The definition of GOD

Good point.
A bigger problem, as I see it, would be that once you can prove God scientifically, then God becomes measurable and would therefore be subject to our science and all it rules and logic and stuff.Talk about limiting God.Proving he exists scientifically would do exactly that.A bit self defeating if you ask me. <_<

quote:

---

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'.

---

I am not making it difficult at all, the definition of GOD I present is easy to understand, and I have given ways in which to show how my definition is wrong.It doesn't matter what I believe or indeed what you believe, what matters is whether my definition of God is a valid definition of whatever this sumpreme being might actually be.As for Apollo or Athena, once again, before arguing whether or not these are gods or whether they even exist or not, you need to define what God means in the first place. Of course by my definition, if Apollo or Athena do not have the same attributes as the UPB/T then they are not the supreme intelligence I am attempting to define.

And I would have thought that by now you would understand that it's the position of those who have responded to you that you cannot define god without religious concepts, since the very notion of god itself is a religious one. Instead, you simply keep repeating your queer notion that it's possible to define god without using religion in any way.Rather than endlessly saying the same thing over and over, perhaps you need to address the contention that god can be defined completely separate from religion.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

Dear dogrelata,

quote:

---

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

---

YES absolutely. This idea is jumping the gun a bit however. Hopefully I will get to this at some point, but for now all that I can discuss at this point is my definition.

Dear Chiroptera,

quote:

---

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.

---

Well this is a non-argument, as it is quite clear when I talk about theological ideas I mean religious beliefs. And of course I still have to use english words that everybody understands to get the point across, so the chances are that regardless of what words I use to describe GOD you will probably argue that its somekind of theology, which detracts from the actual points being made. Infact someone else said even the word GOD was theological, but of course saying things like that totally miss the point.

Every definition anyone can ever come up with is a valid definition for an entity that may or may not exist! If there is no reference to the actual entity from observations, and no tie-in to a specific religion, there is absolutely no way to determine any of its attributes. This means it could have any attribute you'd like to assign to it - your definition is perfectly valid, but so would a definition along the lines of "a many-tentacled beast from whose terrible maw the Universe spawned."We cannot observe the entity to see what its characteristics are.You specifically want to avoid any particular religion that could help determine what its characteristics are.This means we are working on pure imagination. We may as well be agreeing on the characteristics of a troll without referencing any of the myriad legends and bits of literature in which they appear. Right. You're trying to define some "UTLIMATE DOUBLEPLUS INFINITY MEGA GOD," and that's all well and good - but since we have no observations to tie it with reality, and you've specifically nixed using specific religions from which to draw characteristics, we may as well all sit around and describe our imaginary friends!Your definiton of the word "GOD" is fine - but it's exactly as valid as anyone else's definition of the same word, including definitions that would include Athena or Zeus or the Great Spirit or what have you, becasue we are working with absolutely nothing but opinion and imagination from the limitations you've given us.If I say that your definition is inadequate, and say that MY definition of GOD is "a being that can overpower RTU's GOD," I'm just using the childish "infinity plus 1" argument; but it's no more or less meaningful than your definition, because it has no basis in either reality or legend. I'm pulling the definition out of my own head, exactly like you're doing.

---

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

But that is assuming that god is omnipotent. Ya know, he might not be

Yeah that is true.
But if he isn't then he probably shouldn't be in this thread since we are obviously talking about a different God than Rulerofthisuniverse is talking about

Dear PurpleYouko,

quote:

---

No I don't believe my reasoning is faulty at all. I think it more likely that you are missing my point to some degree. It is a kind of tricky concept that I am trying to get across.
Knowing and seeing all possibilities certainly sounds like omniscience.
However, in the realm of infinite alternate realities in which a new reality branches off for each decision made by each person, EVERY possibility is true somewhere and all universes are equally real. How do you define THIS universe when this universe will branch into a massive number of alternates before the foreknown event comes to pass. From our present point, ALL of those possibilities are THIS universe. Only down certain branches have been made will the different potential outcomes become limited.
The problem comes when the act of KNOWING (with absolute certainty) what WILL happen down each and every one of these pathways, fixes them in stone and makes them unchangeable. If they can be changed then they are not knowable.

---

Of course everything you say maybe be true, only IF THERE ARE infinite alternate realities. However, as my GOD sees and know all POSSIBILITIES and can bring about any possibility it chooses into existence, there is only ever need for ONE reality. So again your ideas do not apply to my definition of GOD.It may be helpful here to define some more words,POSSIBILITY = Something (A concept, prospect or potential), that has a capability of being true, happening or existing.
EXISTENCE = A specific presence, occurrence or an idea, that has progressed, from possibility to actuality.

quote:

---

Are you talking voluntary limits? i.e. choosing not to do certain things. kind of like i choose not to cause the nuclear reactor that I work at, to melt down and kill everybody around it?

---

Yes thats sounds about right, just please don't let that nuclear reactor melt down.

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

Anyway, let's ignore the infinite possible realities for the moment. I don't think that line of reasoning is going to get us anywhere anyway. Of course you can define god in any way you like and there is nothing I or anyone can do about it.
Unless, that is, you attempt to use science or logic to get there. At that point you have to abide by the rules and structures that are defined in those constructs. Yup probably would be useful. OK I don't have aproblem with that.
How about my definitions as posted earlier? Do you agree with these?
It would be a bit pointless to move onwards with a logical sequence unless we have the starting assumptions agreed upon.
You didn't tell me if this agrees with your own definitions before.
I don't want to stand here beating on a strawman that doesn't accurately represent your position.

We do not live in a physical universe. We are merely subprograms running in a computer program that includes everything we experience. God is a socially challenged 37 year old living in his mother's basement. By virtue of his writing the programming the universe consists of, he knows everything. By virtue of his ability to rewrite the programming, he can do anything. Thus, he can erase your memory and, by doing so, he can wipe out any trace of the god that you think you are discussing.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

No he isn't!
He is a young boy playing with a life simulator program that he made on his dad's 3-D Megatronic Compu Brain Computer.I have the proof right here.
无码国产精品一区二区vr_亚洲欧美自拍小说区_44分钟欧美人与禽交片mp4_偷窥女人蹲下露出毛茸茸

Well, since your "proof" has the world ending more than 8 years ago, I think we can safely dismiss that little fantasy.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

Meh!!It was an alternate reality. That universe ended with the clicking of the Holy OFF Switch.