Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The definition of GOD
rulerofthisuniverse
Member (Idle past 5868 days)
Posts: 106
Joined: 02-03-2008


Message 1 of 312 (453693)
02-03-2008 6:07 PM


Hi everyone this is my very first post here, so I hope I'm doing everything right.
Below is my definition of God, 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?
GOD = THE ULTIMATE POSSIBLE BEING/THING = Who knows and see all possibilities, and has total control over them. Also having the power to bring any possibility that it chooses into existence.
I look forward to you comments.

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Rahvin, posted 02-04-2008 9:47 AM rulerofthisuniverse has replied
 Message 5 by GodsNails, posted 02-04-2008 10:37 AM rulerofthisuniverse has replied
 Message 6 by Stile, posted 02-04-2008 10:59 AM rulerofthisuniverse has replied
 Message 13 by PurpleYouko, posted 02-04-2008 2:04 PM rulerofthisuniverse has replied
 Message 17 by reiverix, posted 02-04-2008 3:35 PM rulerofthisuniverse has replied
 Message 53 by Jon, posted 02-05-2008 2:33 AM rulerofthisuniverse has not replied
 Message 69 by Buzsaw, posted 02-05-2008 11:17 AM rulerofthisuniverse has replied
 Message 98 by Rahvin, posted 02-05-2008 5:20 PM rulerofthisuniverse has replied
 Message 197 by dogrelata, posted 02-12-2008 4:24 PM rulerofthisuniverse has not replied

Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 2 of 312 (453804)
02-04-2008 9:31 AM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 3 of 312 (453811)
02-04-2008 9:47 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by rulerofthisuniverse
02-03-2008 6:07 PM


GOD = THE ULTIMATE POSSIBLE BEING/THING = Who knows and see all possibilities, and has total control over them. Also having the power to bring any possibility that it chooses into existence.
What reasons do you have for such a definition? Assuming the existence of a "higher" entity for a moment, what makes you believe it would have omniscience and omnipotence?
You seem to be going for a generic "god," as opposed to specifically affiliating your definition with a particular religion.
Many faiths believe in "gods" that are far from omniscient or omnipotent - the Greeks, Romans, Norse, Egyptians, and many others all had "gods" that, while far more "powerful" than humans, were certainly not all-knowing or possessed of unlimited power to "bring any possibility (they) choose into existence."
What caused you to define your "god" in such terms, as opposed to such other views?

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by rulerofthisuniverse, posted 02-03-2008 6:07 PM rulerofthisuniverse has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by rulerofthisuniverse, posted 02-04-2008 1:06 PM Rahvin has replied

GodsNails
Junior Member (Idle past 5897 days)
Posts: 4
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 4 of 312 (453819)
02-04-2008 10:34 AM


I think his definition of God is beautiful.
Edited by GodsNails, : No reason given.

GodsNails
Junior Member (Idle past 5897 days)
Posts: 4
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 5 of 312 (453820)
02-04-2008 10:37 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by rulerofthisuniverse
02-03-2008 6:07 PM


I thimk your definition of God is beautiful. In response to this I would like to share with you my definition of God/Jesus.
He is the ultimate gift. He is Hope for those who dont think there is any. He is light. And most of all he is love

Gods Nails

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by rulerofthisuniverse, posted 02-03-2008 6:07 PM rulerofthisuniverse has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by rulerofthisuniverse, posted 02-04-2008 1:15 PM GodsNails has not replied

Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 6 of 312 (453824)
02-04-2008 10:59 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by rulerofthisuniverse
02-03-2008 6:07 PM


GOD Defined
quote:
GOD = THE ULTIMATE POSSIBLE BEING/THING = Who knows and see all possibilities, and has total control over them. Also having the power to bring any possibility that it chooses into existence.
rulerofthisuniverse writes:
What I would like is everyone's opinion of it.
I don't think your definition of God has anything to do with what exists in the reality we live within. That is only my opinion, please don't take it personally.
Do you think it is a valid definition?
Sure. Any definition of God is valid. I don't think it's real, but it's certainly valid.
Could you improve on it?
Depends on what you want to improve, to some people "things that actually exist in the reality we live in" isn't a very important qualification. However, if you're interested in what I think, an improvement in my eyes would be to define God like this:
GOD = THE BEING EVERYONE THINKS IS AN ULTIMATE BEING = The one people talk about when they reference their preferenced deity. The qualities they ascribe (including existence itself) may or may not be real since I am currently unaware of any way to evaluate any qualities. GOD may exist as lesser or greater than what those think He is, or He may not even exist at all. All attempts, across thousands of years, to even imply the existence of GOD so far have been left wanting. It seems likely that GOD does not exist.
Or do you have any criticism of it?
It seems superficial, and in agreement with the popular culture of what Christians believe God to be like. For me personally, I don't like it because it's too easy. If God did exist, I would not expect the definition of His existence to be summed up in a sentence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by rulerofthisuniverse, posted 02-03-2008 6:07 PM rulerofthisuniverse has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by rulerofthisuniverse, posted 02-04-2008 1:43 PM Stile has replied
 Message 304 by lyx2no, posted 02-29-2008 2:22 PM Stile has seen this message but not replied

rulerofthisuniverse
Member (Idle past 5868 days)
Posts: 106
Joined: 02-03-2008


Message 7 of 312 (453843)
02-04-2008 12:39 PM


Thankyou Everybody so far for your replies. I will respond to you all individually in a moment, but first I need to tell you the angle which I am approaching this topic from.
Although the Admin put this topic here in the Faith and Belief section, I am deliberately not going to use any faith or belief in my definition of God.
My argument is this; IF God DID exist, logically, scientifically and mathematically what would GOD BE?
As far as I can see God by definition would be the most powerful, the strongest, the wisest, and so on and so forth. God would be greater than anything and anyone.
So my definition of GOD being the ultimate POSSIBLE being/thing stands regardless of any belief.

Replies to this message:
 Message 185 by pelican, posted 02-12-2008 10:02 AM rulerofthisuniverse has replied

rulerofthisuniverse
Member (Idle past 5868 days)
Posts: 106
Joined: 02-03-2008


Message 8 of 312 (453847)
02-04-2008 1:06 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Rahvin
02-04-2008 9:47 AM


Dear Rahvin,
quote:
What reasons do you have for such a definition? Assuming the existence of a "higher" entity for a moment, what makes you believe it would have omniscience and omnipotence?
Logically God must or needs to know everything otherwise he would not be God, how can God NOT know everything? Also God would need to have omnipotence for simular reasons, if God was not incontrol of all power then he couldn't be God.
quote:
You seem to be going for a generic "god," as opposed to specifically affiliating your definition with a particular religion.
Yes that is my intention.
quote:
Many faiths believe in "gods" that are far from omniscient or omnipotent - the Greeks, Romans, Norse, Egyptians, and many others all had "gods" that, while far more "powerful" than humans, were certainly not all-knowing or possessed of unlimited power to "bring any possibility (they) choose into existence."
What caused you to define your "god" in such terms, as opposed to such other views?
Yes many faiths have many different gods. However I would simply argue that they are not the ULTIMATE GOD, only my definition defines GOD in an Absolute way, and defines God as the supreme being/thing.
Basically what I have done is logically reasoned what God would, should and must be if he exists.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Rahvin, posted 02-04-2008 9:47 AM Rahvin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Rahvin, posted 02-04-2008 1:34 PM rulerofthisuniverse has replied

rulerofthisuniverse
Member (Idle past 5868 days)
Posts: 106
Joined: 02-03-2008


Message 9 of 312 (453850)
02-04-2008 1:15 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by GodsNails
02-04-2008 10:37 AM


Dear GodsNails,
quote:
I think your definition of God is beautiful.
Thankyou, That is one of the nicest things anyone has said about it.
quote:
In response to this I would like to share with you my definition of God/Jesus.
He is the ultimate gift. He is Hope for those who dont think there is any. He is light. And most of all he is love
I wish I could respond to this, but I am not going to bring in any sort of belief in this topic. But believe me this definition of mine is only the beginning of something I am working on, that may do something that has never been done before in the history of mankind. That is all I can say for now.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by GodsNails, posted 02-04-2008 10:37 AM GodsNails has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Phat, posted 02-04-2008 3:53 PM rulerofthisuniverse has replied

Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 10 of 312 (453856)
02-04-2008 1:34 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by rulerofthisuniverse
02-04-2008 1:06 PM


Dear Rahvin,
quote:
What reasons do you have for such a definition? Assuming the existence of a "higher" entity for a moment, what makes you believe it would have omniscience and omnipotence?
Logically God must or needs to know everything otherwise he would not be God, how can God NOT know everything? Also God would need to have omnipotence for simular reasons, if God was not incontrol of all power then he couldn't be God.
"Logically," no, god does not require omniscience or omnipotence. The fact that the vast majority of faiths that have existed do not have gods with neither of those qualities shows that it doesn't logically follow.
But then, this is a game of "this is my imaginary friend, and this is what he's like," so you can pretty much give whatever characteristics you'd like.
quote:
You seem to be going for a generic "god," as opposed to specifically affiliating your definition with a particular religion.
Yes that is my intention.
And here's where you run into trouble. If you identify your "god" specifically as the Christian god, then yes, it would follow that such an entity would require omniscience and omnipotence - the very basis for hisdefinition (the Bible) says that he possesses both qualities.
But since you're trying to avoid a specific deity, and just trying to define the word "god" without any sort of basis for his characteristics beyond your opinion, you may as well discuss the definition of a "dragon" - it's all imaginary and based on nothing at all. If you say "god" is omnipotent, that's fine - but your opinion holds no more objective value than an ancient Greek who points out that his god, Zeus, was not (though I hear making him angry was still a bad idea).
quote:
Many faiths believe in "gods" that are far from omniscient or omnipotent - the Greeks, Romans, Norse, Egyptians, and many others all had "gods" that, while far more "powerful" than humans, were certainly not all-knowing or possessed of unlimited power to "bring any possibility (they) choose into existence."
What caused you to define your "god" in such terms, as opposed to such other views?
Yes many faiths have many different gods. However I would simply argue that they are not the ULTIMATE GOD, only my definition defines GOD in an Absolute way, and defines God as the supreme being/thing.
"ULTIMATE GOD?" Sounds like a comic book or toy gimmick.
It appears to me that you've gone the way of Intelligent Design proponents - taken the god you already believe in and stripped away it's name to give the appearance of "religious neutrality." You're presenting the definition of the Christian god, minus the specifics like the words "of the Bible" or anything to do with Jesus, and claiming it as the definition for the Supreme Being.
Basically what I have done is logically reasoned what God would, should and must be if he exists.
You haven't "logically" reasoned anything, as the entire position is a giant non sequitor - you have no evidence or reason to define "god" this way except for your own opinion (and likely pre-existing faith).
Why, if a "god" exists, must it be both omnipotent and omniscient? Be specific.
Why, if a "god" exists, could it not be as other faiths have defined gods - simply much more powerful and knowledgeable (note - not always more wise) than human beings. Be specific.
If you add "created the universe" to your definition of god (you didn't in your OP), you might be closer in requiring omnipotence, but the fact is such an entity could still be incapable of manipulating reality on smaller scales like human lives - you simply have no idea. Hell, it could even have some ridiculous limit put on its power, like the Genie from Disney's Aladdin: penominal, cosmic power, but constrained to exist in a tiny space.
And then you still need to deal with omniscience. Does a deity really require omniscience to qualify as a deity? The Romans, Greeks, and Egyptians certainly didn't think so. Why do you believe your "ULTIMATE GOD" requires this, if you're making a generic definition not based on a specific religion?
I contend that you're just putting forth the Christian god (or Allah, it really doesn't make a difference), which you already believe in, and stripping it of specific identification in an attempt to gain validation for the idea that your god must "logically" be the only definition for "god."
It's no different from the IDists, and when it comes down to it, without a specific religion to even base your deity around tradition, you're just saying "my invisible friend's name is Bob, and this is what he looks like."

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by rulerofthisuniverse, posted 02-04-2008 1:06 PM rulerofthisuniverse has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by rulerofthisuniverse, posted 02-04-2008 3:22 PM Rahvin has replied
 Message 42 by Lemkin, posted 02-04-2008 8:59 PM Rahvin has replied

rulerofthisuniverse
Member (Idle past 5868 days)
Posts: 106
Joined: 02-03-2008


Message 11 of 312 (453858)
02-04-2008 1:43 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Stile
02-04-2008 10:59 AM


Re: GOD Defined
Dear Stile,
quote:
I don't think your definition of God has anything to do with what exists in the reality we live within. That is only my opinion, please don't take it personally.
OK, but why do you think it doesn't have anything to do with what exists in our reality?
quote:
Sure. Any definition of God is valid. I don't think it's real, but it's certainly valid.
I am not arguing whether God IS real or not at this point, rather IF God was real what would God BE. Because if anyone does argue whether God exists you need to define God first anyway.
quote:
Depends on what you want to improve, to some people "things that actually exist in the reality we live in" isn't a very important qualification. However, if you're interested in what I think, an improvement in my eyes would be to define God like this:
GOD = THE BEING EVERYONE THINKS IS AN ULTIMATE BEING = The one people talk about when they reference their preferenced deity. The qualities they ascribe (including existence itself) may or may not be real since I am currently unaware of any way to evaluate any qualities. GOD may exist as lesser or greater than what those think He is, or He may not even exist at all. All attempts, across thousands of years, to even imply the existence of GOD so far have been left wanting. It seems likely that GOD does not exist.
My definition of God is not what everyone THINKS is God, but rather what God ACTUALLY is, i.e. THE ULTIMATE POSSIBLE being/thing, I have already defined God to be the highest thing anything or anyone can get.
quote:
It seems superficial, and in agreement with the popular culture of what Christians believe God to be like. For me personally, I don't like it because it's too easy. If God did exist, I would not expect the definition of His existence to be summed up in a sentence.
I am not bringing any kind of religious perspective into my definition, it is purely based on logic and reason. The problem you have is that you expect God not to be easy to explain, but maybe it is. That is one purpose of my topic here, to see if there is a simple definition of God that everyone can agree on.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Stile, posted 02-04-2008 10:59 AM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Chiroptera, posted 02-04-2008 2:01 PM rulerofthisuniverse has replied
 Message 14 by Stile, posted 02-04-2008 2:43 PM rulerofthisuniverse has replied

Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 12 of 312 (453865)
02-04-2008 2:01 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by rulerofthisuniverse
02-04-2008 1:43 PM


Re: GOD Defined
My definition of God is not what everyone THINKS is God, but rather what God ACTUALLY is....
The problem is that one cannot figure out what God actually is (if there is an actual God) by making up definitions or by thinking about it. One can only figure out what God actually is by actually examining a real god in front of you.
-
THE ULTIMATE POSSIBLE being/thing
I don't have any idea what "ultimate possible being" even means.
-
I have already defined God to be the highest thing anything or anyone can get.
Again, I don't have the faintest idea of what it means for anything to be the highest thing or anything that anyone can get. You are using ill-defined concepts in your proposed definition.

Spare a thought for the stay-at-home voter;
His empty eyes gaze at strange beauty shows
And a parade of the gray suited grafters:
A choice of cancer or polio. -- The Rolling Stones

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by rulerofthisuniverse, posted 02-04-2008 1:43 PM rulerofthisuniverse has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by rulerofthisuniverse, posted 02-04-2008 5:13 PM Chiroptera has replied

PurpleYouko
Member
Posts: 714
From: Columbia Missouri
Joined: 11-11-2004


Message 13 of 312 (453867)
02-04-2008 2:04 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by rulerofthisuniverse
02-03-2008 6:07 PM


omni everything and logic
Someone has to bring this point up so i may as well be the one to do it as I have been involved in this kind of discussion before on these forums.
I contend that it is impossible from a purely logical standpoint for any being (god or otherwise) to be both omnipotent and omniscient.
Of course we first need to establish the definitions of these two terms in order to lay the groundwork for the logical premises.
The definitions I use in this are the following which i think are pretty much the same as in your OP. Please tell me if they are not.
Omniscient = Always knowing everything, past present future with absolute infalibility. i.e. can NEVER be wrong about even the minutest detail.
omipotent = Can do absolutely anything. NO LIMITS.
Using the premises that God is Omniscient and Omnipotent (as defined here) we can explore the consequences and see if it is possible to disqualify either of them or whether the argument stands.
God is omniscient therefore he knows precisely what I will be doing at 3:04Pm this coming Saturday.
Given that he KNOWS (omniscience) what I will be doing, does he have the power (omnipotence)to make me do something else?
If YES then that means that he may well be omnipotent but he cannot be simultaneously omniscient since he has now been demonstrably wrong about what I would be doing.
If NO then he cannot be omnipotent since I have just found something that he cannot do.
There is really no wiggle room in this conundrum if you stick to the rules of pure logic.
In the past it has been argued that God could turn off his omniscience at will. This is really just self defeating though as with the power turned off, he is no longer omniscient by my definition above.
Different time lines have been suggested in which God has knowledge of all possible outcomes and in which every outcome is true.
If this is the case then I contend that I am also omniscient since I can tell you what will happen in the future and in one of the infinite possible futures, I WILL be right. It's a non starter.
Either way you look at it, omnipotence overturns omniscinece every time. In a nutshell, Omnipotence gives God the power to be wrong. If he can never be wrong then he is, by definition, not omnipotent since he is limited.
It's like the old adage. Can God make a boulder so big that he can't lift it? I know that is a bit cliche but nevertheless it is a valid point.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by rulerofthisuniverse, posted 02-03-2008 6:07 PM rulerofthisuniverse has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by The Matt, posted 02-04-2008 4:12 PM PurpleYouko has replied
 Message 23 by Phat, posted 02-04-2008 4:24 PM PurpleYouko has replied
 Message 35 by rulerofthisuniverse, posted 02-04-2008 6:06 PM PurpleYouko has replied
 Message 64 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-05-2008 10:55 AM PurpleYouko has not replied

Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 14 of 312 (453874)
02-04-2008 2:43 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by rulerofthisuniverse
02-04-2008 1:43 PM


I don't want to be rude to God
rulerofthisuniverse writes:
OK, but why do you think it doesn't have anything to do with what exists in our reality?
Because any test ever devised to gain any sort of knowledge at all about a being existing how you describe has come up with nothing. That's why I don't think it exists. I could be wrong, of course, but at least I've tried.
I am not arguing whether God IS real or not at this point, rather IF God was real what would God BE. Because if anyone does argue whether God exists you need to define God first anyway.
Okay.
My definition of God is not what everyone THINKS is God, but rather what God ACTUALLY is, i.e. THE ULTIMATE POSSIBLE being/thing, I have already defined God to be the highest thing anything or anyone can get.
So you're saying that God is the best of everything? Why must God be the best of everything? Where does that assumption come from?
But it's okay, let's continue in this vein a bit. Let's say the strongest being in the universe is a creature not from our planet.. and it can lift 5 thousand pounds. God would be the strongest if He could lift 500 thousand pounds, right? So why do you say God must be able to lift an undefined number of pounds? Why can't God simply just be able to lift more than any living thing? Why must it be infinite?
Of course, there's an even simpler question, why must God be able to lift anything at all? Why can't God be weak? Because you defined God to be the ULTIMATE BEING? God has no obligation to be what you defined Him as. And anything you define (even the dictionary) has no obligation to exist.
I am not bringing any kind of religious perspective into my definition, it is purely based on logic and reason.
I didn't say you did. I brought that perspective in. I was simply pointing out the obvious similarity. You did ask for my opinion. I'm sorry, I was just trying to be honest.
The problem you have is that you expect God not to be easy to explain, but maybe it is.
I try not to expect God to be anything. I haven't met God yet (as far as I'm aware) so it would be rude to have preconceived opinions as to His abilities and attitude. I think it's only fair to let God represent Himself rather than have you define His abilities. I certainly wouldn't want you to define my abilities, so I'm only trying to give God the same respect.
That is one purpose of my topic here, to see if there is a simple definition of God that everyone can agree on.
So far it doesn't look so good. And this is only a handful of people. There's over 7 billion of us in the world.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by rulerofthisuniverse, posted 02-04-2008 1:43 PM rulerofthisuniverse has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by rulerofthisuniverse, posted 02-04-2008 7:09 PM Stile has replied

rulerofthisuniverse
Member (Idle past 5868 days)
Posts: 106
Joined: 02-03-2008


Message 15 of 312 (453882)
02-04-2008 3:22 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Rahvin
02-04-2008 1:34 PM


Dear Rahvin,
quote:
"Logically," no, god does not require omniscience or omnipotence. The fact that the vast majority of faiths
that have existed do not have gods with neither of those qualities shows that it doesn't logically follow.
You seem to be relegating my GOD to deity's like the Roman gods or perhaps the Hindu pantheon. But I think you fail
to understand that my definition of GOD is not the same as any of these "lesser" gods. You see none of these lesser
gods ARE the ultimate possible being/thing, therefore they do not require omniscience or omnipotence. ONLY the
ultimate possible being/thing WOULD require these attributes.
I maintain that the supreme GOD has knowledge of everything to control his power, and the supreme GOD has unlimited
power because he knows everything.
quote:
And here's where you run into trouble. If you identify your "god" specifically as the Christian god, then
yes, it would follow that such an entity would require omniscience and omnipotence - the very basis for
hisdefinition (the Bible) says that he possesses both qualities.
Well I have explained quite easily above why my GOD has omniscience and omnipotence without any religious
sentiment.
quote:
But since you're trying to avoid a specific deity, and just trying to define the word "god" without any sort
of basis for his characteristics beyond your opinion, you may as well discuss the definition of a "dragon" - it's
all imaginary and based on nothing at all. If you say "god" is omnipotent, that's fine - but your opinion holds no
more objective value than an ancient Greek who points out that his god, Zeus, was not (though I hear making him
angry was still a bad idea).
I will deal with any characteristics that my definition of God has later. However a "dragon" is not the ultimate
possible being/thing, I am only dealing with whatever IS the ultimate possible being/thing. You can give as many
examples as you want, but unless they qualify as the ultimate possible being/thing Who knows and see all
possibilities, and has total control over them. Also having the power to bring any possibility that it chooses into
existence, then your examples are not GOD by my definition and therefore cannot be compared.
quote:
It appears to me that you've gone the way of Intelligent Design proponents - taken the god you already
believe in and stripped away it's name to give the appearance of "religious neutrality." You're presenting the
definition of the Christian god, minus the specifics like the words "of the Bible" or anything to do with Jesus,
and claiming it as the definition for the Supreme Being.
Well we will just have to see, you have brought up religious ideas not me. I maintain I can argue my definition of
God without the use of anything religious. CAN YOU?
quote:
You haven't "logically" reasoned anything, as the entire position is a giant non sequitor - you have no
evidence or reason to define "god" this way except for your own opinion (and likely pre-existing faith).
Hold on I HAVE done a lot of thinking, just not here thats all, you have no idea what I have done to get to my
definition, I just haven't presented much yet because I am going in stages, I have a whole thesis to present.
Remember at this stage I am not trying to prove ANYTHING.
quote:
Why, if a "god" exists, must it be both omnipotent and omniscient? Be specific.
God would have to be a God of ultimate power with ultimate power, simply because without total power God could not
BE God by my definition.
For God to be God by my definition, it would require that God would know and see all possibilities. Because of this
we can understand how God must know and see everything.
quote:
Why, if a "god" exists, could it not be as other faiths have defined gods - simply much more powerful and
knowledgeable (note - not always more wise) than human beings. Be specific.
It really doesn't matter what other faiths define God as, if their definition isn't whatever the ultimate possible
being/thing IS, then they are not defining the supreme being based on my definition.
quote:
If you add "created the universe" to your definition of god (you didn't in your OP), you might be closer in
requiring omnipotence, but the fact is such an entity could still be incapable of manipulating reality on smaller
scales like human lives - you simply have no idea. Hell, it could even have some ridiculous limit put on its power,
like the Genie from Disney's Aladdin: penominal, cosmic power, but constrained to exist in a tiny space.
Well I would say that the god u describe could not be the God I have defined, the only limits my GOD may have, are
only thoughs limits imposed on or by itself, but would have the ability to take thoughs limits away if it chooses
also. My definition of GOD remember says that it would see all possibilities, and have total control over them, so
my GOD would be able to manipulate anything.
quote:
And then you still need to deal with omniscience. Does a deity really require omniscience to qualify as a deity? The Romans, Greeks, and Egyptians certainly didn't think so. Why do you believe your "ULTIMATE GOD" requires this, if you're making a generic definition not based on a specific religion?
No, omniscience is not required to qualify as a deity. But we are not just talking about any old deity but the ultimate possible being/thing, who knows everything because he sees all possibilities.
quote:
I contend that you're just putting forth the Christian god (or Allah, it really doesn't make a difference), which you already believe in, and stripping it of specific identification in an attempt to gain validation for the idea that your god must "logically" be the only definition for "god."
It's no different from the IDists, and when it comes down to it, without a specific religion to even base your deity around tradition, you're just saying "my invisible friend's name is Bob, and this is what he looks like."
Well you can contend anything you like, but I will not be bringing any religious ideas into this topic. I want to discuss MY definition of God. If someone else wants to give us their definition of God thats fine. But I think my definition is probably the single best definition of GOD that there is.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Rahvin, posted 02-04-2008 1:34 PM Rahvin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by subbie, posted 02-04-2008 3:29 PM rulerofthisuniverse has replied
 Message 20 by Rahvin, posted 02-04-2008 4:02 PM rulerofthisuniverse has replied
 Message 24 by The Matt, posted 02-04-2008 4:27 PM rulerofthisuniverse has not replied
 Message 27 by bluegenes, posted 02-04-2008 5:02 PM rulerofthisuniverse has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024