The definition of GOD

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.

---

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

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

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

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.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.

---

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

We do not live in a physical universe. We are merely subprograms running in a computer program that includes everything we experience. God is a socially challenged 37 year old living in his mother's basement. By virtue of his writing the programming the universe consists of, he knows everything. By virtue of his ability to rewrite the programming, he can do anything. Thus, he can erase your memory and, by doing so, he can wipe out any trace of the god that you think you are discussing.

---

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

Well, since your "proof" has the world ending more than 8 years ago, I think we can safely dismiss that little fantasy.

---

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

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

I concede the possibility that some god might exist. However, to the extent that a given definition of god is internally inconsistent, I deny the possibility that such a god exists. I do not accept as a fact that there are an infinite number of possibilities because that phrase is nonsense, it is devoid of meaning. I do not accept as a fact that there are an infinite number of possibility spaces because that phrase is nonsense, it is devoid of meaning.

---

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

No, no, no. On the seventh day you rest.You must be new to this god business.

---

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

Well, since I didn't understand the point you were making in the first place, it would be rather difficult for me to understand that anything that followed could have been an example of it. To illustrate, suppose I were to say, "Mairsey dotes and doesey dotes and little lamsey divey. The truth of this is established by the fact that the Earth is an oblate spheroid." I don't imagine that you'd necessarily agree with my claims about maireys, doeseys and little lamseys, even though you'd agree with my statement about the shape of the Earth.

---

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

More incomprehensible gibberish. If all you are trying to do is establish that there is an infinite number of numbers, you've wasted your time. On the other hand, if the stuff about numbers is intended to clarify what you mean by possibility space, you've missed the mark completely, as it doesn't add a bit to your previous nonsense.

---

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

When I was in high school English, we did a short (two week) unit on formal debate. As part of that unit, we debated another team from the class. My friend and I were on the pro side of capital punishment.One of the things we were taught during the unit was that if we were going to cite a source, we should name the source and, if it wasn't someone that everybody knows, like the president for example, we should explain what that person's significance is.During the debate, my opponent cited someone I never hear of. On my rebuttal, I challenged him to identify who that person was and explain why we should care what they said. I'll never forget how he responded."Where we get our information is for us to know and for you to find out."The class erupted in laughter, and even the guy's partner hung his head in shame.I learned that day that "that's for us to know and for you to find out" isn't an effective debate technique.

---

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