Bronze-level article


From RationalWiki
(Redirected from Deity)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
If you're choosing a deity to worship, choose one that's compatible with your values. Mayan god G Kinich Ahau seems easy to get along with.
Preach to the choir
Icon religion.svg
Crux of the matter
Speak of the devil
An act of faith
This article is about the supposedly real character(s). If you were looking for the RationalWiki mascot and idol, please see Goat. If you have dyslexia, you may have looked for dog.
At first glance, a person who is investigating the entire "God" concept for the first time might conclude that all of these diverse deities are purely human creations. That is: God did not create humanity — humanity created Gods.
—B.A. Robinson,[1]
What God wants, God Gets, God Help us all
—Roger Waters “What God Wants Parts I-III” Amused to Death[2]

A god, goddess, or deity is a kinda-to-über powerful dude, gal, or creature that has supernatural powers to impact this world. Gods are also often attributed some degree of characterization that gives them the motive to interact with and care about the lives of humans and the natural world. Usually, though not always, someone, somewhere worships said deity. Most people believe that every deity but their own select few is a false deity or mere "mythology".

Gods and goddesses are generally mightier than minor supernatural entities like fairies, elves, or spirits; they can alter natural events and help or harm human beings. Most religions believe in one or more deities with distinct characteristics. Typically, polytheistic religions rank their deities, some being dominant over others. Sometimes the deity who started the universe up is not seen as involved in human affairs, and therefore 'lesser' deities that do things for people may be worshiped much more intensively than the original creator.[3]

A deity is a generic description of a divine being such as a god or a goddess. In some cases, entire anthropomorphic mythologies are developed about the deities, as in ancient Greek religion — the gods have feuds, are born, die, fight, and often interact quite directly with mortals in these myths. In other religions, particularly the oldest ones, the gods are given more transcendent qualities and are simply representations of concepts such as fertility or natural forces.

As religion developed, the role that gods played was altered, and monotheism often developed to replace the pantheons of the old. The most widely worshiped god in the present day is confusingly called "God", and is the monotheist deity of Christianity, Judaism, Bahai, Islam, and a handful of other religions, living and extinct. God is never referred to as Goddess by any of the Abrahamic faiths, even when formless or hermaphroditic, like in the Kabbalah. In Islam, as in Christianity, God is called by the speaker's usual word for God (this being "Allah" to Arabic-speakers); in Judaism, God has many names, including (but not limited to) "YHWH", "Jehovah", and "The Great I Am". The Zoroastrian God is called Ahura Mazda.[note 1]

Sometimes rulers become gods while they are alive, as with the Roman emperor and the Egyptian pharaoh. Other times, rulers get promoted to become gods after they die.

Goddesses were among the deities worshiped by most ancient polytheistic religions, probably because of the association between women and childbirth (i.e., "givers of life"). The Hindu religion is particularly well supplied with goddesses. Worship of goddesses is also a feature of many neo-pagan religions. There was once a widespread belief among many Neo-Pagans that a matriarchal, pan-European goddess-cult existed either prior to the rise of Christianity or prior to the arrival of the Indo-European peoples, and that knowledge of this religion has been systematically suppressed by various patriarchal entities down through history (notably the Vatican). One of the prime cleavages (no pun intended) within Neo-Paganism today is over adherence to this belief. Evidence in support of this claim is approximately as abundant as evidence for the existence of the Goddess Herself. Out of all the hundreds of religions, there are none that worship a monotheistic goddess.[4] Also see the Goddess movement.

A thing like money or the free market can become a metaphorical deity, given enough reverence;[5] see secular religions.

Among atheists, it's common to intentionally conflate various god beliefs to highlight the identical absurdity of their existence.


God was a dream of good government.
—Morpheus, Deus Ex

Since humans first appeared, the world was surrounded by unexplained phenomena: the rise and set of the sun and moon; the ever-changing weather, including seasons, storms, and other natural disasters; as well as other things. Once human intelligence reached the point of being able to comprehend time as having a past, present, and future, men realized that they would someday die, which was a quite depressing fact. The idea that these unexplained phenomena were controlled by possibly sympathetic entities, and that their psyche would survive bodily death as an immaterial entity, was comforting. Those who were able to buy into this comfort woo would be better able to get on with their harsh and brief lives. Evolution therefore created the first gods. A possible date for these events could be the first anatomically modern humans (~150,000 years ago), or maybe the time of the Cro-Magnons and the behavioral revolution (~40,000 years ago).[citation needed]

As time went on, though, the climate changed. Over the past million or two years, the glaciers' grip on the Earth continued changing millennium to millennium in the current ice age. Sometimes, the ice would have most all of Europe in its grasp, other times not even reaching Scandinavia.[citation needed] For most of Homo sapiens' life, the Earth was in its final glacial expansion, which peaked around 18,000 years ago.[citation needed] Around 12,000 years ago, the ice began receding for the final time as of now.[citation needed] This led to a change in the climate as yet unseen by men. Food was scarce as the megafauna (giant mammals, such as mammoths, saber-toothed cats, etc.) began dying out. In order to keep from starving to death, some of the inhabitants of the Near East began to grow figs and wild barley to eat. They built simple granaries so their food wouldn't spoil. The Holocene and the age of agriculture had begun.

However, in order to maintain a tribe under agriculture, it would be necessary to have some sort of government so the people did not destroy each other or the tribe as a whole over land squabbles. Some people were able to realize that some are more easily led than others. A position of authority was created, as some men claimed to be in touch with the already-thought-of gods. Tribes would be united under these theological ties. Organized religion had formed in the earliest theocracy, existing in what is now Turkey some 12,000 years ago.[6] Organized religion was used to get the idiotic to act somewhat sensibly (e.g., the dietary laws in Leviticus). Religions would allow people to be coerced with threat of supernatural punishment.

Of course, the world has changed since the Neolithic Revolution. In 1620, Francis Bacon created the modern scientific method and humanity began to actually mature. At first, theological ties gave way to nationalistic ones: people felt more proud of their nation than religion.[7] In many ways, religion was becoming obsolete as science forced God into the continually shrinking gaps yet to be explained. (Although some gaps cannot possibly be filled, so God will always have a little gap to hide in.)

Concepts of God[edit]

As pantheons of multiple gods fell out of favor in world religions, so reductionist humans began to develop the concept of a more almighty and overarching god. Although the name "god" hints at an overly Christian bias, the idea is often captured by the name "God", distinguished by a capital G. This would be a transcendent force that was responsible for creating the world, and was blessed (by forces unknown) with powers such as omnipotence and omniscience, and qualities such as overwhelming goodness. The idea was described in Science of Discworld by Ponder Stibbons as "a god built-in to the universe itself", to distinguish it from the usual gods of Discworld who were merely characters within the universe controlling it. So the idea of God is far more difficult to describe than the anthropomorphic characters of older religions, and numerous views of what this force actually is have been put forward.

God looks remarkably like an elderly Italian man from the Renaissance. Quite possibly because this was painted by one.
  • Monotheists (mainly fans of Abrahamic religions, with the possible exceptions of trinitarian Christianity and, of course, Mormonism) believe that there is a single entity which is the supreme being, responsible for the creation of the Universe. This god usually nurtures its creation, watches over proceedings, and intervenes from time to time in the affairs of humanity. (As scripturally documented interventions become rarer, some postulate that the Supreme Being may have lost interest in His creation.) Claims made for such a god can verge on the dramatic: omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent. Given how most religions portray God, such claims may be hyperboleWikipedia inherited from less-enlightened times.[note 2] Adherents of the religion wishing to honor their god credit him with supreme powers, without considering whether or not such powers might be self-contradictory.
    • The Holy Trinity doctrine of Catholic Christianity is seen as polytheistic by Judaism and Islam, as well as by many splinters of Christianity itself (such as, for example, Oneness Pentecostalism, Marcionism, and Unitarianism). Most Christians strenuously disagree, going so far as to assert (as the Eastern Orthodox churches do) that it's not supposed to make sense because we can't explain with our limited terms the unexplainable; hence why all metaphors for the Trinity are clearly wrong break down at some point.
  • Polytheists (some branches of Hinduism, Maya and Aztec mythology, ancient Greco-Roman mythology, and numerous others) believe that there are multiple divine entities, which worshippers usually associate with different aspects of human life and with the natural or supernatural world. There are, broadly, two sorts of polytheism:
    • Hard polytheism holds that all the gods are distinct and separate. Many ancient pagan religions and some neopagan religions, such as Asatru, fall into this category.
    • Soft polytheism holds that while there are many gods, they are all manifestations of a single god (kind of like the different versions of James Bond and Doctor Who - played by different actors). Modern-day Hinduism falls into this category.
      Pure polytheism implies that these entities are worshiped more or less equally, according to the needs of the individual worshipper, but several other subtypes exist:
    • Henotheists, like pure polytheists, recognize a pantheon of gods, but only worship one of these at a time. The Israelite religion was originally henotheistic; Yahweh was the Israelites' god, but not the only god that existed, as seen in the wording of the First Commandment.
    • Monolatrists believe that while multiple gods of similar power exist, only one of these is worthy of worship (another position which is attested in the Old Testament, where Yahweh orders the destruction of shrines to other gods).
    • Dualists (not to be confused with Cartesian dualists) are midway between monotheists and polytheists, seeing nature as being ruled by opposing forces in a constant conflict. The two forces can be seen as either opposite, but complementary (think of yin and yang and Taoism, or the creator/destroyer aspects of the Hindu triad[note 3]), or defined as good and evil struggling for domination, the latter view often being described as ManichaeanWikipedia after an extinct Gnostic religion (such views are also found in Zoroastrianism, some aspects of Norse mythology, and, paradoxically,[note 4] among many Christian fundamentalists (see spiritual warfare)).
  • Pantheists and Animists believe that God is Nature and Nature is God. Pantheism is sort of a theologized ancestor to vitalism, but is embraced by many neopagans as well as by indigenous religions around the world. Greek mythology, though polytheist, included hints of pantheism in its nymphs, naiads, and other assorted nature-spirits.
  • Panentheists (most other branches of Hinduism) believe that God exists inside of everything, but is at the same time, transcendent of everything. God is seen as an eternal spark of all things, the Prime Mover, the First Wind from some Native American religions, the Force, etc. God is not creator, for all things are part of God (god), the manifest, physical parts of god.[note 5]
  • Deists (many forms of Buddhism and some branches of Hinduism) believe that God/Gods/deities exist(s) but are irrelevant to the workings of the universe, sitting behind the scenes but seldom if ever interacting with the material world. Buddhists, in particular, do not believe in a supreme, all-knowing, all-perfect being, but believe in Karma, in heaven and hell (both based solely on karma, not on belief in Buddhism), and in 'angels' (deities that people become after they have achieved enough merit in their lifetime). It is a common misconception to think that this means that God may as well not exist — some deists, such as Thomas Paine, believed in the immortality of the soul in a condition outside the universe. Many of the people of the Enlightenment, particularly American revolutionaries such as Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson, were deists.
  • Maltheists (from "mal", meaning bad or illness, and theism, from… well, theism) is the idea that God is just out to get us and that he or she or it is malicious, like a kid who keeps removing the pool ladders in The Sims. A Maltheist, therefore, is someone who believes that a god or gods exist and that they are evil, malicious, incompetent, or otherwise actively or passively causing the suffering of humanity. In essence, Maltheism is the idea that God exists and is not worthy of worship.
  • Agnostics would contend that it is impossible to determine whether or not God exists, and that arguments about the existence or non-existence of God are counterproductive. Other agnostics maintain that, as it is tough to prove a negative, and hence absolutely disprove that Gods (or God) exist, the most logical scientific position is extreme skepticism. This position is separate from atheism, but usually accompanies it.
    • Fideists (a term coined by Martin Gardner, one of the few prominent theist skeptics) are essentially agnostics who have chosen to believe in a god despite an acknowledged lack of evidence.
  • Atheists do not believe in deities. There are many types of atheism, discussed elsewhere, but generally, atheists can be classified as pragmatic (or "weak"), where they live life as if no gods exist, or theoretical (or "strong"), where they make an explicit statement of lack of belief in gods. It is generally believed that "strong" atheists are rather uncommon, though most arguing in favor of God's existence believe that they are the norm. The Indian philosophies of Charvaka and Ājīvika also hold the same views.
    • Antitheism is a subset of atheism that mixes it with maltheism, arguing that the very concept of god is repugnant and should be discarded.
  • Ignostics believe that the whole concept of god and gods is so ill-defined and contradictory that there is no practical benefit to be gained by even discussing the issue.


If you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all.
—God, Futurama

Do gods exist? We may never truly know, but then again, we can't truly know anything about the physical world at all. We are, however, quite positive that no god has ever popped out of the clouds and said, "Hey, I'm up here!", and there is no other good reason to assume that any one god might exist; nonetheless, below are attempts to pull such reasons out of the cosmic ass.


Our God is an awesome God

Throughout history, various arguments have been proposed that supposedly prove God's existence. Sadly for their proponents, not one of these arguments has yet been successful.

There is also the question of the nature of the god whose existence is being debated, a question at the heart of theology. Muslims see Allah as powerful, remote, and unfathomable by man. Jews argue that Yahweh is focused on the descendants of Jacob. Christians argue that God is united with humanity in the flesh in the person of Jesus. Pantheists say that God is the whole universe. Deists say that God created the universe in the beginning but now has nothing to do with it. Mormons say that God and man are the same species at different levels of advancement, and God was once a man, and man will someday be God. Others say that God did not create the universe (but does create life), yet gets the credit for it anyway.


WolframAlpha's take.

The concept of the God of classical theism, with what Anselm described as its 'perfections', may lead to logical impossibilities.[note 6] There is a great deal of debate, to put it lightly, over this topic ─ one of the most common contentions is that the problem of evil renders God's existence with the above attributes impossible.[note 7]

For some believers, however, there are versions of God that appear to be at least logically possible, and as it is impossible to prove that something does not exist, even the most hardened skeptic has to concede that there is a remote possibility that such a being (or, for that matter, fairies) might conceivably exist in some form or another (unless they disagree, thinking they're impossible as above — many philosophical atheists take such a view).

Unfortunately for many of these versions of God, it can nonetheless be shown that the idea of a creator of the universe with at least human-level consciousness is so arbitrary that its a priori probability of existence (that is, the probability of its existence before any evidence is taken into account) is lower than that of a universe-creating platypus.[note 8] Intuitively, this can be understood through Occam's razor, as one makes fewer assumptions asserting that the creator of the universe is a platypus than that He (or She or They ─ no sexism!) is something more complex than a platypus. Combine this with the fact that there isn't all that much evidence for a (super)human creator, and the idea of such a creator existing swiftly relegates itself to the same category as ideas about the existence of such entities as Santa Claus, fairies, unicorns, and others.

To sum up, as much as it is impossible to disprove God completely, logic and evidence appear to dictate Their existence is implausible,[note 9] and it can be argued that the existence of the traditional version of God leads to logical contradictions.[note 10]

For those who believe that they can "scientifically" prove the existence of God (such as the "cleverest man in the world", Chris Langan), they might take the matter to the highest court in the land; whereupon the opposing side would just ask to subpoena God or issue the writ of habeas corpus. That ought to do it.

God, in the meantime, has usually declined to participate in this discussion. This is unfortunate, as it is certain that They would have many fascinating insights to add.[8] However, They are just too busy. (After all, being god, They have other civilizations and even alien races to attend to. You wouldn't expect Them not to be busy! Especially if they're as messed up as this species.)

In general, it would seem to make little sense to seriously discuss the existence of a particular god, as the many tales about gods tend to be mutually exclusive.



Some people like talking about god(s).

Physicist(s) on god(s)[edit]

God is subtle, but he is not malicious.
Albert Einstein[9]
It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly.
—Albert Einstein[9]
The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this.
—Albert Einstein[9]
I believe in Spinoza's God, who reveals Himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings.
—Albert Einstein[9]
I am not an Atheist. I do not know if I can define myself as a Pantheist. The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds. May I not reply with a parable? The human mind, no matter how highly trained, cannot grasp the universe. We are in the position of a little child, entering a huge library whose walls are covered to the ceiling with books in many different tongues. The child knows that someone must have written those books. It does not know who or how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child notes a definite plan in the arrangement of the books, a mysterious order, which it does not comprehend, but only dimly suspects. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of the human mind, even the greatest and most cultured, toward God. We see a universe marvelously arranged, obeying certain laws, but we understand the laws only dimly. Our limited minds cannot grasp the mysterious force that sways the constellations. I am fascinated by Spinoza's Pantheism. I admire even more his contributions to modern thought. Spinoza is the greatest of modern philosophers, because he is the first philosopher who deals with the soul and the body as one, not as two separate things.
—Albert Einstein[9]
Scientific research can reduce superstition by encouraging people to think and view things in terms of cause and effect. Certain it is that a conviction, akin to religious feeling, of the rationality and intelligibility of the world lies behind all scientific work of a higher order... This firm belief, a belief bound up with a deep feeling, in a superior mind that reveals itself in the world of experience, represents my conception of God. In common parlance this may be described as "pantheistic" (Spinoza).
—Albert Einstein[10]
God does not play dice with the universe.
—Albert Einstein
Einstein, stop telling God what to do.
—Niels Bohr[11]
While both religion and natural science require a belief in God for their activities, to the former He is the starting point, to the latter the goal of every thought process. To the former He is the foundation, to the latter the crown of the edifice of every generalized world view.
—Max Planck[12]
I don't think that physics tell us how to behave to our neighbor.
Stephen Hawking[13]
There is no God.
—Stephen Hawking[14]

God(s) on physicist(s)[edit]

There is no Stephen Hawking.
Niels, stop telling my man AE what to do.

Philosopher(s) on God(s)[edit]

Is the pious loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved by the gods?
—Plato's Socrates, Euthyphro dilemma
Si Dieu n'existait pas, il faudrait l'inventer. If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him.
If God really existed, it would be necessary to abolish him.
—Mikhail Bakunin
God is dead and Man has killed him.
Friedrich Nietzsche

God(s) on philosopher(s)[edit]

Nietzsche is dead.

Nietzsche(s) on God(s)[edit]

Some are born posthumously.

God at the movies[edit]

George Burns played God in the Oh, God! movies, based on the novel by Avery Corman. In the third installment, Oh, God! You Devil, Burns played the dual roles of God and Satan.

"The Supreme Being" in Time Bandits is played by Sir Ralph Richardson.

Now he is usually played by Morgan Freeman (or, on one regrettable impressively iconoclastic occasion, Alanis Morissette).

God is the only recurring character to have appeared in all but one of the "Monty Python" motion pictures (the exception being Life of Brian, and his son was in that one).

Other people chat about God[edit]

The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.
Richard Dawkins; The God Delusion
Religion has actually convinced people that there's an invisible man living in the sky who watches everything you do, every minute of every day. And the invisible man has a special list of ten things he does not want you to do. And if you do any of these ten things, he has a special place, full of fire and smoke and burning and torture and anguish, where he will send you to live and suffer and burn and choke and scream and cry forever and ever 'til the end of time! But He loves you. He loves you, and He needs money!
George Carlin
I handed them a script and they turned it down. It was too controversial. It talked about concepts like, 'Who is God?' The Enterprise meets God in space; God is a life form, and I wanted to suggest that there may have been, at one time in the human beginning, an alien entity that early man believed was God, and kept those legends. But I also wanted to suggest that it might have been as much the Devil as it was God. After all, what kind of god would throw humans out of Paradise for eating the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge. One of the Vulcans on board, in a very logical way, says, 'If this is your God, he's not very impressive. He's got so many psychological problems; he's so insecure. He demands worship every seven days. He goes out and creates faulty humans and then blames them for his own mistakes. He's a pretty poor excuse for a supreme being.'
— Gene Roddenberry, Star Trek, The God Thing
Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy.
—not Benjamin Franklin[16]
God does not play dice with the universe; He plays an ineffable game of His own devising, which might be compared, from the perspective of any of the other players, (i.e., everybody) to being involved in an obscure and complex version of poker in a pitch-dark room, with blank cards, for infinite stakes, with a Dealer who won't tell you the rules, and who smiles all the time.
Neil GaimanWikipedia and Terry Pratchett, Good OmensWikipedia

Why do some people write G-d or Gd?[edit]

Judaism holds that, as a mark of respect to God, His name should not be erased or defaced. There is no prohibition on writing God's name (or names), but Orthodox Jews (and some Christians) avoid casually writing his name in order that they lessen the risk of defacement or erasure.[17] This custom would have begun in Hebrew — which lacked indications of vowels in its written script before the 7th century CE anyway — but some carry it over to English and other languages. This practice prevented God from ordering business cards and advertising space/airtime, thus restricting Judaism to being a tribal religion focused on a relatively small ethnic group.

The practice of not writing down the name of God, either for fear of its defacement or for the same reason you don't say "Beetlejuice" out loud, has been around since the time of the first major translation of the Old Testament. It has carried over into the King James Version, and all other English translations of the Old Testament that render the Hebrew YHWH as "the LORD".

As with the majority of inconvenient religious customs, some smart-ass will always find a workaround that respects the letter of the law, if not the spirit. This is done by writing "G-d" or "Gd" instead of God. The omniscient creator of the universe has yet to see through this devious trick, allowing theologians to safely use a black board or Etch A Sketch® without risking the ineffable and baffling vengeance of He whose Name shall not be written in any way that makes sense. The ridiculous thing is that "God" is not even his name;[18] it is a title or position,[note 11] so, by analogy, people should also write "L-rd" or Lrd".

The word "God" may also be omitted or obliterated in contexts where it would be perceived as blasphemous or improper, along with other perceived obscenities. This was common in publishing in the Christian world during the 18th and 19th centuries, and explains why it is not uncommon in novels from those eras to find characters using phrases such as "by G___" or "d___ it". This practice continues in the use of "f**k" and similar typography in tabloids and other contexts where it is handy to repeat a swearword while pretending that you haven't.

Lording it and lauding it[edit]

The idea of a "Lord" makes a lot of sense in the conditions of medieval feudal or semi-feudal society — as in the golden age of Christianity — where every decent person had a lord to serve loyally — a patron and a superior of great power and importance who nevertheless had an interest in looking after the relative well-being of his collective of human economic assets.[19] It makes a good deal less sense in the degenerate 21st century West, where equal citizens have become infected with the mind-virus of seeing themselves semi-solipsistically as individuals and seldom even think about barons and dukes and sundry nobility and their social rank in a divinely-ordained hierarchy.[20]

See also[edit]

Icon fun.svg For those of you in the mood, RationalWiki has a fun article about God.

External links[edit]


  1. Not to be confused with Azor Ahai, aka Stannis Baratheon, the one true king.
  2. Many logical thought-exercises, such as pondering the problem of evil, indicate that the claim of God having infinite power and knowledge must be hyperbole in order for His existence to be consistent and compatible with the qualities of the observable universe. More details on that subject can be found further in this article.
  3. The Hindu triad, or Trimūrti,Wikipedia consists of Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva, representing creation, preservation/balance, and destruction.
  4. Despite adhering to a faith which is, depending on the interpretation of the trinity, either strict monotheist or belief in a triple deity,Wikipedia but certainly not dualistic/Manichaean. Nevertheless, the tendency among Christian fundamentalists to see the world in terms of an apocalyptic struggle between Good/God/Jesus and Evil/Satan/Antichrist is de facto far closer to Manichaeism than either strict monotheism or worship of (a) triune god(s).
  5. As defined by German philosopher, Krause, who first coined the term.
  6. For example, no being can be both omniscient and omnipotent. An omniscient being would know everything, including the course of its own future actions; this means that it would be unable to change them, and hence would be denied free will; this denies omnipotence. Conversely, an omnipotent being can do anything, including changing its own mind about what it can do, even up to the last moment prior to acting. That means that any attempt at omniscience would fail. This argument is explored in depth in Augustine c. 415, The City of God, and elsewhere.
  7. 'Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?', Epicurus.
    1. By admission, entities with at least human-level consciousness are more complex than entities with sub-human-level consciousness. This means that all else being equal, an entity with consciousness superior or equal to human-level has more fundamental properties (which we define as mutually exclusive) than an entity with sub-human-level consciousness.
    2. We define the platypus God to only possess properties that any given human-or-superior-level God possesses, which include the capacity to create universes with sentient beings. From 1., this implies that our platypus God possesses fewer fundamental properties than a human-or-superior level God.
    3. In the absence of information (and, no, unproven fairy tales don't count), all options have equal probability.Wikipedia So, a priori, the creator of the universe has the same probability of having any fundamental property.
    4. By our definition of fundamental properties as mutually exclusive, the probability of the creator of the universe having any given set of n properties is the product of the probabilities of him having every property from that set. Therefore, from 3., if n>p, then the probability of the creator of the universe having any set of n properties is smaller than the probability of him having any set of p properties.
    5. Combining 2. and 4., it follows that the probability of a platypus creator of the universe is higher than that of a creator of the universe with at least human-level consciousness.
  8. See, for example, the God of the gaps article.
  9. The Transcendental Argument for the Non-Existence of God concludes that logic, science, and morality are inconsistent with the existence of God. See
  10. Or species.


  1. What different faith groups believe about their deity/deities Beliefs about deity/deities in different religions
  3. Gods and Goddesses
  4. [1]
  5. deity
  7. - "RSA ANIMATE: The Empathic Civilisation"
  8. In this Sinfest comic, God offers Their unique perspective on a theological debate.
  9. 9.0 9.1 9.2 9.3 9.4 Albert Einstein, Wikiquote.
  10. [2]
  16. [3]
  17. The background relating to usage of G-d
  18. It is, of course, Yahweh.
  19. Davies, Rees (2009). "Apologia". In Smith, Brendan. Lords and Lordship in the British Isles in the Late Middle Ages. Oxford: Oxford University Press. p. 1. ISBN 9780199542918. Retrieved 2016-10-26. "'Lordship' as a concept is currently not a common term in English parlance [...]. '[L]ordship' [...], dominium, was a key word in the political, social, and indeed academic vocabulary of medieval Europe. It was a ubiquitous and fundamental term, be it (for example) the lordship of God or of the lord king (dominus rex), the lordship of the abbot over his monks, or the legal power that a husband (seigneur) had over his wife. It was an elastic, protean word. It could refer to the area over which a lord exercised his dominion — be it a manor, a duchy, or even a kingdom; but it could also be used to characterize conceptually the nature of that authority. Contemporaries could likewise refer to 'the law of lordship' (ius dominii) as shorthand for the relationship between lord and dependant. Theologians and philosophers argued learnedly about the justification and credentials of secular lordship (de civili dominio). In short, it was an infinitely adaptable concept (and word) in the medieval construction of the ordering of human relationships and in the justification of the exercise of power at all levels of society." 
  20. Many former kingdoms have become republics (think Nepal (2008) and France (1793 and 1848)); some republics have abolished or marginalized their former aristocratic classes (think Austria (1919) and Russia from 1917 onwards). And elsewhere monarchs have given way to constitutional monarchs, while nobilities decay and lose heft - note for example some of the work of David Cannadine, as in Cannadine, David (1994). Aspects of Aristocracy: Grandeur and Decline in Modern Britain. New Haven: Yale University Press. ISBN 9780300059816. Retrieved 2016-10-17.  or in Cannadine, David (1992). The Decline and Fall of the British Aristocracy (revised ed.). Picador. ISBN 9780330321884. Retrieved 2016-10-27. .