The definition of GOD

Science is most certainly not simply about defining things. Science is about collecting evidence through observation, making generalizations based on that evidence, then testing those generalizations by further observation.While the Oort cloud has never been directly observed, that doesn't mean that scientists are sitting around making shit up about it. What they are doing is theorizing properties it may have based on what has in fact been observed.Finally, theories don't start with assumptions. They start with observations.

---

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

In this hypothetical book scenario, given that the book is already written, do we as characters have any say on how our roles play out in a Chapter by Chapter, Page by Page analogy?

​

If not, we could well conclude that regardless of what we decide on a daily basis, our fate is etched in eternity regardless of our logic or belief.

I didn't mean to get overly bogged down in the idea of fate here, but yes- for a god to be omniscient, I'd think we would have to be confined to a foretold or pre-set path.
Before you grill me too much about this one, I'll say that I don't believe that there is an omnipotent and/or omniscient being.

This is half true. But the definitions are based on theories that are constructed on the basis of observable phenomena. In science, one doesn't just define things and then begin to study them; the definitions are part of the theories, and the theories (along with the definitions) are based on trying to understand observations made in the real world.- Then God hasn't been defined. You define terms using terms that are already understood. Otherwise you're just stringing a bunch of words together with in a way that there is no coherent meaning.- That's fine. But definitions need to be useful in that they help us understand the world around us, or they are part of a theoretical framework that describes what we actually experience in the world. Does you definition really help any of us to understand anything? To me, it just seems like a bunch of words strung together.What you are doing is something like: "I define SHERLOCK HOLMES to be a Victorian era detective who lived in London and had amazing powers of observation and deduction." Great -- that is exactly what Arthur Conan Doyle did. But Sherlock Holmes is a completely fictional character. He may have been a pretty good read, but he certainly has nothing to do with the real world.To me, it's more profitable to base the definition on the phenomenon that one is studying. For example, if one is convinced that the Bible is a record (perhaps imperfect) of some being's interaction with humans, then one can define God to be the being described in the Bible. Then one can begin to study this being, to find out whether it really exists or existed, and what other attributes it may have had.Or if one believes that the universe exhibits so much order that it had to have an intelligent creator, one can define God to be the creator of the universe. Then one can try to figure out what other attributes it may have or might have had.

---

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

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?

You definition of god tells me exactly nothing. It is a collection of words with no value to me at all.

If you are trying to describe the biblical god, then yes.

"ULTIMATE GOD?" Sounds like a comic book or toy gimmick.
You don't even want to get started on what names sound funny.
The big bang theory. I mean, come on, that's not exactly very original. It sounds like a theory made up by a two year old.

Well, I had a proposal.God is the being that interacted with human beings, an interaction which formed the basis for the myths found in the Bible and perhaps other people's scriptures.This definition is pretty concrete, and it's conceivable that evidence can be found to allow us to conclude one way or another whether this being existed.And if we can conclude that this being existed, perhaps the evidence will allow us to make other conclusions about its nature.

---

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

Wikipedia gives this definition:

quote:

---

A deity is a postulated preternatural or supernatural being, who is always of significant power, [and is] worshipped, thought holy, divine, or sacred, held in high regard, or respected by human beings.

---

As far as I'm concerned, anything beyond that is quibbling over details that vary from one postulated being to another, and are rather irrelevant unless and until the existence of such a being has been established, or at least until sufficient evidence of such existence has been presented to make the existence even reasonably likely.

---

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

Oddly enough, the term was coined by Fred Hoyle, the big name behind what was called the "steady state theory," as a derisive remark - literally, he referred to it as "this big bang idea" on a radio broadcast.It was simple, so it stuck.I would have called it something like the "expansion theory" or the "Hubble model," and avoided all of the nonsense misconceptions that the Universe started with something akin to a gunpowder explosion...but that's me.

---

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