The definition of GOD

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.- I don't have any idea what "ultimate possible being" even means.- 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

And look at the gods that were worshipped by the ancient peoples. They were simply super-powered beings, not infinitely powerful, or infinitely intelligent, and often not even immortal.I believe that the idea of a transcendent god was an creation of the classical Greeks, but I might be wrong. I'm not sure whether this transcendent God was then adopted by the pre-Christian Jews, or whether it was first mixed with the Jewish religion by the Jesus cult as they were formulating Christianity. But I digress.That is why we have to be careful about the definition of God. We need to start with a minimal definition, and then try to figure out what attributes this god has.For example, does one believe that a being created the universe, and then interacted with humanity as related in the ancient scriptures? Then one could either define god as the being who created the universe, and then try to figure out whether the ancient scriptures really do describe this being's interactions with people. Or one could by starting with the definition that God is the being described in the scriptures. Then one can try to figure out whether this being really did create the universe.This is what one needs to do. Start with a minimal definition. Then, once one is convinced that this being really does exist, one can try to discover its other attributes.

---

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 is half true. But the definitions are based on theories that are constructed on the basis of observable phenomena. In science, one doesn't just define things and then begin to study them; the definitions are part of the theories, and the theories (along with the definitions) are based on trying to understand observations made in the real world.- Then God hasn't been defined. You define terms using terms that are already understood. Otherwise you're just stringing a bunch of words together with in a way that there is no coherent meaning.- That's fine. But definitions need to be useful in that they help us understand the world around us, or they are part of a theoretical framework that describes what we actually experience in the world. Does you definition really help any of us to understand anything? To me, it just seems like a bunch of words strung together.What you are doing is something like: "I define SHERLOCK HOLMES to be a Victorian era detective who lived in London and had amazing powers of observation and deduction." Great -- that is exactly what Arthur Conan Doyle did. But Sherlock Holmes is a completely fictional character. He may have been a pretty good read, but he certainly has nothing to do with the real world.To me, it's more profitable to base the definition on the phenomenon that one is studying. For example, if one is convinced that the Bible is a record (perhaps imperfect) of some being's interaction with humans, then one can define God to be the being described in the Bible. Then one can begin to study this being, to find out whether it really exists or existed, and what other attributes it may have had.Or if one believes that the universe exhibits so much order that it had to have an intelligent creator, one can define God to be the creator of the universe. Then one can try to figure out what other attributes it may have or might have had.

---

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

Well, I had a proposal.God is the being that interacted with human beings, an interaction which formed the basis for the myths found in the Bible and perhaps other people's scriptures.This definition is pretty concrete, and it's conceivable that evidence can be found to allow us to conclude one way or another whether this being existed.And if we can conclude that this being existed, perhaps the evidence will allow us to make other conclusions about its nature.

---

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

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

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

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

Heck, people aren't even constrained by it! Seriously, though, reality isn't even constrained to behave according to our rules of logic -- in fact, the only reason that reality appears to be constrained by our logic is because we constantly change our basic definitions to ensure that logic is preserved.

---

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

Hi, PY.Another interesting feature about the traditional Christian God:If in each and every possible situation there is always a best possible course of action or a best possible decision, and if God always makes the best possible decision, then God doesn't have free will, either.Hell, in that case, God simply becomes a force of nature, and may not even need to be conscious or intelligent.

---

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

But that isn't what you are doing. If you were proceeding in a scientific manner, then you would be defining god as part of an overall theory to explain some sort of phenomenon. What phenomenon are you trying to explain?- But this is what you are doing -- you are letting religious beliefs get in your way. I don't know whether these are your religious beliefs, but you are certainly basing your "definition" on the religious beliefs that you have heard. There is no reason to begin by describing god with words like "ultimate" or "above everything" -- in fact, since these words are rather vague (I certainly don't know what they mean), they are only going to contribute to confusion.- Can you point to the posts where you gave these examples? I must have been reading too fast and missed them.- What makes it the "correct" definition? "Correct" in which context? What questions are you trying to investigate?- Well, I certainly didn't use any theological concepts in my definition of god. The Bible is a physically existing book. The events described therein either did happen or did not happen -- this is not a theological question, but a question about history. The beings described therein either did exist or they did not -- again, this is a historical question. The reliability of the accounts in the Bible, again, is a historical question, not a theological one.Consider my definition: God is the being which interacted with humans and whose interaction with humans formed the basis of the myths which are recorded in the Bible.We have a phenomenon -- we have a written document called the Bible. It was written by human beings. It allegedly describes the actions of a being that some people call "God". Now we can begin to ask concrete questions like, did such a being exist? How reliable is the Bible as a record of this being? Was this being a human? Mortal? Material? Did it perform the feats that were described in the Bible? How did it do so?So, once I start adding details about the nature of this being, this theory begins to explain a concrete physical phenomenon, namely the origins of the Bible. What is more, as I make a more detailed account of this god, then I can begin to look for physical historical or archeological evidence to either confirm or refute my theory.My definition of god is one that can be investigated using standard methods of historical and archaeological research. Now, there may in fact be no evidence available now to determine these questions, but potentially evidence may be found, and by properly formulating the questions and the concepts we can work out where and how we should search for such evidence.

---

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

Thanks, Larni. Only thing: it's not an adjective. It's a description of an action: wankery -- the action of wanking.And don't thank me for it -- it's purely a product of the fair isles of the UK and Ireland.

---

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

Indeed:

quote:

---

The phenomenon I am going to explain is EXISTENCE.

---

He's setting up for a Transcendental Argument for God.Remember folks, the outermost fork is the salad fork!

---

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

I'm reading a comic book series that has an Irish vampire who calls people "wanker" all the time. I used to dislike the word, but now I've become rather fond of it.

---

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

Actually, I asked for ways to falsify the existence of the god defined by you. That is, I was asking for how we can falsify the existence of the god you defined by empirical means. What observations can we make in the real world will help in determining whether your god exists? In particular, even if we can establish the existence of a very powerful being, how do we know it is omnipotent? How do we know that there isn't something even more powerful, but it is only this not-so-powerful being who chooses to interact with the world?If there is no way to determine whether such a being as you defined exists, then who cares? Why even bother to define it? What purpose does it serve?All you have is a challenge to provide a defition, and a set of arbitrary criteria which you will use to determine whether you find the other definitions suitable.- Sure. So is the earth being round. And so is the United States winning World War II. And so is the interior of the earth being made of Ben and Jerry's Cherry Garcia ice cream. But these are all beliefs that can be tested and either confirmed or refuted through empirical means.Either god did interact with humans, or he did not. If he did, then there might be some evidence that confirms this. If he did not, then there may be evidence that refutes the alleged evidence that he did. Either way, we can begin to make a determination whether or not there was a god (whatever the nature of that god really was) that interacted with human beings.You claim that you are trying to do this scientifically. Well, that means that your theories must be testable through empirical observation. That is, there should be things that we can look for that will either confirm your theory or refute it.Edited by Chiroptera, : No reason given.

---

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

Did I call it or what?

---

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