|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The definition of GOD | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
rulerofthisuniverse Member (Idle past 5899 days) Posts: 106 Joined: |
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/thing Doing 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
rulerofthisuniverse Member (Idle past 5899 days) Posts: 106 Joined: |
ROTU writes: 1. Come up with your own definition of GODquote: You really have to explain what qualifies I AM as GOD.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
rulerofthisuniverse Member (Idle past 5899 days) Posts: 106 Joined: |
Dear Chiroptera,
quote: 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: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
rulerofthisuniverse Member (Idle past 5899 days) Posts: 106 Joined: |
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
rulerofthisuniverse Member (Idle past 5899 days) Posts: 106 Joined: |
Dear dogrelata,
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
rulerofthisuniverse Member (Idle past 5899 days) Posts: 106 Joined: |
Dear Chiroptera,
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
rulerofthisuniverse Member (Idle past 5899 days) Posts: 106 Joined: |
Dear PurpleYouko,
quote: 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: Yes thats sounds about right, just please don't let that nuclear reactor melt down.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
rulerofthisuniverse Member (Idle past 5899 days) Posts: 106 Joined: |
Dear Buzsaw,
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
rulerofthisuniverse Member (Idle past 5899 days) Posts: 106 Joined: |
Dear ICANT,
quote: 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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
rulerofthisuniverse Member (Idle past 5899 days) Posts: 106 Joined: |
Dear subbie,
quote: 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: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
rulerofthisuniverse Member (Idle past 5899 days) Posts: 106 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
rulerofthisuniverse Member (Idle past 5899 days) Posts: 106 Joined: |
Dear Chiroptera,
quote: 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: 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: No need for you to look I'll repeat them here.
ROTU writes: 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/thing Doing 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? quote: 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: God interacting with humans is a BELIEF. It therefore cannot be a scientically valid definition, like the one I am presenting.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
rulerofthisuniverse Member (Idle past 5899 days) Posts: 106 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
rulerofthisuniverse Member (Idle past 5899 days) Posts: 106 Joined: |
Dear Catholic Scientist,
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
rulerofthisuniverse Member (Idle past 5899 days) Posts: 106 Joined: |
Dear reiverix,
quote: 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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024