The definition of GOD

Your argument only makes sense if your premises do.First: If there is no possibility of God existing, then he will exist in 0 possibility spaces. Whether or not there is a possibility of God existing or not is unknown, and there is no way of knowing what the probability is that the possibility exists. Because of this flaw, we can only conclude that God may or may not exist. Which we already knew.Second: There is no reason to believe that there are an infinite amount possibility spaces or possibilities. You have shown that an infinite number of abstract entities can exist in principle (ie numbers). As such, at best, you have demonstrated that an abstraction of God is possible. We know that already.Third: A possibility cannot affect other possibility spaces, unless it actually exists. Just because in some possibility spaces there exists a God, does not actually mean that God actually exists and can do anything. The possibility of God is inert and has no power to influence possibility. Thus you have shown that there exists a possibility that in certain possibility spaces a being that has complete power over possibility is a possibility, and thus you have shown that God may or may not exist. Once again, we already knew this.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

I know what the words mean. I'm just pointing out that these are all subjective qualities, that is, what constitutes "best", "greatest", and so forth is going to depend on the person using the words.For example, I think that the best being is one that is very limited in power. This seems different from what you think the best being is. That is a problem. As long as we have different ideas about what constitutes the "ultimate being", there is going to be a lot of ambiguity.

---

If I had a million dollars, I'd buy you a monkey.
Haven't you always wanted a monkey?
-- The Barenaked Ladies

Okay, now I have a question for you since you're claiming to be doing things scientifically:Now that you've presented your "theory", how do we test it? What experiments or observations can we make in the real world to determine that this god actually exists?

---

If I had a million dollars, I'd buy you a monkey.
Haven't you always wanted a monkey?
-- The Barenaked Ladies

It seems that almost everyone who has responded to you on this thread has been accused of misunderstanding you at some point or another. I put it to you that any intelligent human would start to question their own ability to accurately articulate what they mean if they are so often finding themselves misunderstood. I hate having to go all the way back to Message 143 to clarify to you the context in which you made the statement. However, for the record, the paragraph in question starts with the words, “Notice that my definition ONLY deals with things which are POSSIBLE”. You make it very clear that your definition includes things that are possible . and one of the things you declare to be possible, later in the very same paragraph is, “So it is POSSIBLE that GOD may not know/do everything”.You have set context and you have volunteered one of the possibilities that is included with your definition. If you wish to change the above statement so that it does not contradict the statement that “God knows and sees ALL possibilities”, then please do so. Otherwise my “false assumption” remains as valid as it did at the time it was made - as does my equation. That’s a big statement to make for someone who defines their supergod as something that knows all and can do all but may choose to limit its knowledge or abilities as it sees fit. You want to turn this into a scientific rather than faith-based debate, so please present your evidence to back up the statement that I am not your defined supergod. Well of course you wouldn’t, but you attempt to do so just the same.

It isn't logical that God could exist 'logically, scientifically and mathematically', as well as 'wise, most powerful and strongest'.
The first definition is not human and the second one is. I do not believe anyone believes god is human, so given the scientific definition, could god be POTENTIAL?

I'm not sure if anyone agreed with this definition. Most people only agreed that this would be the ultimate God we're capable of imagining, not that this actually described God. Yes, agreed, we're capable of imagining God. But we do not know that any particular God (especially an infinite one) is actually possible in our reality. Agreed. But direct contradiction is not the only way. Another way is by 'not enough information.' For example, I can imagine 500,000 tons of gold. There is no contradiction, it's certainly possible (as in, imaginable). But if this amount of gold does not exist in the universe, then my imagination does not actually exist. In fact, if there is not 500,000 tons of gold in the universe, or enough resources to create 500,000 tons of gold in the universe, then the possibility (even though there's no obvious contradiction) is actually impossible in our universe. We can't know either way, though, since we currently are unable to know how much gold this universe is capable of holding.Equally, we don't know how much God this universe is capable of holding either, if any at all. Therefore we cannot say that God certainly is a possibility. It may be that God simply cannot exist because our universe cannot support Him. It may be that God cannot exist outside our universe because outside our universe cannot support Him. Without knowing, we can't say that the being in our imaginations is actually possible in reality. True. Not true. Why would this be true? Especially when you're defining God as infinite. Let's use a simple analogy with numbers, with God representing infinite. Each 'universe' will contain one number. So we have the universe containing 1, the universe containing 2, the universe containing 3... and so on. We obviously have an infinite number of universes, as we have an infinite number of numbers. However, there is no single universe that actually contains the number 'infinite'. Every single universe contains a specific, defined number. There is no universe that contains 'infinite', and therefore, there is no requirement for there to be a universe that contains God, even if we have an infinite number of universes. Very true. God certainly could be something we can imagine that doesn't even exist in our reality. But we can keep going with this. If this God is the best and highest of everything, then there are more attributes we can logically asign:5. A God of ultimate identity, that leaves no confusion as to the possibility of His existence.Obviously, there is confusion of God's existence (this very post is evidence of such). Therefore, logically, this God does not exist. Otherwise, I'd have no confusion over His existence. If we do not include this attribute, then your God is not 'the ultimate possible being/thing' that you described. Because, obviously, a being who could leave no confusion as to it's existence would be better. Therefore, if your definition is valid, this God does not exist. OR, if God does exist, your definition is most certainly incorrect. I am only a non-believer in your God.Don't take it badly, the information we would require to make such a proof just doesn't exist right now, as far as I'm aware, anyway. If you know of any information that does indicate the existence of any God (not even limited to the one you've defined), please present it. Until you do that, your God is limited to your imagination.

Although I have not explicitly said so, this part of my argument was designed specifically to take the ”devil’s advocate’ point of view, i.e. the nave idea that all possibilities are equally valid and can therefore lead to any given outcome if exposed to sufficient possibility spaces . which is where the second part of my argument comes in. That is the part of my argument which clearly demonstrates that all possibilities are not equally valid. No, I fully understand the nature of possibilities; I was simply using an analogy to anticipate the type of argument I expect you to make. I’m sorry, but this is just errant nonsense.Q. How should we determine whether something is possible? A. If it’s not impossible.Q. How should we decide whether something is impossible? A. If it’s not possibleAll of which tells us precisely nothing. Internally consistent in what way or with what?

To me, too, as is the idea that God can be proven. It has been known for two and a half centuries that logical proofs tell us nothing about what actually exists or does not exist in the real world, or what the real world is like. The soundness of proofs depend on the truth of their premises, and that can never be certain. In the end, all the proving in the world is useless until we check it against actual observations of the real world.

---

If I had a million dollars, I'd buy you a monkey.
Haven't you always wanted a monkey?
-- The Barenaked Ladies

what is the truth?many of you know my argument, so ill not bring that here, but lets observe a name.God by most is considered "superior being"the christian bible says there are many gods, but only one true "God"God then is a label for the being superior to man. names have a greater value in some cultures, a name represented what the person represented, not just a label. like : joe carpenter : joe, who is a carpenter.by observing reality and the state of existing, i have determined that nothing can exist, unless existence first was. because, without existence, there is nothing to "exist" in.by this observation, whatever was the first that existed, was existence, and from it all things have come, and are sustained by, by the observations of science laws, that energy cannot be created or destroyed, but changed from "form to form". and also no energy, or conserved energy, nor any thing that is real, can be sustained without conditions to support it. the first condition is existence, in which all things are in, and nothing "exists" outside of. and was the first base of energy from all things came, and the first cause came from, that became what we know as the universe, and the universe is sustained by that condition.by observing the initial condition, and T=0, i concluded intelligence by necessity, and the first act, an act o faith.by this method, did i take God, and define God by what God represents in the "true ultimate being" or "true God" as:existence:n. the basis of all things that "are". it was/is the energy that was before all things that are, which was timeless,intelligent, and created all that is from itself. based on faith it was. and therefore established the state of "being" or "existing", and sustains all that is.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

Truth is the value (either true or false) that we assign to a statement depending on whether or not it represents a fact about the real world.I hope this helps.

---

If I had a million dollars, I'd buy you a monkey.
Haven't you always wanted a monkey?
-- The Barenaked Ladies

yes. the value is: true, or false.real, or not real.what is real is the true reality.what is real to the individual is individual reality.so it is good to ask the question, because if the individual reality is wrong, the truth can be devastating on a matter such as this.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

It really is difficult to know where to start when confronted with such nonsensical reasoning as this. If you really believe something like that then so be it, but I have to tell you people are going to start walking in the other direction very quickly if you start talking like this in the ”real world’. Oh dear, this is getting embarrassing.In any sequence of coin tosses, all possible outcomes are equally probable. So 10 consecutive heads are no less likely than any other sequence. There are 1,024 possible sequences, each of which are equally probable. Increasing the number of tosses does not change this principle in any way - there are now an infinite number of possible sequences, each of which are equally probable. For your information, if the initial probability of flipping a head is 50%, no matter how long the sequence is, even infinite, the probability of any given sequence happening can never equal 0%.So there are two flaws in your reasoning. The first is that any given sequence that you consider to be significant is any more or less likely to happen than any other. The second is that your ”perfect example’ is a perfect example of no more than your utter failure to understand the laws of probability.At this point I’m beginning to regret having urged you to ”publish and be damned’. I’ve skimmed over the rest of what you have written and will make the effort to read through the whole thing when I can find some time. In the meantime, please tell me you haven’t wasted more than ten minutes of your life formulating this . this . whatever it might be?Edited by dogrelata, : Bad grammar

Very well said. I hope rulerofthisuniverse is capable of understanding the importance.We need more information about God. We need actual observations of the real world about God.This is required before attempting any sort of 'proof' on what this God is like. The nice thing is that once these observations are found, then God automatically exists. The bad thing is that these observations are legendary for their, um, difficulty in verification (to put it nicely). For, like, the last 5000 years or however long recorded history goes. But good luck to anyone who's searching for observations of God, and all that.However, observations most certainly are not required in order to use our imaginations. And our imaginations can be a source of some very real strength in a self-worth kind of sense. This should not be confused with the kind of strength behind, say, a locomotive.The importance or value of the two different strengths is certainly something to be debated. But the physical existence of a locomotive vs. our imagination is not left to personal opinion. That requires 'actual observations of the real world.'

Of course, what is real is always what you yourself decide is real. That includes the people (who you decide are real) confirming 'by actual observation' that the locomotive (you have already decided is real) is really heading towards you.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

You have to forgive me for coming back so soon, but I’ve just managed to grab a few minutes to re-read the first part of the thesis and there’s so much that is wrong about it, it’s easy to miss some of the things that don’t make sense.In the above ”argument’, the reverse is equally true, so by your own reckoning it only needs one coin lands as NO-GOD, then YES-GOD loses. So what you have ”proved’ is that there is a ”certainty’ of both a no-god and a god existing concurrently within the same reality.