The fundamental challenge to define god is the same as to define any word or concept. To define something presumes authority over that thing. Because to define is to control. For example let’s say I redefined “roses” as “grobbolots”. And everybody accepted that grobbolots are now roses. Nobody will use the term “rose” anymore. Instead rose has a new definition. Furthermore, I define grobbolots as blue and 7 feet tall. Now this will confuse people. Because people do not expect roses to be blue or 7 feet tall. Regardless, presuming authority over the term, people will accept the definition regardless. Of course, changing the definition of a thing does not change its nature. But it does change the means of its communication and understanding. Changing a definition changes the knowledge of that thing. So what people knew of roses, now as grobbolots, will change the common expectations, experiences, and knowledge of these things.
To define something is to control how that thing is understood, known, and interpreted. Definitions do not change the nature of a thing. Because definitions do not, this necessitates an objective reality underlying all things. Everything exists in such a way that definitions cannot change them, but only ‘discover’ them through interpretations of human knowledge. So it is not the definition of a “rock” that changes, through human interpretation. Instead it is how and why humans attempt to know and understand rocks. Why is such knowledge important? Is it useful? And yes, it is very useful. Because language, ultimately, allows human minds to connect to one another and exchange ideas or information. Language is the means by which humans distribute data among the specie.
To define god as “nothing”
Atheists define god as “nothing” and “impossible” from their premise. This is the reason why atheists eventually claim that “god does not exist”. Because atheist presume that god cannot “be a thing”. For example, I cannot point to a rock, a rose, an elephant, a bag of bones, and claim “that is god”. Because the atheist will reject this presumption on behalf of their underlying premise. To the atheist, god can never “be a thing”. Because if god could be anything, then god could exist. But atheists have the incredulous audacity and childish ignorance to make a much greater claim on behalf the definition of god. It is not that god “cannot exist” now. Atheists also claim that god cannot exist in the past or in the future. For example, I cannot grab a historical document, signed by god, and present this to an atheist to say, “you see, this is proof that god existed long ago”. Because god can never exist, to the atheist. However the truly interesting dilemma of the atheist, is that she is obligated to make further claims, that god cannot exist in the future. And because an atheist secretly holds this premise, and never lets it go, never questions and doubts it (as any decent philosopher would), the atheist gets stuck in a logical fallacy. Just because god may not have existed in the past, or now, wouldn’t mean that god could not exist in the future. Because what is impossible now, or in the past, may become possible in the future. For example, humans (atheists) long ago used to believe that the sun revolved around the earth, and humans would never fly. But they were proved absolutely wrong. They were exposed as simple minded fools, who ought to have their mouths shut, in the presence of those who obliterate impossibility. Because the mind of a fool is constrained by a large network of impossibility.
What is impossible for the fool, is most probable for the genius. And it is the nature of a fool (atheist) to pull everybody else down to his low expectations (impossibility) of the world, rather than to erase those impossibilities and focus on what is possible.
The atheist mind is one beset by and racked with impossibility.
To define god as “everything”
This is a most classical interpretation of god. God is everything. Because god is presumed as the creator or cause of everything. Why is this rock on the ground here, but not there? Isn’t there a cause for this? Yes, there is, because there is a cause for all things. The puny mind of a human may not be able to ascertain the causes of everything. But this doesn’t mean causes cease to exist. So this is the fundamental difference of mindset between the atheist (fool) and the theist (enlightened). The theist realizes that his own experience and limited knowledge does not reflect on the innate causality of the universe and existence. Existence precedes essence. When you go to sleep at night, or are unconscious at any time, the world does not cease to exist. Existence is other than consciousness. Instead, consciousness is a conclusion, a result of intelligence, evolution, and natural selection. Some creatures are extraordinarily conscious, intelligent, and evolved, while others are not. Some humans are closer to god (most intelligent) while others are farther away from god, and closer to animals (atheists, least intelligent). Atheists believe that somethings are “uncaused”. They just happen randomly, magically. This is false. Because to believe in god, and presuppose god as everything, is to presuppose causality. When the atheist loses track of causes, and demonstrates her ignorance, then she blames others, never herself. The atheist blames god for her own misfortunes.
So this is the nature of difference of the atheist and theist mindset, concerning god, as a definition of everything or nothing.
The theist accepts existence, accepts causality, and accepts human limitation of knowledge. This is the reason why god is greater than humanity.
The atheist rejects existence, rejects causality, and rejects human limitations. This is the reason why atheists have the childish egotism to see themselves as gods.
Atheists want the world to revolve around them, and their petty little needs and emotions. Instead theists realize that the world, universe, and existence does not revolve around any individual.
Existence revolves around god.