The definition of GOD

Hi everyone this is my very first post here, so I hope I'm doing everything right.Below is my definition of God, What I would like is everyone's opinion of it. Do you think it is a valid definition? Could you improve on it? Or do you have any criticism of it?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 look forward to you comments.

Thankyou Everybody so far for your replies. I will respond to you all individually in a moment, but first I need to tell you the angle which I am approaching this topic from.Although the Admin put this topic here in the Faith and Belief section, I am deliberately not going to use any faith or belief in my definition of God.My argument is this; IF God DID exist, logically, scientifically and mathematically what would GOD BE?As far as I can see God by definition would be the most powerful, the strongest, the wisest, and so on and so forth. God would be greater than anything and anyone.So my definition of GOD being the ultimate POSSIBLE being/thing stands regardless of any belief.

Dear Rahvin,

quote:

---

What reasons do you have for such a definition? Assuming the existence of a "higher" entity for a moment, what makes you believe it would have omniscience and omnipotence?

---

Logically God must or needs to know everything otherwise he would not be God, how can God NOT know everything? Also God would need to have omnipotence for simular reasons, if God was not incontrol of all power then he couldn't be God.

quote:

---

You seem to be going for a generic "god," as opposed to specifically affiliating your definition with a particular religion.

---

Yes that is my intention.

quote:

---

Many faiths believe in "gods" that are far from omniscient or omnipotent - the Greeks, Romans, Norse, Egyptians, and many others all had "gods" that, while far more "powerful" than humans, were certainly not all-knowing or possessed of unlimited power to "bring any possibility (they) choose into existence."

​

What caused you to define your "god" in such terms, as opposed to such other views?

---

Yes many faiths have many different gods. However I would simply argue that they are not the ULTIMATE GOD, only my definition defines GOD in an Absolute way, and defines God as the supreme being/thing.Basically what I have done is logically reasoned what God would, should and must be if he exists.

Dear GodsNails,

quote:

---

I think your definition of God is beautiful.

---

Thankyou, That is one of the nicest things anyone has said about it.

quote:

---

In response to this I would like to share with you my definition of God/Jesus.

​

He is the ultimate gift. He is Hope for those who dont think there is any. He is light. And most of all he is love

---

I wish I could respond to this, but I am not going to bring in any sort of belief in this topic. But believe me this definition of mine is only the beginning of something I am working on, that may do something that has never been done before in the history of mankind. That is all I can say for now.

Dear Stile,

quote:

---

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.

---

OK, but why do you think it doesn't have anything to do with what exists in our reality?

quote:

---

Sure. Any definition of God is valid. I don't think it's real, but it's certainly valid.

---

I am not arguing whether God IS real or not at this point, rather IF God was real what would God BE. Because if anyone does argue whether God exists you need to define God first anyway.

quote:

---

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.

---

My definition of God is not what everyone THINKS is God, but rather what God ACTUALLY is, i.e. THE ULTIMATE POSSIBLE being/thing, I have already defined God to be the highest thing anything or anyone can get.

quote:

---

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.

---

I am not bringing any kind of religious perspective into my definition, it is purely based on logic and reason. The problem you have is that you expect God not to be easy to explain, but maybe it is. That is one purpose of my topic here, to see if there is a simple definition of God that everyone can agree on.

Dear Rahvin,

quote:

---

"Logically," no, god does not require omniscience or omnipotence. The fact that the vast majority of faiths

​

that have existed do not have gods with neither of those qualities shows that it doesn't logically follow.

---

You seem to be relegating my GOD to deity's like the Roman gods or perhaps the Hindu pantheon. But I think you failto understand that my definition of GOD is not the same as any of these "lesser" gods. You see none of these lessergods ARE the ultimate possible being/thing, therefore they do not require omniscience or omnipotence. ONLY theultimate possible being/thing WOULD require these attributes.I maintain that the supreme GOD has knowledge of everything to control his power, and the supreme GOD has unlimitedpower because he knows everything.

quote:

---

And here's where you run into trouble. If you identify your "god" specifically as the Christian god, then

​

yes, it would follow that such an entity would require omniscience and omnipotence - the very basis for

​

hisdefinition (the Bible) says that he possesses both qualities.

---

Well I have explained quite easily above why my GOD has omniscience and omnipotence without any religioussentiment.

quote:

---

But since you're trying to avoid a specific deity, and just trying to define the word "god" without any sort

​

of basis for his characteristics beyond your opinion, you may as well discuss the definition of a "dragon" - it's

​

all imaginary and based on nothing at all. If you say "god" is omnipotent, that's fine - but your opinion holds no

​

more objective value than an ancient Greek who points out that his god, Zeus, was not (though I hear making him

​

angry was still a bad idea).

---

I will deal with any characteristics that my definition of God has later. However a "dragon" is not the ultimatepossible being/thing, I am only dealing with whatever IS the ultimate possible being/thing. You can give as manyexamples as you want, but unless they qualify as the ultimate possible being/thing Who knows and see allpossibilities, and has total control over them. Also having the power to bring any possibility that it chooses intoexistence, then your examples are not GOD by my definition and therefore cannot be compared.

quote:

---

It appears to me that you've gone the way of Intelligent Design proponents - taken the god you already

​

believe in and stripped away it's name to give the appearance of "religious neutrality." You're presenting the

​

definition of the Christian god, minus the specifics like the words "of the Bible" or anything to do with Jesus,

​

and claiming it as the definition for the Supreme Being.

---

Well we will just have to see, you have brought up religious ideas not me. I maintain I can argue my definition ofGod without the use of anything religious. CAN YOU?

quote:

---

You haven't "logically" reasoned anything, as the entire position is a giant non sequitor - you have no

​

evidence or reason to define "god" this way except for your own opinion (and likely pre-existing faith).

---

Hold on I HAVE done a lot of thinking, just not here thats all, you have no idea what I have done to get to mydefinition, I just haven't presented much yet because I am going in stages, I have a whole thesis to present.Remember at this stage I am not trying to prove ANYTHING.

quote:

---

Why, if a "god" exists, must it be both omnipotent and omniscient? Be specific.

---

God would have to be a God of ultimate power with ultimate power, simply because without total power God could notBE God by my definition.For God to be God by my definition, it would require that God would know and see all possibilities. Because of thiswe can understand how God must know and see everything.

quote:

---

Why, if a "god" exists, could it not be as other faiths have defined gods - simply much more powerful and

​

knowledgeable (note - not always more wise) than human beings. Be specific.

---

It really doesn't matter what other faiths define God as, if their definition isn't whatever the ultimate possiblebeing/thing IS, then they are not defining the supreme being based on my definition.

quote:

---

If you add "created the universe" to your definition of god (you didn't in your OP), you might be closer in

​

requiring omnipotence, but the fact is such an entity could still be incapable of manipulating reality on smaller

​

scales like human lives - you simply have no idea. Hell, it could even have some ridiculous limit put on its power,

​

like the Genie from Disney's Aladdin: penominal, cosmic power, but constrained to exist in a tiny space.

---

Well I would say that the god u describe could not be the God I have defined, the only limits my GOD may have, areonly thoughs limits imposed on or by itself, but would have the ability to take thoughs limits away if it choosesalso. My definition of GOD remember says that it would see all possibilities, and have total control over them, somy GOD would be able to manipulate anything.

quote:

---

And then you still need to deal with omniscience. Does a deity really require omniscience to qualify as a deity? The Romans, Greeks, and Egyptians certainly didn't think so. Why do you believe your "ULTIMATE GOD" requires this, if you're making a generic definition not based on a specific religion?

---

No, omniscience is not required to qualify as a deity. But we are not just talking about any old deity but the ultimate possible being/thing, who knows everything because he sees all possibilities.

quote:

---

I contend that you're just putting forth the Christian god (or Allah, it really doesn't make a difference), which you already believe in, and stripping it of specific identification in an attempt to gain validation for the idea that your god must "logically" be the only definition for "god."

​

It's no different from the IDists, and when it comes down to it, without a specific religion to even base your deity around tradition, you're just saying "my invisible friend's name is Bob, and this is what he looks like."

---

Well you can contend anything you like, but I will not be bringing any religious ideas into this topic. I want to discuss MY definition of God. If someone else wants to give us their definition of God thats fine. But I think my definition is probably the single best definition of GOD that there is.

Dear Chiroptera,

quote:

---

The problem is that one cannot figure out what God actually is (if there is an actual God) by making up

​

definitions or by thinking about it. One can only figure out what God actually is by actually examining a real god

​

in front of you.

---

Well I have to disagree, before ANYTHING can be discussed things NEED to be defined. And science is all aboutdefining things so they can be studied. However we do not NEED something to be infront of us to think about ordefine, for example scientists have been trying to define things like the so called Oort cloud which no-one hasseen yet. What I am doing is working out what GOD would be scientifically, all theories start with an assumption,my assumption is that if GOD exists, it would be the ultimate possible being/thing.

quote:

---

I don't have any idea what "ultimate possible being" even means.

---

I don't think it is necessary to totally understand what this means, only that if God exists God would be it.

quote:

---

Again, I don't have the faintest idea of what it means for anything to be the highest thing or anything that

​

anyone can get. You are using ill-defined concepts in your proposed definition.

---

Well the definition I used is, a GOD Who knows and see all possibilities, and has total control over them. Alsohaving the power to bring any possibility that it chooses into existence. I think this is a very clear definitionof what the ultimate possible being/thing is.

Dear PurpleYouko,Most of your post does not apply to my definition of GOD as it explains WHY God is Omniscient in the first place, "Who knows and see all possibilities, and has total control over them". This is sort of what you talk about near the end of your post, however you reasoning is faulty.My God not only knows all possibilities but can bring any possibility it chooses into existence. You maybe right by predicting something and it maybe correct in some other universe, but can you bring it about in this universe or ALL universes, that would be true omniscience.My God CAN be both omniscient and omnipotent quite easily, if God knows all possiblities he can just manipulate the universe to bring about whatever possibility it chooses. God would never be wrong because whatever possibility God chooses will be the reality by default.By the way why couldn't an all powerful being put limits on itself, I would think it could. Putting limits on yourself does not make you wrong, infact an all knowing being would need to know how to control its power.

quote:

---

It's like the old adage. Can God make a boulder so big that he can't lift it?

---

I can answer this, but that answer is for another time.

Dear Stile, Well I will eventually present you with some interesting stuff, that might just change your mind.

quote:

---

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?

---

Maybe, I was just tring to explain in terms we can understand what my definition of GOD MIGHT be, but theassumption is based on the idea that GOD would be the ultimate possible being/thing. I cannot say exactly WHAT GODis if it is the best or not, all I maintain is that GOD whatever it is, is the ultimate possible being/thing.

quote:

---

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?

---

Well maybe God needs to "lift" EVERYTHING. But the real point is why should GOD be infinite. One reason could be,as their are an infinite number of possibilities, if GOD knows them all, GOD would need to be infinite.

quote:

---

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.

---

Well I think its possible to figure out certain qualities of God, and it seems more likely that an ultimate being,would have ultimate power. As a strong God would logically be "better" than a weak god.

quote:

---

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.

---

But you don't believe he exists, so your argument here doesn't stack up. Scientists define what HUMANS are all thetime, I am just trying to define GOD the same way. Like I have said before, if someone is to attempt to provesomething, it is important to define terms first, respect has nothing to do with anything.

Dear subbie,

quote:

---

Basically, it sounds like this whole thread boils down to, "If I define god to have attributes x, y and z, then for any being to be god under my definition, it must have attributes x, y and z."

​

If you can't see the complete uselessness of such a statement, I don't think there's anything that anyone here can help you with.

---

Well I invite you to come up with your own definition of GOD, as before we can argue whether GOD exists or not, we need to define what GOD is.My definition of God defines GOD as above and beyond any other so called god, that is WHY I CAN claim that unless any other god has the same attributes it CANNOT BE GOD.If you can define a GOD that is above or beyond my GOD then that can be used as the definition of GOD. I have defined GOD in the best way I can, if you can do better please try.

Dear reiverix,

quote:

---

The trumpet blowing sky fairy who lives in my apple tree has all the characteristics of your god except he is better at chess.

​

Don't you see where this can go? I can create any being I want and need no proof if I use your line of thinking.

---

You can call GOD whatever you want, if you wanna call God The trumpet blowing sky fairy thats OK.I AM NOT TRYING TO PROVE ANYTHING yet.Do you agree with my definition of GOD or not?Edited by rulerofthisuniverse, : spelling mistake

Dear NosyNed,Can I ask, do you agree with my definition of GOD or not?

Dear Phat,It's great to be here, but no sooner do I reply to someone, another 3 or 4 posts have appeared. It's gonna take me awhile to get though everything.

quote:

---

I have some questions for you. First of all, what do you mean by the ultimate possible Being or Thing? Is this Being knowable? (If so, I am sure it would be on His terms rather than on our terms!) Also...if this God that you describe has total control over everything, what is left for us to do?

---

I cannot tell you EXACTLY what the UPB/T is, but I do think that we can to some degree deduce some of the overall qualities that God based on my definition would have. Remember just because GOD has total control, does not necessarily mean he WILL control everything. Well this is an example, I reasoned first what GOD is. I came to the conclusion that GOD must be something that is above and beyond all other things, regardless of whether those other things actually exist or not. From this idea I came to the conclusion that if a GOD did exist it would literally be the ULTIMATE POSSIBLE BEING/THING. I then began to think about the way this GOD could be the UPB/T in the first place. The UPB/T would likely require at least two things, power and knowledge of somekind, so I then took these to their extremes because an UPB/T would clearly have extreme qualities by its very nature. So now I had a UPB/T with ultimate power and infinite wisdom. I then asked myself how this UPB/T could know everything. I reasoned, that we as humans can think about certain possibilities, and we can make some of these possibities happen. If we can do this in a limited way, then perhaps this UPB/T could do it in an unlimited way, pehaps this UPB/T could see all possibilities. If you could see all possibilities then by definition you would KNOW everything. Based on that reasoning then I defined GOD as 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.

Dear Phat,

quote:

---

RTU, let me clarify where you are coming from, if I may.

​

Are you saying that God is totally logical, definable, and believable? Without using the term, God, we could say that there is an absolute reality of supreme logic and that you are attempting to introduce this possibility for others to discuss?

---

Almost, I do think GOD can be defined in a logical way, by extention then God would be logical as well. I am attempting to discuss something that is totally new, I am not 100% sure that even I fully understand it all. This is why some people here believe some of the things I have said amount to circuler reasoning, it is not really, it is simply because they do not understand my definitions yet, and the fact that I have only given limited bits of information so far.

quote:

---

If so, I will respect the idea that this supreme Being of logic is itself immune from critique by other sources of logic since it, (the idea) by definition is the source of logic. Am I understanding you correctly?

---

Well the being may be logical, but that doesn't stop anyone from arguing against it. I think it is safe to argue against it if you can, but if the arguments themselves aren't logical then it doesn't matter.

Dear Rahvin,

quote:

---

Congratulations: you've established circular reasoning.

​

"God has these characteristics becasue I say he does. I say he has these characteristics because that's how I define God."

---

Not so! I have defined GOD and I have now also given reasons for why the UPB/T has certain qualities, my GOD has thoughs attributes by necessity, not because I said so. If you want to discuss the GOD I define then you cannot use any other example that doesn't have thoughs same attributes. Or you can argue against my definition of GOD by putting forward your own. What you could also do is show that my definition of the UPB/T does not require it to be a God of ultimate power, with ultimate power or a God of infinite wisdom, that sees and knows everything, and that knows and sees all possibilities.

quote:

---

You can argue that your definition of god is your definition of god all you want, but it doesn't have any relevance to reality. You're establishing your definition of god based on what you think god should be like, but you're literally picking an idea from your head and exclaiming "this is what god is." If you define god as "a miniature giant space hamster" or "the flying spaghetti monster," anything that is not a miniature giant space hamster or the flying spaghetti monster would also not be god "by your definition."

​

Let's try a little exercise: I define blue as green. You can argue that blue is not green all you like, but blue is still green by my definition. So there.

---

You can call GOD whatever you like, that is not the point, you fail to understand what makes MY GOD, ALMIGHTY GOD as it were. It is in the definition itself, "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." If this applies to the flying spaghetti monster then it really IS GOD. But this IS my point, only a God that can know all possibilities and can control them WOULD BE GOD, unless you have a better definition of GOD then you cannot even claim that my definition is not relevent to reality.Your exercise is meaningless because we are talking about What GOD is not what colours are.The rest of your post is just insults and innuendoes. I am not here to engage in such behavior, so I will skip everything else as there are more people I need to respond to.