The definition of GOD

No, no, no. On the seventh day you rest.You must be new to this god business.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

Mmm . and don’t tell me, because I know what’s coming next, there’s no god union I can join or anything like that, is there?

Hi rulerofthisuniverse, I would like to give my full definition of my God but that would go against what you say here under #1: Message 51
My God just happens to be a God that is associated with Christianity.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Well, here are some of the problems with your definition. The problem is that "best", "great", "high", and "improvement" are all subjective terms. Different people are going to have different opinions as to what constitutes "improvement" or what is "best". This makes your god ill-defined -- it isn't clear what properties such a god has.- It could also be argued technically that omniscience is not an "improvement", in which case neither god #1 nor god #2 are better. So, it is not clear whether an "ultimate" being would be omniscient or not.In fact, I find the idea of an immortal being to be rather distasteful. A mortal being who is aware of its mortality and that it will someday cease to exist is far superior to an immortal being. Thus, mortality is superior to immortality, and the "best" god would be mortal. Thus, the "ultimate god" would be mortal (and may have already ceased to exist).How does your definition handle this sort of ambiguity?A similar thing can be said about limitations to its power. To me, a superior being would be limited and would understand its limitations. A being who could effect any possibility would definitely not be the "best" possible god.How does your definition handle this sort of ambiguity?Edited by Chiroptera, : Serious typo.

---

If I had a million dollars, I'd buy you a monkey.
Haven't you always wanted a monkey?
-- The Barenaked Ladies

Dear subbie,

quote:

---

I concede the possibility that some god might exist. However, to the extent that a given definition of god is internally inconsistent, I deny the possibility that such a god exists.

---

How about "GOD is that which is NOT GOD". This of course is impossible therefore it does not exist. Therefore its NOT GOD.

quote:

---

I do not accept as a fact that there are an infinite number of possibilities because that phrase is nonsense, it is devoid of meaning.

---

And

quote:

---

I do not accept as a fact that there are an infinite number of possibility spaces because that phrase is nonsense, it is devoid of meaning.

---

I notice you completely ignore the example I gave which actually proved my point. Not good science on your part. Oh and is it possible you are wrong?

Dear Modulous,

quote:

---

Which presupposes that 'god' is a being that is in complete control over everything. Whatever the ultimate possible being is, it might not have complete control over everything. That the ultimate possible being does have complete control is a position held by monotheists. So it necessarily has that element of religious belief embedded in it.

---

Well I have actually explained why God in my definition is singular, you may have missed it. It is irrelevent whether the ultimate being actually HAS complete control over everything I was using that as an example, its singular because any more than one ultimate being would have the same qualities, and therefore cancel eachother out, making them unpowerful.

quote:

---

I was suggesting that you had contradictory definitions. On the one hand, god is the ultimate possible being, on the other hand it is a creator of the universe and 'ruler of same'. The creator of the universe and even it's governor aren't necessarily the ultimate possible beings. It is certainly high up the scale of ultimate being that can be imagined.

---

Well now I haven't said that the ultimate being IS the creator of the universe, I have simply said the word God means what is commonly refered to as the creator, theres a difference, again I was using example words so that you would understand the CONCEPT.

Dear dogrelata,

quote:

---

So when the term having unlimited power to be able to do anything is used, it doesn’t really mean that at all, it just means it has the power to do the things it can do. A bit like myself really. I can do the things I am able to do, but I can’t do the things I am unable to do.

---

Yep so just extrapolate your idea to its extreme and you will get my definition of GOD.

quote:

---

I was also wondering who or what is the arbiter of what is possible or impossible for supergod to be able to do

---

Possibility determines whats possible, if something is impossible it cannot come into existence in the first place.

quote:

---

and who or what determines the possibility of whether supergod may or may not know all that can be known.

---

Well all my God needs to know is all possibilities.

quote:

---

The thing is, we’re approaching 150 posts on this topic and you’ve not managed to move it forward one inch in terms of getting even one person to agree with your definition of what an ultimate possible being might be, even hypothetically.

---

Well that is because I AM NOT trying to argue WHAT an ultimate possible being might be. Everyone else seems to be trying to do that, but I am just defining some words thats all, I do not know what exactly the qualities of this ultimate possible being would have. ALL I AM saying is that IF such a being as mine DID exist it would be for all intents and purposes GOD. (And for the record there is at least one person who is OK with the definition)

Dear reiverix,

quote:

---

We don't care if god knows he exists.

---

But thats my point, in your definition it assumes that God cares whether we should know if he exists.

quote:

---

We only care about if humans know he exists so we can define him.

---

So we can only define God if he tells us he exists?

Dear ICANT,

quote:

---

I would like to give my full definition of my God but that would go against what you say here under #1:

---

and

quote:

---

My God just happens to be a God that is associated with Christianity.

---

I understand that, but you should well know that if religion is brought into this argument, all that will happen is that critics will just say "Oh but your definition isn't based on science it's based on religion, blah, blah".The trouble is because I am not using religion the critics are having a hard time adjusting, and each and everyone of the usual arguments used against God are falling away. So now notice they are trying to get me to tell them EXACTLY what this ultimate being is, and what QUALITIES this being has. But again that is irrelevent to the actual definition.Not only that but some seem to have completely ignored some of the things I have said, and disagreed simply for the sake of disagreement.

Dear Chiroptera,

quote:

---

The problem is that "best", "great", "high", and "improvement" are all subjective terms. Different people are going to have different opinions as to what constitutes "improvement" or what is "best". This makes your god ill-defined -- it isn't clear what properties such a god has.

---

Again I will point out my definition is NOT limited to human imagination of what the best etc is. And the properties such a God has is irrelevent to the definition. Infact it maybe possible to deduce some qualities which will help REFINE the definition at a later stage. Just like any scientific study, you may not be 100% accurate in everything, but we still need to start somewhere, and as more information comes in the theory can be refined.

quote:

---

It could also be argued technically that omniscience is not an "improvement", in which case neither god #1 nor god #2 are better. So, it is not clear whether an "ultimate" being would be omniscient or not.

---

All that matters really is whether something is POSSIBLE, and not what we THINK is best.

quote:

---

In fact, I find the idea of an immortal being to be rather distasteful. A mortal being who is aware of its mortality and that it will someday cease to exist is far superior to an immortal being. Thus, mortality is superior to immortality, and the "best" god would be mortal. Thus, the "ultimate god" would be mortal (and may have already ceased to exist).

​

How does your definition handle this sort of ambiguity?

---

Again all that matters really is whether something is POSSIBLE, and not what we THINK is best.

quote:

---

A similar thing can be said about limitations to its power. To me, a superior being would be limited and would understand its limitations. A being who could effect any possibility would definitely not be the "best" possible god.

​

How does your definition handle this sort of ambiguity?

---

Well again your subjecting best to what you THINK is best, which is irrelevent to the definition.

Okay, so you agree that words like "best" and "highest" and "improvement" are problematic. This is exactly my point. Since these are the words that you use in your "definition", then your definition has some severe problems.You're going to have to fix that.

Why would that be the case? If humans were the ultimate possible beings, how are they rendered powerless by there being more than one of them? It might be that their collectivity is integral to them having the power they do. I thought you were defining terms. Let's not rely on how people commonly use the word at all. So God is the ultimate possible being? Great. What next?

Well, since I didn't understand the point you were making in the first place, it would be rather difficult for me to understand that anything that followed could have been an example of it. To illustrate, suppose I were to say, "Mairsey dotes and doesey dotes and little lamsey divey. The truth of this is established by the fact that the Earth is an oblate spheroid." I don't imagine that you'd necessarily agree with my claims about maireys, doeseys and little lamseys, even though you'd agree with my statement about the shape of the Earth.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

Dear Chiroptera,

quote:

---

Okay, so you agree that words like "best" and "highest" and "improvement" are problematic. This is exactly my point. Since these are the words that you use in your "definition", then your definition has some severe problems.

---

I don't agree that words like "best" and "highest" are problematic at all, and I don't use these words in my definition anyway, the word I use is ULTIMATE. I also don't use the word "improvement", in the post where I was explaining the basic meanings of the word ultimate IN my definition I say "not to be improved upon or surpassed". It doesn't help a scientific study if people play with words, so I ask you to stop changing the words I use, if you are complaining about ill-defined words, stop ill-defining them yourself.

Dear Modulous,

quote:

---

Why would that be the case? If humans were the ultimate possible beings, how are they rendered powerless by there being more than one of them? It might be that their collectivity is integral to them having the power they do.

---

Well you have actually answered the question yourself here. If their collectivity is integral to them having the power they do, then individually they are not all powerful, and therefore individually they are NOT the ultimate beings. Infact they can ONLY become the ULTIMATE when they become ONE.

quote:

---

I thought you were defining terms. Let's not rely on how people commonly use the word at all. So God is the ultimate possible being? Great. What next?

---

Good you sound like your ready to go to the next stage, we just gotta wait for a few others to catch up.