The definition of GOD

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.

None is more acceptable than any of the others from a scientific point of view absent evidence showing it to be more likely than the others.

---

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

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.

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?

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

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.

God being omnipotent is a religious belief.

Let's try it this way. Maybe you'll understand what we mean:

quote:

---

Below is my definition of a blasmophreeb. 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?

​

Blasmophreeb = THE ULTIMATE POSSIBLE GROTUS = Has more tentacles, teeth, and phurbles than any other grotus, and can make zurms come into existence through nothing but it's willpower.

​

I look forward to you comments.

---

If you say "what about the Greek's version of the blasmophreeb? It didn't have tentacles."I could respond "That wouldn't be my definition of a blasmophreeb."Do you see? You're pulling your definition of god out of thin air, with nothing to base it on but your own imagination (which I still contend is defined by your existing religious beliefs). You arent using logic. It has nothing to do with science.You're picking a word and making up a definition, which is fine, but you can't claim your definition has any greater validity than anyone else's definition unless you are basing your definition on an observation from reality or at the very least a legend, myth, or religion.You're saying "god" should mean an entity with literally unlimited knowledge and control over reality. When you're told that the word "god" does not necessarily require either of those qualitites, you respond with "nuh uh!" You aren't putting forth much of a position here.

---

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

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.

That god must be the ultimate possible being is a religious belief.

And you're still missing my point. You aren't basing your definition on anything except your own mental masturbation. That being the case, literally any definition of "god" is exactly as valid as yours. If I define the word "god" to be "a space kitten from southern Nebraska," I'm basing that definition on exactly as much information as you are: nothing.You can define "god" however you want, but it's still meaningless until you base that definition on something.If you define "god" as the Christian deity, you're basing it on something, and when other deities are pointed out it is valid to say "but that's not the Christian god."If you define "god" as your own personal idea of what "god" should be with no basis for that opinion, then other views of "god" would not be "your god" but would still be just as valid as your view. Oh? What logical fallacy is present in the statement "god = infinite power + 1?" Be specific. That's a nice circular sentence - the ultimate possible being is the ultimate possible being. Very nice. But why do you define "god" that way when there are many examples of people defining "god" without those characteristics? Why is your definition more valid?Here's a hint: it's not. Without anything to base your definition on, your definition is meaningless. You may as well describe your imaginary friend Bob.

---

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

I'm going to use the adjective wankery as often as I can from now on: you've made my day

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.