The definition of GOD

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

. and in Message 123 we have So the all-powerful being is not all-powerful after all. It cannot create more than 100% of anything. It cannot, presumably, create anything that is more powerful than itself, therefore it has only the power to do some things, not anything or everything.

I’d just like to re-cap what we’ve managed to find out so far. In Message 123 we were told:- By Message 143 this had changed somewhat to become:- So when the term having unlimited power to be able to do anything is used, it doesn’t really mean that at all, it just means it has the power to do the things it can do. A bit like myself really. I can do the things I am able to do, but I can’t do the things I am unable to do.I was also wondering who or what is the arbiter of what is possible or impossible for supergod to be able to do . and who or what determines the possibility of whether supergod may or may not know all that can be known.The thing is, we’re approaching 150 posts on this topic and you’ve not managed to move it forward one inch in terms of getting even one person to agree with your definition of what an ultimate possible being might be, even hypothetically.It worries me that you aren’t able to figure out why you are unable to sell your definition. I have to say I don’t believe for a second that if this topic reaches 150,000 posts, anyone will have bought your definition. I think you need to take some time out to find out why people choose to invent or believe in the gods they put their faith in. Once you have done that, you may begin to understand how futile your attempts to sell your particular definition are.In the meantime it begins to look ever more likely that whatever revelations you have to impart to the world are wholly dependant on the world accepting your particular definition, i.e. the ”proof’ you believe you have formulated is based upon the premise you seem so desperate for everyone to accept.Sorry, but that’s just not going to happen. I tend to agree with Modulus in Message 145 that you really need to either cut to the chase now or make a dignified retreat and live to fight another day on another thread. Edited by dogrelata, : No reason given.

Does that mean I don’t have to go to work on Monday?

Mmm . and don’t tell me, because I know what’s coming next, there’s no god union I can join or anything like that, is there?

Okay, but I’m not very good at maths. Let’s assign a to represent the things I am able to do to and i to represent the (infinite?) possibilities that could exist, bearing in mind these possibilities are not limited to what can be imagined by humankind. Similarly, given that you have invited me to extrapolate from my ability potential, these possibilities cannot be limited by what can be imagined by your supergod either.So we now have the equation, my potential=a/i.If we turn to your definition of supergod, we can assign g to represent what it is able to do. This gives us the equation, supergod’s potential=g/i.If we examine these equations in the light of how you have qualified your definition of supergod, we find in Message 142 you say, “So it is POSSIBLE that GOD may not know/do everything” and have also said in a number of posts that nothing can exist that is more powerful than your supergod definition.This allows us to simplify the two equations to be, g>=a. In other words, all that I can extrapolate from my own idea is that your supergod cannot be less powerful than me. Yes, but you have already defined your supergod as something that “may not know/do everything” in Message 142, so it looks like you want to change your definition again. Make your mind up, does your definition of supergod require it to know everything there is to know or not? I think you read your original post again if you really believe that. The only thing I want to add is if, “it would be for all intents and purposes GOD”, by what criteria would you be judging what it is? You’ve been trying really hard to avoid bringing religion into your arguments, but if we remove religion from the equation, with all its concepts of god-like beings, why would anyone have any reason to then create them just because a being such as you wish to define might exist.But that’s enough for this post. This little dog’s about ready to start having some fun, so I’ll meet you at Message 143 to see if we can’t up the ante a degree or two.

Please, please, please tell me that you don’t wish to take this argument in the direction you appear to be heading - namely if something can be defined as having a possibility of happening, given enough possibility spaces, whatever they may be, it must inevitably happen.Let me give you an example.Let’s say the probability of me being able to achieve something in a single attempt (or possibility space) is 1%. That means the probability of me not being able to achieve the task in a single attempt is 99%, or 1-0.01=0.99. To find out the probability of not being able to achieve the task at least once in ten attempts, we simply use the calculation 0.99^10=0.9044. This tells us I can expect to have at least one successful result 9.56% of the time if I attempt the task ten times, or 1-0.9044=0.0956. If I increase the number of attempts to 100, the cumulative probability of failure becomes 0.99^100=0.3660, so I have a 63.40% chance of at least one successful result in 100 attempts.As the number of attempts (possibility spaces) increases, then so does the likelihood that at least one successful result will come into being. If the number of attempts is infinite, the probability of at least one successful result is so great that it can be seen as almost inevitable.But this is where we start to have problems with this line of thinking or ”proof’ that anything that can happen must inevitably do so, given enough possibility spaces. First of all this leads us to conclude that anything that exists, or has ever existed, can qualify as your supergod because regardless of how improbable it is that something qualifies as your supergod in the first instance, when subjected to an infinite number of possibility spaces it becomes almost inevitable that it does so eventually.But of course you have been very insistent that your definition of supergod is ”better’ than any other. This leads me to conclude that you probably figure that you can get your supergod to the finishing line of the race to crown the ultimate being in fewer possibility spaces than any other definition, thereby claiming victory for your boy. Sorry bud, but that’s not the way it works. Given enough possibility spaces, every possibility gets to the finishing line eventually, invalidating the definition of your supergod being the singular all powerful being you wish to define.The second issue I have concerns your understanding of what constitutes a fact. Let’s just remind ourselves of what you said, “It can be stated as fact that God exists as a possibility, it can also be said as a fact that there are an infinite number of possibilities and an infinite number of possibility spaces.”Neither of these facts are actually facts, they are assertions on your part. A fact can either be verified empirically or can be deduced from examination of empirical observations.So what factual evidence is there to support the claim that your supergod has the possibility of actually existing? I’m sure we can agree that it is a fact that there is a belief amongst many that something approximating a god does exist, but that does not make the possibility of existence a fact. You make much in this topic about differentiating between possibilities and impossibilities, so how are we to determine between these two states in things we imagine to be possible?Let me give you an example. You might claim to be able to run at up to speeds of to 25mph. Whilst I might be very sceptical about this claim, as it would make you a faster runner than either Asafa Powell or Maurice Greene, I could not wholly rule out the possibility, even if the probability of such appears to be very small. If, on the other hand, you were to claim to be able to run at speeds of up to 100mph, I am not going to accept this possibility. Neither am I going to accept it as a fact that there is a possibility of you being able to run at this speed.I don’t know whether it is disingenuousness or naivety that causes some to suggest that all possibilities that may exist are equally valid, because they are demonstrably not. If you wish to establish the existence of your supergod as a possibility, you need to produce some evidence that would allow us to accept that possibility before you can start to make comments like, “It can be stated as fact that God exists as a possibility”.A possibility that isn’t really a possibility is just a worthless piece of posturing. If you have something worth saying, I think you need to bring it to the table now because what you've said so far has all been pretty vacuous and meaningless. Edited by dogrelata, : Typo

Mmm . possibly, but who can say for sure where, if anywhere, the argument is headed?I’m reminded of an old Monty Python sketch featuring one Mrs Yeti Goose-Creature, who was appearing on a TV show to expound her ”new’ theory about dinosaurs. After a very great deal of, “This is my theory, that belongs to me” etc, that went on interminably, she finally cut to the chase.When finally delivered, the theory went something like, “My theory about dinosaurs is they were thin at one end, fat in the middle and thin at the other end”. I guess it would be quite funny if we ended up with something similar here. We couldn’t say we hadn’t been warned, given the the way the topic has developed thus far.

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.

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?

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

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.

God: The Definition
God is the great void of nothingness that causes humans to imagine supernatural entities to help them deal with that great void of nothingness.As a definition, the above does not need anything other than some frightened humans, a great deal of pain, suffering and death, and a desire by the humans to escape that pain, suffering and death.It’s that simple.P.S. I’ve now read your thesis in its entirety and I think you’ll find it’s one of these things you’ll look back on in a few years and cringe about. Sorry to be so patronising, but we’ve all been there and you’ll learn that life is not what goes on inside your head when you’ve spent too much time on your own, it’s about a whole lot of other things that you have still to learn about.Enjoy the rest of the debate . and good luck, which you’ll need if some of the sharks around here get the scent of your thesis in their nostrils.Edited by dogrelata, : Duh! Grammar again.

I don’t think we are though. The whole purpose of the analogy I used regarding how fast you could run was designed specifically to show that I do not accept all imagined possibilities to be valid. However I would point you in the direction of some of stile’s posts as he/she has argued the case much better than I have. Proof by contradiction is a problematic area, especially when discussing hypothetical ideas like what may or may not be possible in areas where there is no means of determining the validity of either proposition by observation. How should I attempt to disprove the possibility that you might be able to run at 100mph using 'proof by contradiction'?Rather than dealing with each reply separately, I’m going to combine everything into one post. So I want to move onto Message 207. If you read what I wrote you will see that I actually disproved your point. I hate having to continually produce probability scenarios, but you are clearly unable to grasp what is being said to you, so it looks like we need to break this down into steps that you are able to understand.If we flip the coin twice, the probability of two heads occurring is 25%. If we add a third flip, the probability of a ”all heads’ does indeed reduce to 12.5%. This means the probability of a ”no head’ situation has increased, but this is where you are struggling. When the coin was flipped twice, there were only four possible outcomes. Flipping the coin a third time increases the number of possible outcomes to eight. So whilst the ”all heads’ possibility has decreased, so have all other specified outcomes. This is important because the YES-GOD outcome was a specified outcome.There is another point you are failing to understand about probabilities. You have continued to assert that x to the power of infinity equals zero. This can only ever be the case if x started as zero. In the coin tossing analogy you have chosen, x started at 50%. As we saw above, when the coin is flipped twice, each possible sequence has a 25% chance of occurring. When it is flipped three times, each possible sequence has a 12.5% of occurring. What we see is that when we add together the sums of each individual probability, the total will always equal 100%, with each individual possibility being equally probable. So to find out the possibility of any specified outcome, all we need to do is divide 100% by the number of possible outcomes. Even if an infinite number of coins are flipped, each outcome has a chance of 100% divided by infinity, which will always be greater than 0%.This fact alone invalidates one of the central arguments of your thesis, namely that it is impossible to flip an infinite number of heads.Moving on to Message 208. No I didn’t ignore the preceding explanation; I discounted it. There is a big difference. I discounted it because it is complete and utter nonsense. Let me explain.You claim the NO-GOD possibility has little bearing or influence over anything. That’s a bit like saying a YES-SUNLIGHT possibility has an overwhelming influence over the nature of reality, but the NO-SUNLIGHT possibility has little or none. This is clearly nonsense.What we find is that the YES-SUNLIGHT possibility produces a different environment than the NO-SUNLIGHT possibility, but the idea that one possibility is any less influential than the other is clearly not supported by observation in the real universe.All we can say about the differences between a NO-GOD possibility and a YES-GOD possibility is that they are likely to result in different realities . and that is all we can say.

Absolutely. So many of the misconceptions that exist regarding improbabilities are related to the psychological significance we tend to attach to certain sequences or outcomes.If we were both to flip a coin 1,000 times and yours all came up heads and mine a random sequence of heads and tails, there would be those who would immediately seize on your sequence and proclaim it too improbable to have come about by chance.My sequence, on the other hand, would not be given a second thought; it would be considered the ”expected outcome’. However the exact order of the sequence of heads and tails I flipped would have exactly the same probability of occurring as yours, yet nobody would suggest it too improbable to have come about by chance.