The definition of GOD

TO EVERYONE,So far no-one has given an alternative definition of God without resorting to some form of theological idea. Someone has even quoted a wiki defintion of "deity", However I am not discussing a deity, I am discussing something higher.To clairify, my definition of GOD is this;GOD = THE ULTIMATE POSSIBLE BEING/THING = Who knows and sees all possibilities, and has total control over them. Also having the power to bring any possibility that it chooses into existence.This UPB/T has at least these two qualities/natures which qualify it as GOD;1. A God of ultimate power, with ultimate power.
2. A God of infinite wisdom, that sees and knows everything, and that knows and sees all possibilities.What I want is for you guys to,1. Come up with your own definition of GOD that does not include any theological ideas, or a better definition than mine.
2. Show how any of the qualities above do not apply to my definition
3. Show that GOD would not be the ultimate possible being/thingDoing the above will help to falsify my definition of GOD.If you cannot do the above, then why do you not agree with my definition?Also you you agree that my definition of GOD is a possibility?I do not want comments that say this has no relevence in reality, those comments have no relevence to me. I am not arguing WHETHER GOD exists, just what would GOD BE if we were actually going to attempt to prove its existence.

You really have to explain what qualifies I AM as GOD.

Dear Chiroptera,

quote:

---

Well, no one has to do any such thing. These are criteria that you have arbitrarily set for yourself -- there is no reason for anyone else to accept these criteria as necessary in any conception of god. To me, the only necessary criteria for a definition of God is that it is possible for such a being to exist, and that it approximates in some degree with people's conception of God.

---

Well you certainly don't have to DO anything, but you miss the whole point of what I am doing. I have stated that I am attempting to define GOD in a scientific and logical way (regardless of whether GOD itself is logical or scientific). So I have defined What I believe is a valid definition of a supreme intelligence, like all theories we have to start somewhere.To be a scientific theory it needs to be falsified, that is why I have given examples to show how my theory can be falsified. All I am doing at this point is to establish that my definition of this supreme intelligence is the correct definition OF GOD. Not a GOD based on any theological concept, but a GOD defined by logic (What would God ACTUALLY be rather than what we BELIEVE it to be).

quote:

---

That is why I suggested my own definition. There is a powerful being who may have interacted with humans in the past, and the sacred scriptures that we have may be some sort of record (perhaps not entirely reliable) of this interaction. My definition fits my criteria -- it is possible that such a being did exist (although I personally believe that it did not), and since many people believe in their sacred scriptures, then my definition fits their conception of god to some degree.

---

This is why you are struggling to understand my logical concept of GOD, because you can only define God using theological concepts. I would of thought that someone who doesn't believe in these theological constructs would love a chance to actually help define GOD using purely logical means, without the need of including any religious belief. Isn't that what Atheists and others have been complaining about for so long, that religious beliefs about God get in the way.

quote:

---

You're making it difficult because it's plainly obvious that you are only really familiar with the Christian god. Because of this you are setting terms about what god should be, according to your Christian mindset.

​

I mean have you ever studied Apollo or Athena? There's a whole world of gods out there but you want to make the rules about what a supreme being is. It's like you are laying down a sequence of questions and answers that will eventually end with 'Aha I told you my god exists'.

---

I am not making it difficult at all, the definition of GOD I present is easy to understand, and I have given ways in which to show how my definition is wrong.It doesn't matter what I believe or indeed what you believe, what matters is whether my definition of God is a valid definition of whatever this sumpreme being might actually be.As for Apollo or Athena, once again, before arguing whether or not these are gods or whether they even exist or not, you need to define what God means in the first place. Of course by my definition, if Apollo or Athena do not have the same attributes as the UPB/T then they are not the supreme intelligence I am attempting to define.

Dear dogrelata,

quote:

---

By definition, all possibilities must include the possibility that the entity to which you allude does not in fact exist. Do you agree?

---

YES absolutely. This idea is jumping the gun a bit however. Hopefully I will get to this at some point, but for now all that I can discuss at this point is my definition.

Dear Chiroptera,

quote:

---

Actually, your concept is extremely theological. I mean, when you start using words like "ultimate being" and the like, then you're engaging in theology. When you simply postulate things like omnipotence or omniscience without any real evidence that such things exist, then you are talking theology. When you make up definitions without reference to phenomena that occur in reality, that's theology.

​

Now, my definition is non-theological. "A being or beings may have interacted with humans, and the myths of the Bible may be based on these interactions." This is non-theological. It is simply wondering whether the Bible (or other people's scriptures) may have a grain of historical truth to them. It is on the same level as, say, Erich von Dniken or Immanuel Velikovsky, people whose ideas, I dare say, are definitely not theological.

---

Well this is a non-argument, as it is quite clear when I talk about theological ideas I mean religious beliefs. And of course I still have to use english words that everybody understands to get the point across, so the chances are that regardless of what words I use to describe GOD you will probably argue that its somekind of theology, which detracts from the actual points being made. Infact someone else said even the word GOD was theological, but of course saying things like that totally miss the point.

Dear PurpleYouko,

quote:

---

No I don't believe my reasoning is faulty at all. I think it more likely that you are missing my point to some degree. It is a kind of tricky concept that I am trying to get across.
Knowing and seeing all possibilities certainly sounds like omniscience.
However, in the realm of infinite alternate realities in which a new reality branches off for each decision made by each person, EVERY possibility is true somewhere and all universes are equally real. How do you define THIS universe when this universe will branch into a massive number of alternates before the foreknown event comes to pass. From our present point, ALL of those possibilities are THIS universe. Only down certain branches have been made will the different potential outcomes become limited.
The problem comes when the act of KNOWING (with absolute certainty) what WILL happen down each and every one of these pathways, fixes them in stone and makes them unchangeable. If they can be changed then they are not knowable.

---

Of course everything you say maybe be true, only IF THERE ARE infinite alternate realities. However, as my GOD sees and know all POSSIBILITIES and can bring about any possibility it chooses into existence, there is only ever need for ONE reality. So again your ideas do not apply to my definition of GOD.It may be helpful here to define some more words,POSSIBILITY = Something (A concept, prospect or potential), that has a capability of being true, happening or existing.
EXISTENCE = A specific presence, occurrence or an idea, that has progressed, from possibility to actuality.

quote:

---

Are you talking voluntary limits? i.e. choosing not to do certain things. kind of like i choose not to cause the nuclear reactor that I work at, to melt down and kill everybody around it?

---

Yes thats sounds about right, just please don't let that nuclear reactor melt down.

Dear Buzsaw,

quote:

---

Hi ROTU. Welcome to EvC. In your OP you didn't state whether you didn't state which god you are identifying. There have been thousands; likely millions of gods throughout human history.

---

Thankyou, its good to be here.I am not identifying an particular God, what my definition attempts to do, is define WHAT a supreme intelligence would ACTUALLY be, what definition of God would be scientifically acceptable, with out resorting to any given religious view.

Dear ICANT,

quote:

---

I thought the term was self explanatory.

​

As I understand it it is all inclussive.

​

Which would be everyting that ever was, is, or ever will be.

---

Unfortunately, I AM to a scientist is just two words, and to many other people its meaningless. What I am asking is when you come up with a definition of GOD, you also need to explain the definition.What I would also ask is would this I AM have the same qualities as my definition? if yes why, and if no why?

Dear subbie,

quote:

---

And I would have thought that by now you would understand that it's the position of those who have responded to you that you cannot define god without religious concepts, since the very notion of god itself is a religious one. Instead, you simply keep repeating your queer notion that it's possible to define god without using religion in any way.

---

Yes I understand the position of others, I just maintain that they are wrong thats all. The idea that there is an intelligence greater than ours is certainly not religious. Infact we KNOW there are things less intelligent than us, so it stands to reason that there is likely to be a greater intelligence than us somewhere. This is not a religious belief but it is a logic based on reality.

quote:

---

Rather than endlessly saying the same thing over and over, perhaps you need to address the contention that god can be defined completely separate from religion.

---

Well the fact that my definition of GOD is devoid of any religion, and the fact that I have argued my case without the need for any religion, pretty much proves the point.

Dear Rahvin,Your still missing the point, the "ULTIMATE POSSIBLE" covers everything you can think of, thats the point, it actually eliminates your arguments at the source. The point is not what you can think up, but whatever the ultimate possible thing is, thats what it is.For example logically you cannot have a being that knows everything plus one, it is illogical to think that. All my definition does is take an all knowing and all powerful being, and concluding that well it's impossible to get anything better than an all knowing and all powerful being, therefore whatever that being is, it would be the ultimate possible being.

Dear Chiroptera,

quote:

---

But that isn't what you are doing. If you were proceeding in a scientific manner, then you would be defining god as part of an overall theory to explain some sort of phenomenon. What phenomenon are you trying to explain?

---

Actually I am, I just haven't told you what phenomenon I am going to explain yet. The phenomenon I am going to explain is EXISTENCE.

quote:

---

But this is what you are doing -- you are letting religious beliefs get in your way. I don't know whether these are your religious beliefs, but you are certainly basing your "definition" on the religious beliefs that you have heard. There is no reason to begin by describing god with words like "ultimate" or "above everything" -- in fact, since these words are rather vague (I certainly don't know what they mean), they are only going to contribute to confusion.

---

Well the first bit of your paragraph is nonsense, as I will remind you once again I am not agruing from ANY religious point of view.As for the second part, a simple look in a dictionary will clarify the words you are having problems with.

quote:

---

Can you point to the posts where you gave these examples? I must have been reading too fast and missed them.

---

No need for you to look I'll repeat them here.

quote:

---

What makes it the "correct" definition? "Correct" in which context? What questions are you trying to investigate?

---

Well I suppose I am looking to see if my definition is internally consistent for one, making it a valid definition of whatever its describing. And then seeing whether my definition applies to whatever GOD actually may be.The rest of your post does not help as it IS religious in nature,

quote:

---

Consider my definition: God is the being which interacted with humans and whose interaction with humans formed the basis of the myths which are recorded in the Bible.

---

God interacting with humans is a BELIEF. It therefore cannot be a scientically valid definition, like the one I am presenting.

Dear PurpleYouko,I hope others take a leaf out of your book, you understand the need to define things first before we can move on. And I am glad you accept my definitions of possibility and existence.As for your definitions, I don't see any problems with your definition of Omniscient. However I am not sure your definition of omnipotent is the same as my idea of what it is. The dictionary says things like "almighty or infinite in power", "having very great or unlimited authority or power", "having absolute, unlimited power". So I get the sense that an Omniscient being has authority to do whatever BECAUSE of the POWER it has, ie, a force or energy. So When I say Omniscient I mean it in terms of its power, which I think would give it the authority to do absolutely anything, but as I think we have already discussed this Omniscient being may put limits on itself.What do you think?While we are defining things may I throw in another definition that may come in useful later on in this discussion,POSSIBILITY SPACE(S) = Anything that can include possibilities, i.e., a universe, a dimension, or thought itself.

Dear Catholic Scientist,

quote:

---

Why does the supreme intellegence have to be omnipotent?

​

That is just a religious view from the idea of god being all-mighty.

​

But it is not a necessity.

---

Well according to my definition, the UPB/T knows and see all possibilities, and has total control over them. As there are an infinite number of possibilities, it would require that the UPB/T be omnipotent so that he could have total control of them.No religious view needed in my definition, Just pure logic and reason.

Dear reiverix,

quote:

---

Then maybe a better definition of a god is a being that can convince everyone, with no exceptions, that he is a god.

---

Well that assumes to much, If a God exists why would it need to convince anyone else it exists, as it already knows it exists, to this God it would be self evident.