For what it’s worth, my opinion(s) on the definition of God:
When I was younger, my definition of God was a Supreme Being who was definitely a Him, personal, apart from the physical world, omni-everything, fiercely interested in world as a whole, and in me. God was a person who simultaneously damned me to hell and provided a way for me to avoid hell (the whole Christ, salvation thing).
By my early twenties I rejected this mythos and for a short while became a reactionary atheist - God, as I previously defined Him, does not exist.
Eventually the reactionism gave way and atheism morphed to agnosticism, i.e. I just don’t know whether God existed, and if so, what would is proper definition of God. God was undefined both in terms of definition and existence.
There certainly is more than meets the eye to the universe, well expressed by the line in Hamlet “There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Then are dreamt of in your philosphy.” This “more”, though, appears to be getting smaller as our knowledge expands.
Before we understood the cyclical nature of seasons, it was commonly believed that God controlled the harvest. At one time the common belief was God intimately created each and every thing that exists as would a craftsman. We then discovered The Big Bang, and better understand the process of events that has been taking place since then. God may have set the Big Bang in motion, but things followed its own course afterwards. There less of a need for God to have intimately fashioned the earth from his own hand. As we push back the boundaries of the unknown, we will require less and less the need for God to explain things.
It was these thoughts, together with a poor understanding of Brahman of Hindu tradition, that led me to my current definition of God: the entirety of existence (oooh, dramatic, no?). Each of us are the fingers and toe jam of God. I like the way Heinlein says it better, “Thou art God.”
Stephen Hawking, speaking of the yet-to-be-discovered grand unified theory, said, “However, if we do discover a complete theory, it should be in time understandable in broad principle by everyone, not just a few scientists. Then we shall all, philosophers, scientists, and just ordinary people, are able to take part in the discussion of the question of why it is that we and the universe exist. If we find the answer to that, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason — for then we would know the mind of God.”
So God is the universe. As a part of the universe, if we are seeking the truth, we are seeking “God” If/when ever we fully understand the universe, we will fully understand “God.” If we could catch a glimpse now of what that understanding would be, I’m certain we would be greatly surprised at the form that understanding takes.
I’m with Anaamika in saying “There is no Allah, Jesus, Yahweh, Brahman” inasmuch as literal reality (without detracting from their respective values as frameworks of thought). The most supreme being (lower-case intentional) is the entirety of the universe. Inigo Montoya said it well with the cells analogy. Dewey Finn said it more consicely (and therefore better), “God is the sum total of the laws governing the universe” to which I only add, “plus the rest of existence.”
It may be the entirety of the universe is or may become self-aware as the cells in my body colloaborate to allow me to be self-aware. As we continue to increase our understanding of the universe, we are simultaneously discarding of the need for the label “God” to act as a placeholder for the unknown, and becoming aware of the true nature of God i.e. the universe/nature. We all, as a part of God, are collectively in the process of “waking up.”
You know, in re-reading the above before posting, I can’t help thinking that if I hadn’t written the above myself, I would conclude the author was some new-age whishy-washy bullshit artist. I think part of the problem, in addition to the ambiguity of the defintion(s) of God, is the definition of “belief” There is belief as in “Santa Claus” and there is belief as in “democracy” I prefer the latter, because the former without evidence is folly.