The (Ethical Skeptic) Definition of God

Granted, there does not exist an epistemological definition of god. But that does not prohibit us from crafting an effective social definition. One consistent element in enacting a god standard, is that it always involves a targeted victim. A philosophically elegant definition of god therefore, can disregard whether or not the entity standard is personified.

Previously we have sought to derive an effective and reasonably epistemological definition of religion. We settled on the definition:

Religion:  The compulsory adherence to an idea around which testing for falsification is prohibited.†

virtual entity or placeholderNow, an ignostic atheist contends that there does not exist an epistemological definition of the term, god. Therefore the ignostic, as is the case with science as well, can make no comment upon the concept. An exception occurs however, in that the ignostic contends that a personified deity is not a necessary qualifying characteristic of a religion or a god. Therefore, the ignostic is free to frame a social definition of the impact and proxy nature of how ‘god’ serves as an entity inside social philosophy – in other words the footprint of the concept’s impact upon mankind. So, without my typical loquacious ado, here is our proposed social definition of god:

God:  Ω • ⊕  Any entity which has been ceded ongoing power*, yet at the same time retains an ongoing lack of accountability. A standard employed by a proxy agent, as a virtual mass in the social leveraging of a victim.† ‡

*power – includes both explanatory power as well as human-social power.

The entity in question here can be personified or non-personified as one chooses; however, where there is a god, there is always an intended victim. To the ignostic, the choice to personify the external standard is immaterial to the nature of the religion. What is significant, is the potency and un-assailability ascribed to the entity by its proxy. The symbol I propose for this construct is a logical AND ( • ) condition conjoining the symbol for Power ( Ω ), and the symbol for Exclusion ( ⊕ ). Thus, we have social definition for the term, god. Notice the similarity in structure between the definitions of religion and god. One trait of an effective philosophy is its elegance. The two definitions are not crafted so as to be parallel and elegant alone; rather are parallel and elegant simply by the nature of their innate philosophical structure: that which is enforced (compulsory or power) – yet which is at the same time non-testable (non-falsifiable or unaccountable in nature). Both definitions, religion and god, elegantly fit their respective and parallel dichotomies like a glove. In addition both constructs link to their application via a single stakeholder entity called a proxy. A proxy in this context is any real person or organization (secular or religious) who seeks to exploit this social construct for their own power, money, notoriety or comfort:

God Proxy:  Any stakeholder which seeks to exploit the privileged existence as a god (power, money, notoriety, comfort), without appearing to pretend to the role. Also a stakeholder which serves to promote a set of mandatory beliefs and maintain the unaccountable nature of the entity they serve, justified by the entity’s un-assailability as either a personified or non-personified external standard.†

Never accede to the distressed pleas of the God Proxy. Rob them of their problem, or you will become subject to their solution.

And remember, with a god, there is always an intended victim. You will notice this exhibited by many a God Proxy, through their habit of being ‘faithful in punishment, yet inconsistent in reward.’ This is a hint that punishment is therefore the goal. A Nietzsche sin, delivered by means of his quotation:

Beware of all those in whom the urge to punish is strong.

Therefore there is a constrained set of consequentialist choices of outcome offered the victim by each proselyte (below definition). They are ignorance, resignation and fear. Neither the SSkeptic nor the apologist requires any further enlightenment, as the incumbent charge of gaps in understanding is irrelevant to each. To a proselyte, gaps are small and easily reconcilable inside their grand cosmology.

Proxy Proselyte: A newly indoctrinated person possessing an energetic Pollyanna vulnerability (see the Ten Pillars), along with a lack of depth, experience and circumspect wisdom; who is exploited into a role of win-at-all-costs enlistment under the cause identified by a God Proxy.†

It is the emergent, Pollyanna and over-confident, compensating for a secret doubt (see Ethical Skepticism – Part VI – Say What You Mean and Mean What You Say) energy of the proselyte which the God Proxy seeks to exploit in attaining their goals.

This full mechanism, the god-proxy-proselyte-victim artifice, is a means of control, a method of abhorrence and intolerance towards individual enlightenment, knowledge and freedom.

Social Definition of God

†  religionAs a personal note, these definitions have not been arrived at lightly. As a man who started life both as a devout Christian and then a staunch skeptic, neither of those indoctrination sets qualified me to understand the nature of our grand hallucination as a culture. Only after two market crashes, having my kid’s education accounts stolen twice and rebuilt, participating directly in several wars and ‘conflicts,’ been shot at and knife attacked, having started numerous corporations and businesses, suffered and overcome enormous sickness, started humanitarian and charity businesses, been in the hovels of our planet’s most suffering, starving and sick, being damaged financially by bank theft of my major assets several times, performed in-depth strategy for over 12 developing or tier I nations, having friends and comrades die in my arms, having children who suffer enormously at the hands of an uncaring corrupt aristocracy, observing as a member and adviser the corruption which lurks inside our largest corporations, run science labs, obtained advanced STEMM degrees, run many organizations and sat on advisory boards, filed patents and made scientific discoveries, watched discoveries being stolen or blocked by oligarch corruption, observing the deception practices in our highest branches of intelligence, been both a CEO and a dish washer, lived in lavishness and starved on pork and beans and crackers, and having traveled over 3/4th of this globe extensively for over 30 years, having busted the religious, executives, governmental and military officials for corruption, and observed the full array of unauthorized thinking and amazing forbidden topics, the human blightness and brightness – , etc. Only AFTER all this, am I able to begin to craft these definitions. This is not an academic exercise by any means, and while I respect our great philosophers, I have not found a one of them who can even come close to the life I have lived and observed.

‡  Note: The logic symbol for exclusive disjunction is employed because of this dichotomous relationship: An entity in a god bifurcation either A – holds power with B – no accountability (A is true and B is false), or A – holds no power with B – full accountability (A is false and B is true). Such is the nature of a god relationship. Power goes to A and accountability falls on B (man in this case, or a victim as well). Given this A versus B choice, the logical formula for this exclusive disjunction is A B. However, when an A or B condition exists in exclusive disjunction – AND – this bifurcation excludes the possibility of any C condition existing as well, the logical formula becomes AB. Therefore, given that the god condition chooses A=true, B=false, by the symbol for power, Ω, being assumed (A=true), it ensures under AB, that B=false. So rather than use the B=false condition outcome, all that is necessary is to depict the exclusive relationship symbol ⊕.  In essence, the disjunction ⊕ dictates that, given power (given Ω, A=true), therefore absence of responsibility (∴ B=false). So ⊕ completes the sentence with Ω in the god relationship.

Notify of

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Tim Lewis

As one who professes to be a former devout Christian, I’m somewhat surprised that you don’t recognize the fact that Jesus, as described in Scripture, breaks your definition of “god”. Namely, He WAS indeed held accountable (for the sins WE committed) AND He was all powerful (commanding even the winds and the waves with merely the power of His voice, and ultimately conquering even death itself). Further, I’m not sure I see how individuals who follow biblical Christianity are victims. We’ve been set free from the power of sin and have access to the infinite satisfaction only available through a… Read more »

Tim Lewis

On what basis are you calling these things false? Who/What defines what is true?

Tim Lewis

Yeah, if I were to presuppose death, suffering, and disease preexisted humans by billions of years, and was actually the most important part of the progress of living things to get to where we are now, then I’d 100% agree: the Bible is self-contradictory nonsense, and the god of the Bible is an evil, capricious, self-absorbed jerk.

Taking Scripture on its own terms though, rather than bringing a presupposed concept of reality to it, none of that is true.

Tim Lewis

Now who’s the one lying? From the article you linked to above: No better is this indicated than through a ‘forbidden’ tree placed suspiciously right dead center of the very place where his naked known-DNA-trait slave was ordered to cluelessly labor-for-eternity on behalf of this suddenly impotent, immobile, and ignorant creator. Thereafter upon being offended, he demeans and more importantly, lies to, the poor creature – telling him that he is merely ‘dust’ – while later on belying this claim by declaring him to also be a soul and spirit as well.…One who is omniscient, was not able to anticipate… Read more »


If your thinking that this entire article explains what my prior comment is asking, then i ask if you can simplify it for me. lol.


I found you on Twitter and now am scrolling thru your website. I am not an intellectual, I only have a GED. Even still, I am determined to find something on here that I can comprehend. I mean it respectively. I find you interesting and want to know what you think about certain things, hence my determination to understand what you say. Without embarrassment, even this article was far beyond my mental capacities to grasp. But this article did make me curious about what your thoughts would be on something, so i am hoping to ask you on here to… Read more »