On God as a Superstructural Reflection of Conditions
I posit that God is a social construct and that conceptions of Him vary relative to individual cognitions, such that different religions and organized theological cohorts emerge and perpetuate differing but somewhat coherent images of their respective God. The God of every particular religious doctrine is an emanation of the material conditions and societal influences of the period in which they were conceived and the civilizations under which they were brought about; such is why there is no congruent or universal consensus on what specific scripture or religious dogma is the objectively 'correct' one, as, in ultimatum, humans seemingly will never come to a cogent consensus on who or what God necessarily is. The idea of God in and of itself is not a universal essence or entity, but a historically contingent artifact that is malleable and cultivated, shaped by contemporary and anachronistic social relations, present necessitations, and collective ideological concertedness. The "God" of feudal Europe bears a starkly evident dichotomy to the "God" of nomadic tribes, precisely because each rendition and superstructural reflection is an anecdotally subjective illustration of the economic and political conditions and infrastructure of its society; the divine fundamentally mirrors the mode of production.
Moreover, humans do not merely conceive of exalted gods so simply; they laboriously generate them through predictable and recognizable cognitive patterns and processes--we infer agents responsible for occurrences, consequently project grander intentions onto the world as a kind of generalizing consecution, and ultimately impose abstractions of order onto the amorphous, the random, the innominate. Discrepant cultural landscapes produce varying innate cognitive biases--in effect, conceiving of an abundant array of differing gods; this is precisely why some gods are judges of omniscient volition, some are ancestral figures, and others are principles of cosmology in their entirety. Ergo, there is no "objective" or rationally constructed image of God because there is no unwavering and infallible universal cognitive environment and theological landscape.
"God" is not singularly a referential term (a string of verbiage attributed to a rational subject, a correlative matter) but a conglomerative, ever-permuting self-agglomerating conceptualization that alters in significance and implication through subsequent utilization. There does not exist a solitary and irrefrangible demarcation or irrefutable delineation, by virtue of the given that particular cultural communities use the term in separate, dichotomous contexts and with varying definitions attached; that the term's essence and existential properties are semantic products of discourse, instead of offsprings of entity; and that language simultaneously progresses in breadth and constitution in succession with cultural trends. Therefore, it can be extrapolated that "God" is not solely a postmodern philosophical mechanism, a stabilized providential object, a reflective notion of civilizational dynamics, but additionally a linguistic event--an idiosyncrasy in communication and a sequence of psychoanalytical evaluations.
