The definition of GOD

So you want to know whether your definition of God is consistent with common usage by monotheists? It is certainly not universally understood to mean those things, but yes, it seems consistent with the way it is used by most monotheists. American Heritage Dictionary gives us two principle definitions:

quote:

---

A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions.

---

Which seems to be similar to yours, and:

quote:

---

A being of supernatural powers or attributes, believed in and worshiped by a people, especially a male deity thought to control some part of nature or reality.

---

which isn't entirely consistent with yours. God doesn't represent the ultimate possible being. This is different from your definitions of a being which is a 'creator of the universe', 'ruler of same', 'supreme intelligence', etc. God, in your original idea, represents a being which is the most ultimate being imaginable by humans.The ultimate possible being could be human beings for certain understandings of 'ultimate'. If it means the original being, then it could be the exceptionally hot and dense state of the early moments of the universe. Which is not supreme intelligence.There is a big gap between 'imaginable' and 'possible', though I appreciate some people can have difficulties with this one. It does sound like you are going to move onto Anselm's proofs but I hope I'm wrong. If you wanted a thread that argued this position, for example:

quote:

---

God is the entity, which nothing greater can be conceived.
It is greater to be necessary than not.
God must be necessary.
God necessarily exists.

---

It would probably have been easier to have started there. Either way, I'd be interested in seeing where you are going with this. You've kept us in suspense about where you want to go with this definition for too long: release the suspense, reveal what lies under the covers.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

Which presupposes that 'god' is a being that is in complete control over everything. Whatever the ultimate possible being is, it might not have complete control over everything. That the ultimate possible being does have complete control is a position held by monotheists. So it necessarily has that element of religious belief embedded in it. I was suggesting that you had contradictory definitions. On the one hand, god is the ultimate possible being, on the other hand it is a creator of the universe and 'ruler of same'. The creator of the universe and even it's governor aren't necessarily the ultimate possible beings. It is certainly high up the scale of ultimate being that can be imagined. Possibilities can certainly exceed any imagination we care to imagine. Also - our imagination can conceive of things which are not possible. The ultimate possible being might not be the same as the ultimate being we can imagine as possibly existing. The ultimate possible being might be us. I wasn't talking about an ultimate human. I was talking about humans being the ultimate possible being -that which would be called 'god' under certain wordings of your definition. It might be the case that it is not possible to have a more ultimate being than ourselves. So you agree that it is possible, in principle, for human beings to be the ultimate possible being? We can certainly imagine superior beings by whatever metric we like, but it might be the case that none of these beings, or any other, actually exists or could exist. That's great, I have a feeling that you're never going to get there though since there are going to be so many objections to what I assume are going to form your premises. It is up to you how to handle it, of course, but since if you want to lay out the argument you're going to have to spill the beans before you really want to, it might worth considering getting it over and done with.Either way, I await your thoughts about what I said.

Why would that be the case? If humans were the ultimate possible beings, how are they rendered powerless by there being more than one of them? It might be that their collectivity is integral to them having the power they do. I thought you were defining terms. Let's not rely on how people commonly use the word at all. So God is the ultimate possible being? Great. What next?

It might be that there are multiple independent factions that make them powerful. Several 'homunculi', or it could be that humans as 6 billion individuals individuals are. There is no reason to suspect that there has to be only one ultimate possible being. The question hasn't been answered.

So now we are drifting from the ultimate possible being to a hypothetically all powerful being; switching to the latter then yes, we are in agreement for the reasons you stated.

Your argument only makes sense if your premises do.First: If there is no possibility of God existing, then he will exist in 0 possibility spaces. Whether or not there is a possibility of God existing or not is unknown, and there is no way of knowing what the probability is that the possibility exists. Because of this flaw, we can only conclude that God may or may not exist. Which we already knew.Second: There is no reason to believe that there are an infinite amount possibility spaces or possibilities. You have shown that an infinite number of abstract entities can exist in principle (ie numbers). As such, at best, you have demonstrated that an abstraction of God is possible. We know that already.Third: A possibility cannot affect other possibility spaces, unless it actually exists. Just because in some possibility spaces there exists a God, does not actually mean that God actually exists and can do anything. The possibility of God is inert and has no power to influence possibility. Thus you have shown that there exists a possibility that in certain possibility spaces a being that has complete power over possibility is a possibility, and thus you have shown that God may or may not exist. Once again, we already knew this.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

There is no contradiction. We know there are two hypothetical possibilities: God exists, or God does not exist. We do not know if it is in reality possible that God exists. If that confuses you let me explain:There are two hypothetical possibilities: I can do 500,000 press-ups in 1 hour or I cannot do 500,000 press-ups in one hour. With suitably advanced science we might deduce a maximum possible number of press-ups my body is capable of doing. If that turns out to be 250 then we now know that it is not possible that I can do 500,000 press-ups in 1 hour. We can also use less advanced science and deduce that to perform 500,000 press-ups in one hour would mean I do over 138 press-ups a second. Upon examination it looks impossible to achieve.So, either God exists or he doesn't exist. We do not even know if it is possible for God to actually exist. There may be constraints on reality that prohibit its existence. Since we do not know if this is the case, we cannot know if God can exist within reality.To clarify, on the one hand hypothetically god could exist - but this is just a thought possibility, a hypothetical, an imagination session a 'what if', call it what you will - we do not know if it could actually exist in reality. You promised you wouldn't argue that since you can imagine God...he must exist and you starkly discriminated between the imagination and reality.What we need to do is to find out what the ultimate possible being actually is. What is the most ultimate thing that could exist in this reality? Not hypothetically speaking, but actually speaking. What constraints does reality have and within those constraints what is the ultimate. For all we know, it could be us. It certainly might be the case that this being exists and is not aware of its status as 'ultimate'. It is also possible that it is possible to exist but doesn't. Once we get that information we need to then see if this being would be able to affect all possibilities. After that, we'd need information as to whether this possible being actually does exist. So you accept that at best, you have demonstrated that an abstraction of God is possible; We can imagine God. You made the claim, you have to support it. There is no reason to think that in a finite reality an infinite number of things could be. Quite the contrary: one would imagine that there can only be a finite number of possibilities. You have not shown there are an infinite number of possibilities. I don't need to disprove your claim, you need to show that it is true. Saying that there are an infinite number of abstract entities that exist in principle is not the same as showing that there are an infinite number of possibilities.Even with an infinite number of possibilities we still need to uncover the constraints. One would not expect that anything that can be imagined is within the realms of possibility in reality. One would expect that there are also things outside our imagination that could not exist. No you haven't and no it doesn't. It does not solve any of the problems in the paragraph since you said "As we proved earlier God is the only possible possibility" and we don't agree on this. Thus, claiming that the conclusions based on controversial premises lend support to your premises looks slightly circular.You need to answer the problem: A possibility cannot affect other possibilities. Only the actual existence of the claimed entity can do this.

You've certainly asserted it. You haven't shown that it must be true though. I am not the one making claims about the ultimate possible being. You don't know what the ultimate possible being is, and so you cannot know what that being is capable of. No, but ideas can show why the theory does not do what it purports to. And I have shown that you have not shown how your theory corresponds to reality. Abstract entities are not necessarily possible. If by 'demonstrate' you mean 'assert' then we agree. I am more certain of the possibility I am sat on a leather chair than we can be of God. I wouldn't dream of making such a claim without evidence. Your thesis relies on an infinite reality and you haven't demonstrated that this exists. Who said anything about the universe? I was talking about reality. If reality is finite it is finite. There are an infinite number of hypothetical abstract possibilities. That has no bearing on how many actual possibilities there are. When I make a claim that relies on the existence or lack of existence of certain constraints on reality I will be happy to do so. As it stands, you are the one making the claims, you are the one who has to back them up. I am not stating your statement is wrong. I'm telling you that you have not shown that it is true. And until you have shown that it is true, I will not agree that it is. Until then, you can't rely on that statement and a conclusion based on it in order to support your initial premises.That's just not how this works, sorry. You made the claim:

quote:

---

can any possibilities directly or indirectly affect any other possibilities. The answer must be YES.

---

I have shown that the answer must be NO. Possibilities cannot affect other possibilities, only things that actually exist can do that. That's why it presents a terminal problem to your theory and it needs to be answered.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

I'm aware of what you think you have done, if it wasn't clear already I argue that you haven't shown anything of the sort. There is no reason you have provided which suggests that existence and God are mutually dependant. You started with the premise that God is the only possible possibility, which is obviously untrue. My leather chair is a possible possibility. No we can't deduce what is God is capable of using logic. If god exists, we can only deduce what God is capable of using evidence and logic. Our premises are dependant on the evidence.However, this doesn't address my point. You still don't know what the ultimate possible being is - or whether or not this ultimate possible being qualifies as being God under your complete definition (the ultimate possible being might not be able to affect all possibilities). It's obvious that you don't think any idea has shown the flaws in your reasoning -otherwise you'd have conceded. Now that you have accepted that ideas can show the flaws in your thinking you can now go back to the original thing I said:What we need to do is to find out what the ultimate possible being actually is. What is the most ultimate thing that could exist in this reality? Not hypothetically speaking, but actually speaking. What constraints does reality have and within those constraints what is the ultimate. For all we know, it could be us. It certainly might be the case that this being exists and is not aware of its status as 'ultimate'. It is also possible that it is possible to exist but doesn't. Once we get that information we need to then see if this being would be able to affect all possibilities. After that, we'd need information as to whether this possible being actually does exist.And tackle that and show why it isn't a problem for your thesis. Abstract Entity

quote:

---

set - (mathematics) an abstract collection of numbers or symbols; "the set of prime numbers is infinite"

---

God might just be an imaginary being, something that exists in a set of imaginary entities most of which have no possibility of actually existing. And yet your theory rests on the fact that an abstract collection of numbers represent an infinite number of actual possibilities. If abstract collections with infinite members are not actually possible, then your theory is in big trouble. But I don't know that I am sat on a leather chair, do I? It certainly feels like I am, but maybe it is an induced hallucination- or maybe I've been scammed and it is fake leather. Maybe someone switched chairs after I initially bought it. All of these are possible, but I'm confident that it is, actually, a leather chair that I am sat in. And you have not shown that a finite reality will definitely have infinite possibilities. Nor have you shown that reality contains an infinite number of possibilities. No - hypothetical possibilities do not have any bearing on actuality . Only actual possibilities would qualify. I said that the number of hypothetical possibilities is irrelevant to the number of actual possibilities. The context wasn't talking about possibility spaces, if that is what you meant the problem still remains. A possibility space cannot affect other possibility spaces based only on its possibilities. What matters is what actually is.To quote you:

quote:

---

that even in the theoretical world of possibility a YES-GOD space transends all other possibilities

---

In the theoretical world of possibility a YES-GOD space cannot transcend all other possibilities. The only time God can affect other possibilities is if it actually exists. Since this is what you set out to prove, you cannot assume it to be the case here.

I don't follow. In your proof of the dependency of God and existence you say "As we proved earlier God is the only possible possibility, therefore we can see that God and possibility are themselves irreducibly dependent."I argue that your premise to this proof (that God is the only possible possibility) is false. Are you suggesting that your thesis contradicts itself by saying that God is the only possible possibility and there are an infinite number of possibilities? I understand what the ultimate being is in your imagination. It is a being that controls all possibilities and is the creator of all that exists. Great. Is such an entity actually possible? If not, what is the most ultimate being that is possible? By this reality I mean in the reality that actually exists. God doesn't create reality, I use reality to encompass all that exists - which would include God. There is only one reality that exists. Whatever the ultimate possible being can be, is constrained by whatever rules of reality exist. It is your burden to show that there are no limits within any rules that might exist (or to show that no rules exist!). More abstract entities. Try finding an infinite set of entities that can possibly exist. Those objects in reality are not abstractions though. The numbers in an infinite set are abstractions from actual quantities in reality. If there is a limited number of quantifiable things in reality or their quantities can only take on a finite amount - then your infinite sets of numbers are not really real - they are just abstractions. Yes I know you haven't said that. But you need to show that, otherwise you are in trouble. So there is no limit on the number of moves? If so, then is this not an infinite possibility space? We're getting all confused. Let me try again.I flip a coin. It could either:1. land heads up
2. land tails up
3. turn into a griffon
4. engage in political discourse
5. change your name
6. sleep furiously in a field of green
7. solve Fermat's last Theorem
8. create a universe
9. kill Kennedy
10. collapse into a black hole, emit 10¹⁰⁰¹⁰⁰ carbon atoms at 400 times the speed of light, with a rest mass of -4tonnes whilst composing 100 years worth of European classical music.Now, let's say that some of those are impossible. At least two of them are actually possible. Now, it isn't both heads and tails. Only one of them comes into existence.Now - you have to show that God is a heads/tails type possibility (one that can actually happen in this reality) and not a faster than light absurd number of carbon atoms composing music type hypothetical possibility (which for the sake of argument is not possible in this reality). But actual possibilities still can't affect reality. They don't exist, they only possibly exist. They only exist if they exist. Unless they do, they can't affect anything. Possibility spaces, possibilities, whatever you talk about...cannot do anything unless they actually exist. If you want to assume that a possibility space exists within which God exists, then you are just assuming God exists. That would make for a lousy argument and you'll excuse me if I gave you the benefit of the doubt about what you were trying to say.

And you seem to rely on this conclusion as a premise to your 'proof' of the irreducible dependency of god and existence. If it isn't. Please illuminate me by showing me the premises of your argument. So we agree then that "God is the only possible possibility" is false? As stated above, if you could reword your argument so it doesn't contain this statement perhaps I will understand you better. So you have observed the ultimate possible being? No, it doesn't. It proves that if God exists, God exists. You haven't shown that God is actually possible in this reality. I can't say much more than this in comment because you didn't give me much substance to reply to. How is it meaningless? God cannot create reality, because God wouldn't exist in reality if reality doesn't exist. Therefore since God does not exist in reality, God does not exist. If there is a metaphysical existence, it is part of reality as I defined it (everything that exists) if other entities exist (those things you call realities), then they are part of what I call reality. Otherwise it isn't real. If you are arguing that God isn't real - I agree. If you want to concede that an infinite amount of possibilities might not actually exist, that's fine by me. Correct. So you need to show that there are no limits on those certain things. If you want to concede that there is no reason to believe you when you assert otherwise that's fine by me too. Of course it matters. If there is only a finite move number, then there are not unlimited possibilities. What has physical space got to do with possibility space? If there is finite space, and an infinite quantity of moves, I'd agree that there is infinite possibilities; but this would not be a finite possibility space, which is what we were talking about. You don't show it, you just state it. And in ALL possibility spaces there is only ever ONE of TWO answers to the ONE QUESTION. The question is "when I flip a coin does it land heads up or collapse into a black hole, emit 10¹⁰⁰¹⁰⁰ carbon atoms at 400 times the speed of light, with a rest mass of -4tonnes whilst composing 100 years worth of European classical music?"One of them isn't actually possible though is it? The way I was thinking of actual possibilities having bearing on reality was meant to be straightforward, but evidently it was simply confusing. Actual possibilities might possibly manifest in reality. Hypothetical possibilities, if they aren't also actual, won't do this.However, just because it is possible that a being that can influence possibility could exist, that being cannot influence possibility if it doesn't actually exist. It will only be able to do so, if it is not just a possibility but an actuality. If God doesn't exist, then your thesis simply concludes that God does not exist. If you want me to go through it and prove that I will. A quick taster: if God does not exist, then it is not possible for God to exist (by definition), therefore all the possibility spaces have NO-GOD in them.An argument cannot assume two contradictory things and reach a single answer.

I'll let the lurkers decide over who is arguing over which premise came first. All I care about is for you to illuminate me on the details of your argument, that doesn't (at any point, first or last) include the premise that god is the only possible possibility. It is clear to you, but I don't have the ability to read your mind. Let me see if I get this straight. God exists, therefore god and existence are irreducibly dependent therefore the problems with the premises are solved by this conclusion?You earlier argued that the fact that god is irreducibly dependent was some kind of solution to the problem with your premises regarding the ultimate possible being. Message 227, I'm having difficulty reconciling your position. But you haven't made any observations that confirm this dependency? And I also said: "I use reality to encompass all that exists". If God exists he does so in reality. Does god exist or not? He cannot exist in a realm that creates existence because to do so, he'd have to exist - which would make him part of existence. What would give you that idea? My statement was preceded by the word 'if'. So then you have to both show that this is so, rather than just asserting that it is with reference to non-real entities that you cannot know can all actually exist or not AND that one of those possibilities is God, which is also not necessarily the case. Since when did questions have to have opposite answers? The point is that if one of the proposed answers is not actually possible, then it will never be more than a hypothetical possibility. Only if they are the rules of this metaphysical realm. Why would we assume that to be the case? Inventing a hypothetical realm where possibilities can hypothetically affect one another is not really going to prove anything.

The word 'before' implies time. Time is part of reality. There can be no 'before' reality exists. If reality does not exist, there is no possibility of it existing. Yes, defining reality as being that which includes all things that exist does cause problems. How do you define reality? Show your data. Indeed - thus God cannot create reality. (Though as previously mentioned, time and space can exist without matter and it might even possible for space to exist without time) I don't know what this 'metaphysical existence' is. Yes, when flipping a coin there are only two actual possibilities (as well as countless hypothetical possibilities). Now - how many actual possibilities are there to the question 'Is there a God?'? There are either one or two possibilities. You don't know if it is one or two.Put it like this: I flip a coin which has two heads on it but you don't know that. You think there are two possibilities: heads or tails, when there is actually only one possibility. This is the problem you face - you have to show that God is one of the possibilities not just say he either exists or he doesn't. Either the coin collapses into a composing black hole structure or it doesn't. There are only two answers to the question "Will it collapse into a black hole and compose music?" YES-black_hole and NO-black-hole. But they are not both possibilities since one of them isn't actually possibility.

That is how I am defining reality - there is no insistence of reality being "something that physically exists" in there at all. And herein lies your problem. You have given us nothing but imaginary data. Data that you have thought about, but nothing you have recorded from the real world. They have material and physical form and substance. They exist within our brains as neural states. But I will concede the point - God exists in your imagination. But god cannot create reality, which is all that exists (physical or otherwise). If God could create reality - that would mean God was not part of reality. Which would mean that God doesn't actually really exist. If God doesn't exist, he cannot create reality.This inherent contradiction proves that God cannot create reality. Not true - we don't know what the possible answers are to this question. At most there are two, YES and NO. But if it is impossible for God not to exist then there is only one answer: YES! If it is impossible for God to exist then there is only one answer: NO!Since we don't know if it is impossible or possible, the rest is just idle speculationTo conclude:God possibly exists or God possibly doesn't exist. You don't know what the actual answers are to 'Can the god you have defined possibly exist?' So you have an imaginary god that exists in your mind, but that god is powerless to affect reality. Even if, in your imagination, this god can affect reality - that doesn't mean it actually can.We have no way of knowing what the most powerful being that could exist in reality is. We have no way of knowing what the most powerful being that does exist in reality is. Therefore 'God' may or may not exist and your tour of your imagination has not got us any closer to an answer.To put this into perspective, billions of people have thought about this question, in one fashion or another, over thousands of years. Millions upon millions of them have considered the god you describe. Some of them were much smarter, more highly educated and had a lot more time on their hands to ponder these questions than anybody that posts on this board - including you.If you think that you have managed to outsmart them all using the argument ad imagination - you might want to consider the hubris that shows.