBN 978-0-88920-652-6. 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.
  11. Barton, G.A. (2006). A Sketch of Semitic Origins: Social and Religious. Kessinger Publishing. ISBN 978-1-4286-1575-5.
  12. Loewen, Jacob A. (1 June 2020). The Bible in Cross Cultural Perspective (Revised ed.). William Carey Publishing. p. 182. ISBN 978-1-64508-304-7. 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.'
  13. "God". Islam: Empire of Faith. PBS. Retrieved 18 December 2010.
  14. "Islam and Christianity", Encyclopedia of Christianity (2001): Arabic-speaking Christians and Jews also refer to God as Allāh.
  15. L. Gardet. "Allah". Encyclopaedia of Islam Online.
  16. Pantheism: A Non-Theistic Concept of Deity – p. 136, Michael P. Levine – 2002
  17. Hastings 2003, p. 540
  18. 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
  19. Boyce 1983, p. 685.
  20. The Intellectual Devotional: Revive Your Mind, Complete Your Education, and Roam confidently with the cultured class, David S. Kidder, Noah D. Oppenheim, p. 364
  21. Philosophy and Faith of Sikhism – p. ix, Kartar Singh Duggal – 1988
  22. A Feast for the Soul: Meditations on the Attributes of God : ... – p. x, Baháʾuʾlláh, Joyce Watanabe – 2006
  23. Jan Assmann, Religion and Cultural Memory: Ten Studies, Stanford University Press 2005, p. 59
  24. M. Lichtheim, Ancient Egyptian Literature, Vol. 2, 1980, p. 96
  25. Afigbo, A. E; Falola, Toyin (2006). Myth, history and society: the collected works of Adiele Afigbo. Trenton, NJ: Africa World Press. ISBN 978-1-59221-419-8. OCLC 61361536.
  26. Buckley, Jorunn Jacobsen (2002). The Mandaeans: ancient texts and modern people. New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-515385-5. OCLC 65198443.
  27. Nashmi, Yuhana (24 April 2013), "Contemporary Issues for the Mandaean Faith", Mandaean Associations Union, retrieved 28 December 2021
  28. 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."
  29. 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."
  30. Thomas Henry Huxley, an English biologist, was the first to come up with the word agnostic in 1869 Dixon, Thomas (2008). Science and Religion: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. p. 63. ISBN 978-0-19-929551-7. However, earlier authors and published works have promoted an agnostic points of view. They include Protagoras, a 5th-century BCE Greek philosopher. "The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy – Protagoras (c. 490 – c. 420 BCE)". Archived from the original on 14 October 2008. Retrieved 6 October 2008. 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.'
  31. Hepburn, Ronald W. (2005) [1967]. "Agnosticism". In Donald M. Borchert (ed.). The Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Vol. 1 (2nd ed.). MacMillan Reference USA (Gale). p. 92. ISBN 978-0-02-865780-6. 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)
  32. Rowe, William L. (1998). "Agnosticism". In Edward Craig (ed.). Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Taylor & Francis. ISBN 978-0-415-07310-3. In the popular sense, an agnostic is someone who neither believes nor disbelieves in God, whereas an atheist disbelieves in God. In the strict sense, however, agnosticism is the view that human reason is incapable of providing sufficient rational grounds to justify either the belief that God exists or the belief that God does not exist. In so far as one holds that our beliefs are rational only if they are sufficiently supported by human reason, the person who accepts the philosophical position of agnosticism will hold that neither the belief that God exists nor the belief that God does not exist is rational.
  33. "agnostic, agnosticism". OED Online, 3rd ed. Oxford University Press. 2012. agnostic. : A. n[oun]. :# A person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of immaterial things, especially of the existence or nature of God. :# In extended use: a person who is not persuaded by or committed to a particular point of view; a sceptic. Also: person of indeterminate ideology or conviction; an equivocator. : B. adj[ective]. :# Of or relating to the belief that the existence of anything beyond and behind material phenomena is unknown and (as far as can be judged) unknowable. Also: holding this belief. :# a. In extended use: not committed to or persuaded by a particular point of view; sceptical. Also: politically or ideologically unaligned; non-partisan, equivocal. agnosticism n. The doctrine or tenets of agnostics with regard to the existence of anything beyond and behind material phenomena or to knowledge of a First Cause or God.
  34. "Philosophy of Religion.info – Glossary – Theism, Atheism, and Agonisticism". Philosophy of Religion.info. Archived from the original on 24 April 2008. Retrieved 16 July 2008.
  35. "Theism – definition of theism by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia". TheFreeDictionary.com. Retrieved 16 July 2008.
  36. Dawkins, Richard (23 October 2006). "Why There Almost Certainly Is No God". The Huffington Post. Retrieved 10 January 2007.
  37. Sagan, Carl (1996). The Demon Haunted World. New York: Ballantine Books. p. 278. ISBN 978-0-345-40946-1.
  38. Alister E. McGrath (2005). Dawkins' God: genes, memes, and the meaning of life. Wiley-Blackwell. ISBN 978-1-4051-2539-0.
  39. Floyd H. Barackman (2001). Practical Christian Theology: Examining the Great Doctrines of the Faith. Kregel Academic. ISBN 978-0-8254-2380-2.
  40. Gould, Stephen J. (1998). Leonardo's Mountain of Clams and the Diet of Worms. Jonathan Cape. p. 274. ISBN 978-0-224-05043-2.
  41. Dawkins, Richard (2006). The God Delusion. Great Britain: Bantam Press. ISBN 978-0-618-68000-9.
  42. Stephen Hawking; Leonard Mlodinow (2010). The Grand Design. Bantam Books. p. 172. ISBN 978-0-553-80537-6.
  43. Krauss L. A Universe from Nothing. Free Press, New York. 2012. ISBN 978-1-4516-2445-8
  44. "Ontological Arguments". Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved 27 December 2022.
  45. Aquinas, Thomas (1990). Kreeft, Peter (ed.). Summa of the Summa. Ignatius Press. pp. 65–69.
  46. Ratzsch, Del; Koperski, Jeffrey (10 June 2005) [2005]. "Teleological Arguments for God's Existence". Teleological Arguments for God's Existence. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
  47. "Fine-Tuning". The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Center for the Study of Language and Information (CSLI), Stanford University. 22 August 2017. Retrieved 29 December 2022.
  48. Chappell, Jonathan (2015). "A Grammar of Descent: John Henry Newman and the Compatibility of Evolution with Christian Doctrine". Science and Christian Belief. 27 (2): 180–206.
  49. Richard Swinburne (2004). The Existence of God (2 ed.). Oxford University Press. p. 190–91. ISBN 978-0199271689.
  50. The existence of God (1 ed.). Watts & Co. p. 75.
  51. Minority Report, H. L. Mencken's Notebooks, Knopf, 1956
  52. Martin, Michael (1992). Atheism: A Philosophical Justification. Temple University Press. p. 213-214. ISBN 9780877229438.
  53. Craig, William Lane; Moreland, J.P. (2011). The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology. John Wiley & Sons. p. 393. ISBN 9781444350852.
  54. Parkinson, G. H. R. (1988). An Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Taylor & Francis. p. 344-345. ISBN 9780415003230.
  55. O'Brien, Jodi (2009). Encyclopedia of Gender and Society. Los Angeles: Sage. p. 191. ISBN 978-1-4129-0916-7. Retrieved 28 June 2017.
  56. "BBC - Religion: Judaism". www.bbc.co.uk.
  57. D. Gimaret. "Allah, Tawhid". Encyclopædia Britannica Online.
  58. Mohammad, N. 1985. "The doctrine of jihad: An introduction." Journal of Law and Religion 3(2):381–97.
  59. "What Is the Trinity?". Archived from the original on 19 February 2014.
  60. Julius Lipner. "Hindu deities". Retrieved 6 September 2022.
  61. Müller, Max. (1878) Lectures on the Origin and Growth of Religion: As Illustrated by the Religions of India. London: Longmans, Green and Co.
  62. McConkie, Bruce R. (1979), Mormon Doctrine (2nd ed.), Salt Lake City, Utah: Bookcraft, p. 351
  63. McGrath, Alister (2006). Christian Theology: An Introduction. Blackwell Publishing. p. 205. ISBN 978-1-4051-5360-7.
  64. "Pantheism". Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 17 May 2007. Retrieved 11 September 2022.
  65. Curley, Edwin M. (1985). The Collected Works of Spinoza. Princeton University Press. ISBN 978-0-691-07222-7.
  66. Nadler, Steven (21 August 2012) [2001]. "Baruch Spinoza". Baruch Spinoza. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
  67. "Pantheism". Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 1 October 2012. Retrieved 18 November 2022.
  68. Alan H. Dawe (2011). The God Franchise: A Theory of Everything. p. 48. ISBN 978-0-473-20114-2. 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).
  69. Paul Bradley (2011). This Strange Eventful History: A Philosophy of Meaning. p. 156. ISBN 978-0-87586-876-9. Pandeism combines the concepts of Deism and Pantheism with a god who creates the universe and then becomes it.
  70. John Culp (2013). "Panentheism," Archived 16 October 2015 at the Wayback Machine Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Spring.
  71. Peter C. Rogers (2009). Ultimate Truth, Book 1. p. 121. ISBN 978-1-4389-7968-7. As with Panentheism, Pantheism is derived from the Greek: 'pan'= all and 'theos' = God, it literally means "God is All" and "All is God." Pantheist purports that everything is part of an all-inclusive, indwelling, intangible God; or that the Universe, or nature, and God are the same. Further review helps to accentuate the idea that natural law, existence, and the Universe which is the sum total of all that is, was, and shall be, is represented in the theological principle of an abstract 'god' rather than an individual, creative Divine Being or Beings of any kind. This is the key element 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.
  72. Fairbanks, Arthur, Ed., "The First Philosophers of Greece". K. Paul, Trench, Trubner. London, 1898, p. 145.
  73. Dodds, E.R. "The Parmenides of Plato and the Origin of the Neoplatonic 'One'". The Classical Quarterly, Jul–Oct 1928, vol. 22, p. 136
  74. Brenk, Frederick (January 2016). "Pagan Monotheism and Pagan Cult". "Theism" and Related Categories in the Study of Ancient Religions. SCS/AIA Annual Meeting. Vol. 75. Philadelphia: Society for Classical Studies (University of Pennsylvania). Retrieved 5 November 2022. Historical authors generally refer to "the divine" (to theion) or "the supernatural" (to daimonion) rather than simply "God." [...] The Stoics, believed in a God identifiable with the logos or hegemonikon (reason or leading principle) of the universe and downgraded the traditional gods, who even disappear during the conflagration (ekpyrosis). Yet, the Stoics apparently did not practice a cult to this God. 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. {{cite book}}: External link in |series= (help)
  75. Adamson, Peter (4 July 2013). "From the necessary existent to God". In Adamson, Peter (ed.). Interpreting Avicenna: Critical Essays. Cambridge University Press. p. 170. ISBN 978-0-521-19073-2.
  76. "Providence". The Concise Oxford Dictionary of World Religions. Encyclopedia.com. Retrieved 17 July 2014.
  77. "Creation, Providence, and Miracle". Reasonable Faith. Retrieved 20 May 2014.
  78. Lemos, Ramon M. (2001). A Neomedieval Essay in Philosophical Theology. Lexington Books. p. 34. ISBN 978-0-7391-0250-3.
  79. Allan R. Fuller (2010). Thought: The Only Reality. p. 79. ISBN 978-1-60844-590-5. 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?
  80. Wierenga, Edward R. "Divine foreknowledge" in Audi, Robert. The Cambridge Companion to Philosophy. Cambridge University Press, 2001.
  81. Edwards, Paul. "God and the philosophers" in Honderich, Ted. (ed)The Oxford Companion to Philosophy, Oxford University Press, 1995. ISBN 978-1-61592-446-2.
  82. Plantinga, Alvin. "God, Arguments for the Existence of", Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Routledge, 2000.
  83. 1998, God, concepts of, Edward Craig, Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Taylor & Francis,
  84. "www.ditext.com". Archived from the original on 4 February 2018. Retrieved 7 February 2018.
  85. Nayanar, Prof. A. Chakravarti (2005). Samayasāra of Ācārya Kundakunda. p.190, Gāthā 10.310, New Delhi: Today & Tomorrows Printer and Publisher.
  86. Narada Thera (2006) "The Buddha and His Teachings," pp. 268-269, Jaico Publishing House.
  87. Hayes, Richard P., "Principled Atheism in the Buddhist Scholastic Tradition", Journal of Indian Philosophy, 16:1 (1988:Mar) p. 2.
  88. Hsueh-Li Cheng. "Nāgārjuna's Approach to the Problem of the Existence of God" in Religious Studies, Vol. 12, No. 2 (Jun., 1976), pp. 207-216 (10 pages), Cambridge University Press.
  89. Hayes, Richard P., "Principled Atheism in the Buddhist Scholastic Tradition", Journal of Indian Philosophy, 16:1 (1988:Mar.).
  90. Harvey, Peter (2019). "Buddhism and Monotheism", p. 1. Cambridge University Press.
  91. Culotta, E (2009). "The origins of religion". Science. 326 (5954): 784–87. Bibcode:2009Sci...326..784C. doi:10.1126/science.326_784. PMID 19892955.
  92. Boyer, Pascal (2001). Religion Explained. New York: Basic Books. pp. 142–243. ISBN 978-0-465-00696-0. boyer modern soap opera.
  93. du Castel, Bertrand; Jurgensen, Timothy M. (2008). Computer Theology. Austin, Texas: Midori Press. pp. 221–22. ISBN 978-0-9801821-1-8.
  94. Barrett, Justin (1996). "Conceptualizing a Nonnatural Entity: Anthropomorphism in God Concepts" (PDF). Cognitive Psychology. 31 (3): 219–47. doi:10.1006/cogp.1996.0017. PMID 8975683. S2CID 7646340.
  95. Rossano, Matt (2007). "Supernaturalizing Social Life: Religion and the Evolution of Human Cooperation" (PDF). Human Nature (Hawthorne, N.Y.). 18 (3): 272–94. doi:10.1007/s12110-007-9002-4. PMID 26181064. S2CID 1585551. Retrieved 25 June 2009.
  96. Harris, S. The end of faith. W.W. Norton and Company, New York. 2005. ISBN 0-393-03515-8
  97. "A spiritual experience". 17 September 2020. Retrieved 11 October 2022.
  98. Sample, Ian (23 February 2005). "Tests of faith". The Guardian. Retrieved 15 October 2022.
  99. Ramachandran, Vilayanur; Blakeslee, Sandra (1998). Phantoms in the brain. New York: HarperCollins. p. 174-187. ISBN 0-688-15247-3.
  100. Kluger, Jeffrey (27 November 2013). "Why There Are No Atheists at the Grand Canyon". Time. Retrieved 12 October 2022.
  101. "Human Nature and the Purpose of Existence". Patheos.com. Retrieved 29 January 2011.
  102. Quran 51:56
  103. "Salat: daily prayers". BBC. Retrieved 12 April 2022.
  104. Richards, Glyn (2005). The Philosophy of Gandhi: A Study of his Basic Ideas. Routledge. ISBN 1135799342.
  105. "Allah would replace you with a people who sin". islamtoday.net. Archived from the original on 14 October 2013. Retrieved 13 October 2013.
  106. Antonio Rigopoulos, The Life and Teachings of Sai Baba of Shirdi (1993), p. 372; J. L. (Ed) Houlden, Jesus: The Complete Guide (2005), p. 390
  107. Writings on Religion, Walter de Gruyter (1988), p. 145.
  108. See Swami Bhaskarananda, Essentials of Hinduism (Viveka Press 2002) ISBN 1-884852-04-1
  109. "Sri Guru Granth Sahib". Sri Granth. Retrieved 30 June 2011.
  110. Beaty, Michael (1991). "God Among the Philosophers". The Christian Century. Archived from the original on 9 January 2007. Retrieved 20 February 2007.
  111. Pascal, Blaise. Pensées, 1669.
  112. Jon Hoover, "Fiṭra" Archived 28 December 2022 at the Wayback Machine, EI3.
  113. Cenap Çakmak Islam: A Worldwide Encyclopedia [4 volumes] ABC-CLIO 2017 ISBN 978-1-610-69217-5 page 1014
  114. Hutchinson, Ian (14 January 1996). "Michael Faraday: Scientist and Nonconformist". Retrieved 30 November 2022. Faraday believed that in his scientific researches he was reading the book of nature, which pointed to its creator, and he delighted in it: `for the book of nature, which we have to read is written by the finger of God'.
  115. Hofmann, Murad (2007). Islam and Qur'an. Amana publications. p. 121. ISBN 978-1-59008-047-4.
  116. Halverson (2010, p. 36).
  117. Hoover, John (2020). "Early Mamlūk Ashʿarism against Ibn Taymiyya on the Nonliteral Reinterpretation (taʾwīl) of God's Attributes". In Shihadeh, Ayman; Thiele, Jan (eds.). Philosophical Theology in Islam: Later Ashʿarism East and West. Islamicate Intellectual History. Vol. 5. Leiden and Boston: Brill Publishers. pp. 195–230. doi:10.1163/9789004426610_009. ISBN 978-90-04-42661-0. ISSN 2212-8662. LCCN 2020008682. S2CID 219026357.
  118. Halverson (2010, pp. 36–37).
  119. Wisse, Maarten (2017). "PART I: Systematic Perspectives – Contra et Pro Sola Scriptura". In Burger, Hans; Huijgen, Arnold; Peels, Eric (eds.). Sola Scriptura: Biblical and Theological Perspectives on Scripture, Authority, and Hermeneutics. Studies in Reformed Theology. Vol. 32. Leiden: Brill Publishers. pp. 19–37. doi:10.1163/9789004356436_003. ISBN 978-90-04-35643-6. ISSN 1571-4799.
  120. Francis Schüssler Fiorenza and Gordon D. Kaufman, "God", Ch 6, in Mark C. Taylor, ed, Critical Terms for Religious Studies (University of Chicago, 1998/2008), 136–40.
  121. Gen. 17:1; 28:3; 35:11; Ex. 6:31; Ps. 91:1, 2
  122. Gen. 14:19; Ps. 9:2; Dan. 7:18, 22, 25
  123. Exodus 3:13-15
  124. Bentley, David (1999). The 99 Beautiful Names for God for All the People of the Book. William Carey Library. ISBN 978-0-87808-299-5.
  125. Aquinas, Thomas. "First part: Question 3: The simplicity of God: Article 1: Whether God is a body?". Summa Theologica. New Advent.
  126. William G. T. Shedd, ed. (1885). "The Seventh". The Confessions of Augustine. Warren F. Draper.
  127. Lang, David; Kreeft, Peter (2002). "Why Male Priests?". Why Matter Matters: Philosophical and Scriptural Reflections on the Sacraments. Our Sunday Visitor. ISBN 978-1-931709-34-7.
  128. Elaine H. Pagels "What Became of God the Mother? Conflicting Images of God in Early Christianity" Archived 23 November 2010 at the Wayback Machine Signs, Vol. 2, No. 2 (Winter, 1976), pp. 293–303
  129. Coogan, Michael (2010). "6. Fire in Divine Loins: God's Wives in Myth and Metaphor". God and Sex. What the Bible Really Says (1st ed.). New York, Boston: Twelve. Hachette Book Group. p. 175. ISBN 978-0-446-54525-9. Retrieved 5 May 2011. humans are modeled on elohim, specifically in their sexual differences.
  130. Boyce 1983, p. 686.
  131. Williams, Wesley. “A Body Unlike Bodies: Transcendent Anthropomorphism in Ancient Semitic Tradition and Early Islam.” Journal of the American Oriental Society, vol. 129, no. 1, 2009, pp. 19–44. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/40593866 Archived 18 November 2022 at the Wayback Machine. Accessed 18 Nov. 2022.
  132. Shaman, Nicholas J., Anondah R. Saide, and Rebekah A. Richert. "Dimensional structure of and variation in anthropomorphic concepts of God." Frontiers in psychology 9 (2018): 1425.
  133. Bataille, Georges (1930). "Base Materialism and Gnosticism". Visions of Excess: Selected Writings, 1927-1939: 47.
  134. Marvin Meyer; Willis Barnstone (30 June 2009). "The Secret Book of John". The Gnostic Bible. Shambhala. Retrieved 15 October 2021.
  135. Denova, Rebecca (9 April 2021). "Gnosticism". World History Encyclopedia. Retrieved 15 October 2021.
  136. James Cornwell, 2009 Saints, Signs, and Symbols: The Symbolic Language of Christian Art ISBN 0-8192-2345-X p. 2
  137. Adolphe Napoléon Didron, 2003 Christian iconography: or The history of Christian art in the middle ages ISBN 0-7661-4075-X p. 169
  138. Arena Chapel, at the top of the triumphal arch, God sending out the angel of the Annunciation. See Schiller, I, fig 15
  139. Irene Earls, 1987 Renaissance art: a topical dictionary ISBN 0-313-24658-0 pp. 8, 283
  140. Oleg Tarasov, 2004 Icon and devotion: sacred spaces in Imperial Russia ISBN 1-86189-118-0 p. 185
  141. "Council of Moscow – 1666–1667". Retrieved 30 December 2016.
  142. Robyn Lebron (2012). Searching for Spiritual Unity...Can There Be Common Ground?. p. 117. ISBN 978-1-4627-1262-5.


  • Bunnin, Nicholas; Yu, Jiyuan (2008). The Blackwell Dictionary of Western Philosophy. Blackwells. ISBN 9780470997215.
  • Pickover, Cliff, The Paradox of God and the Science of Omniscience, Palgrave/St Martin's Press, 2001. ISBN 1-4039-6457-2
  • Collins, Francis, The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief, Free Press, 2006. ISBN 0-7432-8639-1
  • Miles, Jack, God: A Biography, Vintage, 1996. ISBN 0-679-74368-5
  • Armstrong, Karen, A History of God: The 4,000-Year Quest of Judaism, Christianity and Islam, Ballantine Books, 1994. ISBN 0-434-02456-2
  • Paul Tillich, Systematic Theology, Vol. 1 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1951). ISBN 0-226-80337-6
  • Hastings, James Rodney (1925–2003) [1908–26]. Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics. John A Selbie (Volume 4 of 24 (Behistun (continued) to Bunyan.) ed.). Edinburgh: Kessinger Publishing, LLC. p. 476. ISBN 978-0-7661-3673-1. 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.
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.