The definition of GOD

quote:

---

GOD = THE ULTIMATE POSSIBLE BEING/THING = Who knows and see all possibilities, and has total control over them. Also having the power to bring any possibility that it chooses into existence.

---

I don't think your definition of God has anything to do with what exists in the reality we live within. That is only my opinion, please don't take it personally. Sure. Any definition of God is valid. I don't think it's real, but it's certainly valid. Depends on what you want to improve, to some people "things that actually exist in the reality we live in" isn't a very important qualification. However, if you're interested in what I think, an improvement in my eyes would be to define God like this:GOD = THE BEING EVERYONE THINKS IS AN ULTIMATE BEING = The one people talk about when they reference their preferenced deity. The qualities they ascribe (including existence itself) may or may not be real since I am currently unaware of any way to evaluate any qualities. GOD may exist as lesser or greater than what those think He is, or He may not even exist at all. All attempts, across thousands of years, to even imply the existence of GOD so far have been left wanting. It seems likely that GOD does not exist. It seems superficial, and in agreement with the popular culture of what Christians believe God to be like. For me personally, I don't like it because it's too easy. If God did exist, I would not expect the definition of His existence to be summed up in a sentence.

Because any test ever devised to gain any sort of knowledge at all about a being existing how you describe has come up with nothing. That's why I don't think it exists. I could be wrong, of course, but at least I've tried. Okay. So you're saying that God is the best of everything? Why must God be the best of everything? Where does that assumption come from?But it's okay, let's continue in this vein a bit. Let's say the strongest being in the universe is a creature not from our planet.. and it can lift 5 thousand pounds. God would be the strongest if He could lift 500 thousand pounds, right? So why do you say God must be able to lift an undefined number of pounds? Why can't God simply just be able to lift more than any living thing? Why must it be infinite?Of course, there's an even simpler question, why must God be able to lift anything at all? Why can't God be weak? Because you defined God to be the ULTIMATE BEING? God has no obligation to be what you defined Him as. And anything you define (even the dictionary) has no obligation to exist. I didn't say you did. I brought that perspective in. I was simply pointing out the obvious similarity. You did ask for my opinion. I'm sorry, I was just trying to be honest. I try not to expect God to be anything. I haven't met God yet (as far as I'm aware) so it would be rude to have preconceived opinions as to His abilities and attitude. I think it's only fair to let God represent Himself rather than have you define His abilities. I certainly wouldn't want you to define my abilities, so I'm only trying to give God the same respect. So far it doesn't look so good. And this is only a handful of people. There's over 7 billion of us in the world.

Okay.Let's try this and see if you understand the problem.I like banana's, they're yummy. A good banana is a nice ripe yellow, with no brown spots. A better banana would be slightly cooled. The ultimate banana would be perfectly ripe, slightly cooled, and would exist on my desk right now so I could eat it. The problem is that just because I defined this fantastic ultimate banana doesn't mean the ultimate banana actually exists. Otherwise, it would be on my desk right now. In fact, an even better banana would be on your desk too, so you could also enjoy it. But I bet there's none there, just as there's none here.We can do it with your uber-GOD too. A better GOD would be one that is all powerful and all knowing. A better GOD would be one that's all powerful, all knowing, and exists. An even better GOD would be one that's all powerful, all knowing, exists, and leaves no question as to His existence. But, well, the discussion of this thread is great evidence that there certainly is confusion over the existence of this GOD. Therefore, this uber-GOD does not exist.You see, thinking of a "better" or "the best" GOD (or anything) doesn't mean anything in reality. Unless all you want to do is think of the best whatever you can. Which can be fun, for a few minutes, but it's pretty useless in any practical sense. I gave you a definition of GOD, with no theological ideas, in my first post in Message 6:

quote:

---

GOD = THE BEING EVERYONE THINKS IS AN ULTIMATE BEING = The one people talk about when they reference their preferenced deity. The qualities they ascribe (including existence itself) may or may not be real since I am currently unaware of any way to evaluate any qualities. GOD may exist as lesser or greater than what those think He is, or He may not even exist at all.

---

The part about my definition that is better than your definition is that we know my definition actually exists, something we don't know about your definition. Your participation in this thread is proof of the existence of my definition of GOD.Do you agree that existing is better than not existing?Maybe you don't, as I also talked about in my first post:

quote:

---

to some people "things that actually exist in the reality we live in" isn't a very important qualification

---

I'll go out on a limb here and say that most people in this thread are waiting for your presentation. Please don't hesitate on my account.

Okay, let's try to move this along.I agree that your definition of THE GOD is the bestest uber God we can imagine. If that's your point, I don't think anyone has any objections.What's your next step?

I'm not sure if anyone agreed with this definition. Most people only agreed that this would be the ultimate God we're capable of imagining, not that this actually described God. Yes, agreed, we're capable of imagining God. But we do not know that any particular God (especially an infinite one) is actually possible in our reality. Agreed. But direct contradiction is not the only way. Another way is by 'not enough information.' For example, I can imagine 500,000 tons of gold. There is no contradiction, it's certainly possible (as in, imaginable). But if this amount of gold does not exist in the universe, then my imagination does not actually exist. In fact, if there is not 500,000 tons of gold in the universe, or enough resources to create 500,000 tons of gold in the universe, then the possibility (even though there's no obvious contradiction) is actually impossible in our universe. We can't know either way, though, since we currently are unable to know how much gold this universe is capable of holding.Equally, we don't know how much God this universe is capable of holding either, if any at all. Therefore we cannot say that God certainly is a possibility. It may be that God simply cannot exist because our universe cannot support Him. It may be that God cannot exist outside our universe because outside our universe cannot support Him. Without knowing, we can't say that the being in our imaginations is actually possible in reality. True. Not true. Why would this be true? Especially when you're defining God as infinite. Let's use a simple analogy with numbers, with God representing infinite. Each 'universe' will contain one number. So we have the universe containing 1, the universe containing 2, the universe containing 3... and so on. We obviously have an infinite number of universes, as we have an infinite number of numbers. However, there is no single universe that actually contains the number 'infinite'. Every single universe contains a specific, defined number. There is no universe that contains 'infinite', and therefore, there is no requirement for there to be a universe that contains God, even if we have an infinite number of universes. Very true. God certainly could be something we can imagine that doesn't even exist in our reality. But we can keep going with this. If this God is the best and highest of everything, then there are more attributes we can logically asign:5. A God of ultimate identity, that leaves no confusion as to the possibility of His existence.Obviously, there is confusion of God's existence (this very post is evidence of such). Therefore, logically, this God does not exist. Otherwise, I'd have no confusion over His existence. If we do not include this attribute, then your God is not 'the ultimate possible being/thing' that you described. Because, obviously, a being who could leave no confusion as to it's existence would be better. Therefore, if your definition is valid, this God does not exist. OR, if God does exist, your definition is most certainly incorrect. I am only a non-believer in your God.Don't take it badly, the information we would require to make such a proof just doesn't exist right now, as far as I'm aware, anyway. If you know of any information that does indicate the existence of any God (not even limited to the one you've defined), please present it. Until you do that, your God is limited to your imagination.

Very well said. I hope rulerofthisuniverse is capable of understanding the importance.We need more information about God. We need actual observations of the real world about God.This is required before attempting any sort of 'proof' on what this God is like. The nice thing is that once these observations are found, then God automatically exists. The bad thing is that these observations are legendary for their, um, difficulty in verification (to put it nicely). For, like, the last 5000 years or however long recorded history goes. But good luck to anyone who's searching for observations of God, and all that.However, observations most certainly are not required in order to use our imaginations. And our imaginations can be a source of some very real strength in a self-worth kind of sense. This should not be confused with the kind of strength behind, say, a locomotive.The importance or value of the two different strengths is certainly something to be debated. But the physical existence of a locomotive vs. our imagination is not left to personal opinion. That requires 'actual observations of the real world.'

Correct. And I've decided that what is real is independent of what I decide is real. That is, I think reality exists on it's own, and I don't have any input as to its existence. I could be wrong, but every time I stub my toe on anything I don't believe exists, reality certainly shows it doesn't care what I think. Therefore, in order to see what does exist, I need some observations from reality.I am not unique in the acceptance of this decision. Many others before me have made the very same assumption. They've brought us computers, airplanes, science itself, and even the locomotive I was previously talking about.We could all be wrong, but there is no denying that it has been a very productive assumption. Perhaps even the most productive assumption in all of human history. It may not help with describing the limits of our imagination. But it doesn't attempt to. It only attempts to decribe the limits of our reality. And it does a magnificent job at that, quite likely the best job ever proposed by humans.But yes, it certainly could be wrong. You're free to stand in front of a locomtive, if you'd like. I'll stick with the assumption that the reality of the locomotive has no bearing on my imagination of it's reality. You're also free to be afraid of locomotives we have no way to identify, if you'd like. But I'll stick with the assumption that the locomotive can't exist unless it can be observed in reality.You have a point that we could be unaware of something's existence. And this is true. But if we start acting on the imagination of something, simply because "we may be unaware of it's existence", then the actions we must start taking will overwhelm our lives. That is, in order to stay consistent, we must then start acting on every single imaginable thing at all that "we may be unaware of it's existence". And that's a lot of things.To ignore the fact that "we may be unaware of it's existence" is exactly the same as "it doesn't exist", is simply dishonest and extremely inconsistent to the point of being hypocritical. That doesn't mean it's factually true, it simply means we need to understand the connection. We simply need to understand that we're incapable of knowing (currently). That is, we only "need" to understand the connection if honesty and integrity and consistency are important to us.

I think this may be your main confusion. It's actually the exact opposite that's true. And you're falling into a small trap of equivocation.Possible has two meanings - we can imagine something, or something can actually exist. They are different, and you know the difference (I think you've demonstrated this, anyway)."all things are possible unless proved otherwise" is only true in our imagination. It is the opposite that is true when dealing with reality, though:The general rule when dealing with reality is that all imaginable things are actually impossible unless proved otherwise.Otherwise we'ed have to spend every second of every day worrying about all the things we could possibly imagine that could be having an effect on our lives. This obviously isn't true. That is actually most unreasonable. Reason doesn't show us something should exist unless we have observations from the real world that show us something should exist. What you're doing here is going back to the imaginable-possibility-realm and confusingly thinking it has any bearing at all on reality. Reality doesn't care about what you can imagine. This is a true statement on it's own, but irrelevent to what we were talking about. The universes I described only held a single number. "1", or "2", or "3"... and so on. 1.1 or 1.11 or 1.111 didn't exist in any of the universes I was talking about. Your point has no effect on the validity that 'infinite' doesn't have to exist in any particular universe, even if we do have an infinite number of universes. The very fact that you state it as 'debatable' means that your GOD is no longer the Ultimate God of Identity. Therefore, your GOD is no longer the Ultimate God. You can say that maybe being the Ultimate God of Identity isn't important. But then, why would being the Ultimate God of Power be important? Or Wisdom? Why is being the Ultimate anything important? Then your whole arguement falls down. So yes, you need to include your God as the Ultimate God of Identity if you claim your God to be the Ultimate God of Everything. And, well, it's trivial to show that your Ultimate God of Identity doesn't exist (I am unaware of His existence). Therefore, you're assumption of God being the Ultimate of Everything is wrong.So you can have it either way, either the assumption of God being the Ultimate of Everything is wrong because He's obviously not the Ultimate of Identity. Or we can get rid of the assumption all together. Either way, the entire thesis is based on an invalid definition of God. You're certainly free to go about claiming anything you'd like. I'm interested in what you can show. And you aren't able to show that your thesis has any validity in reality. The main reason for this is because you're equivocating between 'possibility in imagination' and 'possibility in reality'. They are two entirely different definitions, and using them interchangeably results in the kind of confusion that is all over this thread.

I know. Um, that's why I agreed with you, the word directly preceding the very sentence you quoted of me was "Correct." That means I agree with you. I don't understand why this is curious. If I have decided that reality is independant of myself, how else can I gain knowledge of what reality is like apart from getting observations of that reality?It's the same as when I decide that you are independant of myself. The only way I can gain knowledge of you is from getting observations of you. Observations of what you say, observations of what you do... The same way I've decided that I have no direct control over you, I've also decided that I have no direct control over reality. You are who you are. Reality is what reality is. My imagination has no control over who you are. My imagination has no control over what reality is. (Or so I've decided, anyway).

I don't want to get into too much here, since it's starting to lead away from the main focus of this thread. But here's my quick answer:I don't know what the reality of 'existence' is. I'm waiting for more information. That is, I'm waiting for more observations from the real world. I'm not exactly biting my nails in anticipation of getting this information though, it's likely not going to be available in my lifetime. But I don't know that for sure either The only think I do know is that existence seems to be independent of my imagination of existence. Or, at least, I've yet to find a contradiction to this assumption.But what is the reality of existence? I don't know, and I've yet to hear of any information or observations that can be verified about such knowledge. It would seem to me that in order to answer this question, we'ed have to get observations of existence from beyond the bounds of this reality. Such a task seems rather difficult to me.I don't see how it matters much, in a practical sense, though. Regardless of what the reality of existence is, existence and reality are here, and we are a part of it, and we are capable of observing it. I suggest we use what we're capable of (observing existence and reality) in order to gain whatever knowledge we can.

Yes. A very glaring and important point. One I feel I'm incapable of imprinting on him. That's why I tend to stay away from such arguements and attempt alternate routes of bringing the problems to the surface. I mean that as a failure on my part, not as futility in any way on your part. I do fully hope you're capable of reaching the point of paradigm shift with him. Actually, I hope any of us are. The light at the end of the tunnel is beginning to dim, though. Here's hoping some lurkers are learning I've made the same assumption while writing all my responses

No, this is not how things are done in science. This is what Chiroptera has been trying to tell you all along. You're missing an important part. A scientist proposes a theory based on observations of the real world. You have no observations from the real world in order to base your theory on. You're not doing science. In science, theories are not just imagination, they are imagination based on observations of the real world. Until you have observations of the real world that suggest God, you won't have any science concerning God. My apologies for not using your strict terminology. It doesn't change the arguement, however:You need to include your God as the Ultimate God of Identity if you claim your God to be the Ultimate possible being/thing. Otherwise, this God isn't the Ultimate possible being/thing. The Ultimate possible being/thing certainly would be the Ultimate God of Identity as much as it would be the Ultimate God of Power or Wisdom.Either your God isn't the Ultimate God of Identity (and therefore isn't the Ultimate possible being/thing) or the Ultimate possible being/thing doesn't exist.Either way, your theory is based on an irrational definition of God. This is to be expected, though. Since you just imagined the theory and the definition of God. They are not based on any observations of the real world. You may suggest God all you like. Anyone else can suggest anyone they can imagine as well, with equal validity (none, as none of you would have any observations of the real world). You could even suggest "no one" as there's no limit on possibilities existing that says they have to be in someone's imagination.There are plenty of things that possibly exist (and do) without regard to anyone's imagination of that possibility. That's what new discoveries are, discovering something that no one has ever imagined before. They certainly could be imagined, but they don't have to be.

I hope this will help you realize just how arbitrary you are being with your definition. All 9 of these questions can be asked about any of the other attributes you've proposed the ultimate being/thing would have. Let's try Power:1. Is being infinitely strong ultimate power?
2. does this quality conlfict with any other qualities, such as Absolute love and supreme justice. Does this affect freedom of choice for example.
3. Does this quality assume that GOD needs us to know that he's all powerful. If so why?
4. Why should a God of ultimate power actually be better than a god without it?
5. Is a God of ultimate power possible?
6. IS there really a need for ultimate power? Or is it based on some our own subjective desires?
7. Why should God have to prove that he is all powerful?
8. Why should God have to prove that he is all powerful?
9. Why should an ultimate possible being/thing not exist if it was not a God of ultimate power?You're arbitrarily answering these questions in the positive for ultimate power, and in the negative for ultimate identity. When thinking about ultimate power, you think it's obvious that more is better, and infinite is best. But that's simply your own subjective opinion. There's really no reason for you to answer for or against any of these definitions. They are all subjective. Ultimate Power is equally subjective as Ultimate Identity. The problems you see with Ultimate Identity being an attribute of an Ultimate being/thing are exactly the same problems any objective viewer will see with Utimate Power being an attribute.That's the problem.You say Ultimate Power. Why not Ultimate Weakness? Because you think power is better.
You say Ultimate Love. Why not Ultimate hate? Because you think love is better.
You say Ultimate Wisdom. Why not Ultimate stupidity? Because you think wisdom is better.
You say Ultimate Justice. Why not Ultimate Chaos? Because you think justice is better.
You say Ultimate Good. Why not Ultimate Bad? Because you think good is better.Your subjective opinion is only persuasive to those who already subjectively agree with you. It has no persuasive power to an objective viewer.Your entire thesis relies on everyone agreeing with your arbitrary asnwers to these questions. When you don't have someone agree (like those in this thread) you can't prove it otherwise (as shown in this thread) because it's arbitrary. No proof exists, because it's subjective and arbitrary. If you had observations of the real world, then this subjectiveness would be removed. That's what science does. This is not science. This is a thought exercise. One that doesn't pass the test of reality because it is so arbitrary. But I did answer the question. My answer is that "possibility in imagination" and "possibility in reality" aren't the only kinds of possibilities. You're making a duality where none exists. And your inability to see so in my answer proves that you're forcing your mind into a hole and not allowing any alternative explanations. It doesn't have to be one or the other. Possibilities do not rely on our ability to think about them, imagine them, or reality's ability to support them.Possibilities can exist without any being, or any reality.

If it's half positive, and half negative, why do you insist that an ultimate being/thing must have this as an attribute? Every answer you gave was your opinion. There's no reason to believe you, other than "you like it this way". I'm not struggling, I've said from the beginning that God should be a God of ultimate identity or else God is not the ultimate being/thing. It's the same arguement you're using for God being the God of ultimate power. Except, well, instead of half-positive and half-negative, I answer all-positive in favour of God having the attribute of ultimate identity.I also answer all negative for God having the attribute of ultimate power.So which is right? Why are your answers 'better' than mine? They are both opinion and equally valid. You're just saying yours are based on logic, but they are subjective concepts. The reason they are subjective is because they can't be based on logical or rational inferences. No matter how many times you type the word logical, you can't make a subjective concept into something objective. Until you acquire observations from the real world, your claims about the real world are merely opinions. I'm not claiming a third, you are, here:

quote:

---

The definition of possibility to me has always been Something (A concept, prospect or potential), that has a capability of being true, happening or existing.

---

Note that this is neither a possibility in imagination (it doesn't require anyone to imagine it) nor a possibility in reality (it's not required to actually exist).

Okay, if you really need this, here it is: Yes, leaving no confusion to the 'possibility' of His existence is ultimate identity. Because leaving no confusion to the possibility is better than leaving no confusion to the actuality, it covers more ground. No, this quality does not conflict with any of the other qualities. It's simply an addition. An addition that any ultimate being/thing would require. It does not affect feedom of choice since the ultimate being can simply remove confusion of it's existence from those who want such confusion to be removed. This quality assumes nothing. It only states that an ultimate being would leave no question as it's identity to anyone who was confused about the ultimate being. An ultimate being who isn't afraid of being identified by those searching for it is better than a being who can't be identified. Because an ultimate being who isn't afraid of being identified by those searching for it is better than a being who is afraid or unable to identify itself. Certainly. There is no logical contradiction. There really is confusion as to the possibility of God's existence. This very post (and entire thread, and likely the whole forum) shows that this is the case. Because if He can't, then He's not the ultimate being/thing. Because if He can't, then He's not the ultimate being/thing. Because if it wasn't a God of ultimate identity, then it wouldn't be the ultimate possible being/thing. Of course. Trivially easy. Here we go again: No. Power can be measured in many different ways. The most power at anything isn't always the best. The most powerful tractor is useless in making the best tasting ice-cream cone. Being the most powerful of everything is useless if the goal is to do nothing. Yes. Being the most powerful evil force in the world certainly conflicts with absolute love and supreme justice. Being the most powerful force of removing freedom of choice certainly affects freedom of choice. No. There's no requirement for us to know that God is all powerful or not because there's not even a requirement for God to be all powerful. As shown by many Gods people believe in who are not all powerful. There's no reason why a God of ultimate power would be better than a God without it. We need to identify a goal first. If the goal is to be the strongest and fastest, or containing the most energy, then a God of ultimate power would be better. But if the goal is to be the smallest and slowest, or contain the least energy, then a God of ultimate power is the worst thing desired. No. Infinite power does not exist in this reality, as shown by the impossibility of perpetual motion machines. There is no need for ultimate power, it is soley based on unfounded subjective desires that stronger and more powerful is somehow better. This isn't always the case. Sometimes smaller and weaker is what's required. He shouldn't, because being all powerful isn't always better. He shouldn't, because being all powerful is sometimes the opposite of what's required. No reason. An ultimate possible being/thing could be the ultimate possible weakest being. This would most certainly not need to have ultimate power.Don't you see that these arguements are all subjective? The very fact that we're arguing over them proves that they are subjective. There is no reason to suggest one over the other. It's the same about arguing over our favourite colours. Without observations of the real world, we cannot show or prove attributes of the real world, including existence. I didn't answer because the answer is obvious. Of course the possibility existed. We are here now, obviously. But it's also obvious that this possibility wasn't a part of reality (because reality didn't exist yet) and there's no requirement for it to be a possibility in any being's imagination.