The definition of GOD

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.

---

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

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.

Paraphrasing Arthur C. Clarke's third law:

quote:

---

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

---

I would arrive at:
Any sufficiently powerful sentience is indistinguishable from god.At some level of powerfulness we would not know if the entity was all powerful or not.At some level of intelligence we might also not know if the entity was intelligent or not.

Hello, Newbie! (I'm calling you RTU for short! ) 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?Welcome to EvC, by the way! This should be interesting! What is the source of your logic? One thing I might add. Either humans imagined/created all of the various Gods, GODS and gods that our species has collectively written and spoken about, or one or more of these Gods are actually real and imagined/created us long before we as a species were even able to conceptualize them.My logic says that One God is enough. Some may choose to challenge me on the grounds that their God is more logical than mine. Perhaps in the end, however, we are all talking about the same one! How would we ever gather any logic or evidence to prove that God exists? The only tangible evidence that I can see comes from an individuals intuitive and deductive capabilities. For the purpose of this discussion, I can allow that nothing can be declared as an absolute, but absolute hypothesis do need to be discussed.

---

"All that we call human history--money, poverty, ambition, war, prostitution, classes, empires, slavery--[is] the long terrible story of man trying to find something other than God which will make him happy."--C.S.Lewis
* * * * * * * * * *
“The world has achieved brilliance without wisdom, power without conscience. Ours is a world of nuclear giants and ethical infants.”--General Omar Bradley
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
"The free man owns himself. He can damage himself with either eating or drinking; he can ruin himself with gambling. If he does he is certainly a damn fool, and he might possibly be a damned soul; but if he may not, he is not a free man any more than a dog." -GK Chesterson

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."We know your definition is your definition. If that's all you think is relevant, and reality has nothing to do with it, feel free to continue describing your imaginary friend - it has no relevance to the real world, and nothing at ll to do with logic or reasoning. 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're like a child who'se been told that all opinions have equal value and cannot be wrong. Unfortunately, opinions can be wrong, and definitions with no basis in reality are irrelevant. Especially when they amount to a giant non sequitor on top of circular reasoning. Apparently you don't know what the word "logic" means. Here's a hit: it does not mean that you've "thought a lot" about something. Look up "logical fallacies" in google. Try to learn something. Here you go again, insisting that your defintion has validity becasue you've defined it. You can keep your definition of god, or fairies, or your imaginary friend Bob all you want - without any basis in objective reality, you're describing a fictional character you made up. ...and again. You haven't provided a reason your definition is correct and theirs were wrong - you simply state that their definition of god is not your definition of god. That's nice, but we knew that. What actual reason, outside of your own navel-grazing deep-thinking imagination and opinion, do you have for defining god this way? Why can god not simply be "an entity vastly more powerful than human beings who seems to work by magic?" Why can god not be defined as "a fictional entity I made up?""Because I said so" is not a good argument. That's how 8-year-olds argue. Or how adults argue with 8-year-olds. "My god's bigger than your god! So there!"Are you actually a child? Youre acting like a kid arguing whether Superman could beat Thor (who, amusingly enough, is actually considered a deity). Once again, youre saying that your definition is valid becasue that's how you've defined it. "Becasue I said so" is no argument. Why is your definition the "best?" Is it because you make your god the very bestest, and could kick any other god's butt, even Thor? Or is it because it bears the closest resemblance to reality?So far, you've only done the former. The latter would require you to give reasons beyond "I said so." If all you're looking for is validation of your idea of the very bestest, strongest, smartest imaginary friend, you've come to the wrong place.

---

When you know you're going to wake up in three days, dying is not a sacrifice. It's a painful inconvenience.

I see what you are saying, and agree with you that God cannot be rationally proven, although God can be rationally accepted.If we had an imaginary room full of people who sought through debate and logical deduction to explore this topic, we would almost certainly conclude with the idea that God could not be proved or even defined. Such is the nature of the brains He gave us. (IMB, of course.)I think that RTU will have a tough time establishing any unquestionable logic on the existence of God, but we can have a rational discussion on the possibility. Rahvin, do you personally believe that "God" could be possible? If so, is this "God" that you imagine a product of your own mind or is He an undefinable possibility outside of human logic and reason?

Though I don't agree with the OP's definition, I think your logic is a tad flawed. What if omniscience arose as a consequence of omnipotence: god knows the outcome of all events because he chose the outcomes. Sort of like an author knowing the end to his own book.

Thoughts are sequential. When I examine your premises, they are all logical in one regard. One question to consider, for the moment:

Must God follow the rules of logic, or does God define logic?

​

In other words, lets look at the issue of the rock.

​

Can God....(The God we are now defining or revealing, as the belief may be) make a rock so big He cannot lift it?

​

Well...several possible points to ponder.

​

Can a human create something that is more powerful than they are? Yes.

Can we modify it so as to gain control over it at some future point in time? Yes.

​

Nuclear Weapons are often thought of as a proverbial genie let out of the box. The verdict is still out on whether we humans have regained control over this rock that is bigger than we are.

​

But back to God.

​

Perhaps we should ask this: If God is infinitely powerful, could He create something more powerful than He is? (Infinity + )

​

Some folks argue that our free will is something that even God cannot control. (or will not, assuming He can do anything. )

​

I may be drifting a bit off topic, though....so lets get back to our focus on a working definition of God that we all can perhaps agree on...( or not. )

quote:

---

you have no idea what I have done to get to my definition

---

Maybe this is the problem. Tell us please.

And look at the gods that were worshipped by the ancient peoples. They were simply super-powered beings, not infinitely powerful, or infinitely intelligent, and often not even immortal.I believe that the idea of a transcendent god was an creation of the classical Greeks, but I might be wrong. I'm not sure whether this transcendent God was then adopted by the pre-Christian Jews, or whether it was first mixed with the Jewish religion by the Jesus cult as they were formulating Christianity. But I digress.That is why we have to be careful about the definition of God. We need to start with a minimal definition, and then try to figure out what attributes this god has.For example, does one believe that a being created the universe, and then interacted with humanity as related in the ancient scriptures? Then one could either define god as the being who created the universe, and then try to figure out whether the ancient scriptures really do describe this being's interactions with people. Or one could by starting with the definition that God is the being described in the scriptures. Then one can try to figure out whether this being really did create the universe.This is what one needs to do. Start with a minimal definition. Then, once one is convinced that this being really does exist, one can try to discover its other attributes.

---

Spare a thought for the stay-at-home voter;
His empty eyes gaze at strange beauty shows
And a parade of the gray suited grafters:
A choice of cancer or polio. -- The Rolling Stones

Given evidence, sure. Blind faith without evidence however is not rational. Not without appealing to the authority of a specific religious text or the entity itself stepping into our conversation and saying "no, no, this is what I am." I agree. Of course "god" could possibly exist. It all depends on how you define what "god" is, as RTU is trying to do - he at least has that part right. If you define "god" as "an entity with environment or even reality-changing abilities so far beyond human comprehension as to appear to be magical," such a definition is sufficiently generic as to not be beyond possibility. Logic puzzles aside, even the omnipotent deity RTU suggests is possible.But then, it's entirely possible that my invisible friend Bob is real, too - you just can't see him.There's a very large difference between accepting that something may possibly exist and actually believing that it does exist. Without evidence, the latter is irrational.Another problem is simply that all of this waxing poetic about what a deity "may be" is nothing mroe than navel grazing. We can imagine and think all we want, but until we have something to go on, some sort of evidence, there can be no defineable characteristics to assign to "god." Until then, he's a concept - nothing more.

---

When you know you're going to wake up in three days, dying is not a sacrifice. It's a painful inconvenience.

"God", singular, is a religious concept of monotheism. You cannot define a religious concept without the use of anything religious, by definition. Your use of the word "God" inevitably indicates religious preference for monotheism, as does your definition.You are already using something religious, while maintaining that you're not.

Let me have a try at a working definition. God is the Creator of all matter and energy seen and unseen. God is the source. Human wisdom, which some say is all that we really have, allows us to speculate on Biological origins, Cosmological origins and philosophical origins. keep in mind that for many aith/belief people, empiricism is not a necessity. Of course, some folks will state that they have had an epiphany or an impartation from God, and, without trying to sound egotistical or exclusivist, may use this as their justification for evidence. They have a subjective standard, however, so in the interests of this debate, it may be well to assume that they did, in fact, have such an impartation and go from there! Edited by Phat, : added

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.

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?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?