The definition of GOD

Heh. It does sound like it could be the title of a Japanese cartoon series. ULTIMATE GOD Teppei!

---

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

Dear Phat,It's great to be here, but no sooner do I reply to someone, another 3 or 4 posts have appeared. It's gonna take me awhile to get though everything.

quote:

---

I have some questions for you. First of all, what do you mean by the ultimate possible Being or Thing? Is this Being knowable? (If so, I am sure it would be on His terms rather than on our terms!) Also...if this God that you describe has total control over everything, what is left for us to do?

---

I cannot tell you EXACTLY what the UPB/T is, but I do think that we can to some degree deduce some of the overall qualities that God based on my definition would have. Remember just because GOD has total control, does not necessarily mean he WILL control everything. Well this is an example, I reasoned first what GOD is. I came to the conclusion that GOD must be something that is above and beyond all other things, regardless of whether those other things actually exist or not. From this idea I came to the conclusion that if a GOD did exist it would literally be the ULTIMATE POSSIBLE BEING/THING. I then began to think about the way this GOD could be the UPB/T in the first place. The UPB/T would likely require at least two things, power and knowledge of somekind, so I then took these to their extremes because an UPB/T would clearly have extreme qualities by its very nature. So now I had a UPB/T with ultimate power and infinite wisdom. I then asked myself how this UPB/T could know everything. I reasoned, that we as humans can think about certain possibilities, and we can make some of these possibities happen. If we can do this in a limited way, then perhaps this UPB/T could do it in an unlimited way, pehaps this UPB/T could see all possibilities. If you could see all possibilities then by definition you would KNOW everything. Based on that reasoning then I defined GOD 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.

Dear Phat,

quote:

---

RTU, let me clarify where you are coming from, if I may.

​

Are you saying that God is totally logical, definable, and believable? Without using the term, God, we could say that there is an absolute reality of supreme logic and that you are attempting to introduce this possibility for others to discuss?

---

Almost, I do think GOD can be defined in a logical way, by extention then God would be logical as well. I am attempting to discuss something that is totally new, I am not 100% sure that even I fully understand it all. This is why some people here believe some of the things I have said amount to circuler reasoning, it is not really, it is simply because they do not understand my definitions yet, and the fact that I have only given limited bits of information so far.

quote:

---

If so, I will respect the idea that this supreme Being of logic is itself immune from critique by other sources of logic since it, (the idea) by definition is the source of logic. Am I understanding you correctly?

---

Well the being may be logical, but that doesn't stop anyone from arguing against it. I think it is safe to argue against it if you can, but if the arguments themselves aren't logical then it doesn't matter.

Dear Rahvin,

quote:

---

Congratulations: you've established circular reasoning.

​

"God has these characteristics becasue I say he does. I say he has these characteristics because that's how I define God."

---

Not so! I have defined GOD and I have now also given reasons for why the UPB/T has certain qualities, my GOD has thoughs attributes by necessity, not because I said so. If you want to discuss the GOD I define then you cannot use any other example that doesn't have thoughs same attributes. Or you can argue against my definition of GOD by putting forward your own. What you could also do is show that my definition of the UPB/T does not require it to be a God of ultimate power, with ultimate power or a God of infinite wisdom, that sees and knows everything, and that knows and sees all possibilities.

quote:

---

You can argue that your definition of god is your definition of god all you want, but it doesn't have any relevance to reality. You're establishing your definition of god based on what you think god should be like, but you're literally picking an idea from your head and exclaiming "this is what god is." If you define god as "a miniature giant space hamster" or "the flying spaghetti monster," anything that is not a miniature giant space hamster or the flying spaghetti monster would also not be god "by your definition."

​

Let's try a little exercise: I define blue as green. You can argue that blue is not green all you like, but blue is still green by my definition. So there.

---

You can call GOD whatever you like, that is not the point, you fail to understand what makes MY GOD, ALMIGHTY GOD as it were. It is in the definition itself, "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." If this applies to the flying spaghetti monster then it really IS GOD. But this IS my point, only a God that can know all possibilities and can control them WOULD BE GOD, unless you have a better definition of GOD then you cannot even claim that my definition is not relevent to reality.Your exercise is meaningless because we are talking about What GOD is not what colours are.The rest of your post is just insults and innuendoes. I am not here to engage in such behavior, so I will skip everything else as there are more people I need to respond to.

The best way I can respond to your arguments is with the same childlike argument:Oh yeah? Well MY god times infinity PLUS ONE!That's all you're doing. You arent offering any meaningful definition at all. Call my post "insulting" all you want - your drivel is still meaningless navel-grazing and childish validation-seeking. You want us all to say "wow, yeah, that's good," but your broken logic and baseless opinion leave much to be desired.If god walked up to you right now and said "I am god," but somehow did not match your definition, you'd say "you aren't god." It's like defining a rose as a type of tree, and then saying "this is not a rose" when one is presented to you. Your imagination-based definition has nothing to do with reality - you're jsut saying "this is what I think god is." but its no more valid than literally any other definition.

---

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

TO EVERYONE,So far no-one has given an alternative definition of God without resorting to some form of theological idea. Someone has even quoted a wiki defintion of "deity", However I am not discussing a deity, I am discussing something higher.To clairify, my definition of GOD is this;GOD = THE ULTIMATE POSSIBLE BEING/THING = Who knows and sees all possibilities, and has total control over them. Also having the power to bring any possibility that it chooses into existence.This UPB/T has at least these two qualities/natures which qualify it as GOD;1. A God of ultimate power, with ultimate power.
2. A God of infinite wisdom, that sees and knows everything, and that knows and sees all possibilities.What I want is for you guys to,1. Come up with your own definition of GOD that does not include any theological ideas, or a better definition than mine.
2. Show how any of the qualities above do not apply to my definition
3. Show that GOD would not be the ultimate possible being/thingDoing the above will help to falsify my definition of GOD.If you cannot do the above, then why do you not agree with my definition?Also you you agree that my definition of GOD is a possibility?I do not want comments that say this has no relevence in reality, those comments have no relevence to me. I am not arguing WHETHER GOD exists, just what would GOD BE if we were actually going to attempt to prove its existence.

Hi rulerofthisuniverse, I AM

Sounds evil.

---

Beware the Jabberwock, my son!

Evil? Are you suggesting that you are wary of a God whom by definition controls Jons precious free will? IF you believed in God, Jon---tell us what sort of characteristics your God would have.

Well, no one has to do any such thing. These are criteria that you have arbitrarily set for yourself -- there is no reason for anyone else to accept these criteria as necessary in any conception of god. To me, the only necessary criteria for a definition of God is that it is possible for such a being to exist, and that it approximates in some degree with people's conception of God.That is why I suggested my own definition. There is a powerful being who may have interacted with humans in the past, and the sacred scriptures that we have may be some sort of record (perhaps not entirely reliable) of this interaction. My definition fits my criteria -- it is possible that such a being did exist (although I personally believe that it did not), and since many people believe in their sacred scriptures, then my definition fits their conception of god to some degree.Personally, I don't really understand why you feel that this sort of wankery is important. But you did come here of your own free will and ask us for our comments on your "definition". We've given them to you.

---

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

You're making it difficult because it's plainly obvious that you are only really familiar with the Christian god. Because of this you are setting terms about what god should be, according to your Christian mindset.I mean have you ever studied Apollo or Athena? There's a whole world of gods out there but you want to make the rules about what a supreme being is. It's like you are laying down a sequence of questions and answers that will eventually end with 'Aha I told you my god exists'.

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

Actually, your concept is extremely theological. I mean, when you start using words like "ultimate being" and the like, then you're engaging in theology. When you simply postulate things like omnipotence or omniscience without any real evidence that such things exist, then you are talking theology. When you make up definitions without reference to phenomena that occur in reality, that's theology.Now, my definition is non-theological. "A being or beings may have interacted with humans, and the myths of the Bible may be based on these interactions." This is non-theological. It is simply wondering whether the Bible (or other people's scriptures) may have a grain of historical truth to them. It is on the same level as, say, Erich von Dniken or Immanuel Velikovsky, people whose ideas, I dare say, are definitely not theological.

---

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

That also is one of the arguments that I have heard before.I don't see a flaw in the logic.
The point is that if God were to force everything to come out the way he chooses and then claim that he knew all along that it was going to come out that way then it isn't true omniscience in the sense of what I defined.
All it would take to falsify his omniscience is if he decides to make something happen one way (i.e. he knows it will come out that way, then he changes his mind. Therefore he was wrong. Omniscience doesn't allow wrong as an option. Therefore omniscience doesn't allow him to change his mind. And that, in turn, falsifies Omnipotence since this is yet another limit on his power.The only thing that God would truly know under these circumstances is that he has the power to force any outcome he chooses. Omnipotence? Yes. Omniscience? not in any way that is really meaningful.

Hey Phat Logic is a human convention so God obviously cannot be constrained by it.
In fact nothing is really constrained by it. logic has no real power. It is just a tool that we use to help us to figure stuff out.
My only argument as far as logic is concerned is that we cannot define God with it or we come out with some pretty serious contradictions. This isn't about humans though. We know we aren't perfect, omnipotent or omniscient. No idea. Can God create something greater than himself? maybe. Who can tell? It's a little beyond the bounds of this discussion i think. As for free will, That is another subject that we have also been through a few times before. I still contend that any universe in which omniscience (on the part of any being) is even possible, implies that every event that will ever happen throughout all time is carved in stone and therefore freewill is an illusion. That's why I don't buy into omniscience as a possibility. But that's OT as well BTW. Edited by PurpleYouko, : No reason given.