Beware the beast Man, for he is the Devil's pawn

[Jefe]

How can god be all that AND be conceivable. You contradicted yourself in your post.

In our limited understanding.

[Neosutra]

But why call it a "god" at all zoober? Thats like calling it a giraffe. If you say it fits no definition of god, other than existing as a being that we dont know about, then you shouldnt label it as a god.

The word "god" has implications. Use another word if that isnt what you are hypothetically impying.

[Max™]

Technically infinity is conceivable, though still hard to understand in many ways for I'd say most people.

Nonetheless, if this omni-God exists as an answer to "Where did we/the universe/whatever come from?", it raises two new questions "What made omni-God?" and "What is omni-God?".

Continuing down that path produces MORE questions than answers, it has negative utility as an explanation, it should rightfully be classified as a mental illness to believe that.

Repeating something and expecting a different outcome is a great definition of insanity.

Technically all of us assholes trying to get people to snap out of this God shit are insane too, because we keep explaining the holes in the logic, the reasons why it is absurd to cling to these ideals, and we keep expecting to be understood.

[Jefe]

If the god we are referring to was created by another entity, force, fill in the blank, then the god we speak of is not the greatest conceivable being. Therefore, it is not a god.

[zoobernut]

But why call it a "god" at all zoober? Thats like calling it a giraffe. If you say it fits no definition of god, other than existing as a being that we dont know about, then you shouldnt label it as a god.

The word "god" has implications. Use another word if that isnt what you are hypothetically impying.

That is why I was using the term super-entity. I agree with you that the term god has certain implications that are attached to the idea of a being that controls the universe from above. I was trying to separate the idea of what "god" can or cannot do from the idea of the possibility of the existence of "god". They are two separate things.

Though you are right and my ultimate point of all my posts is if "god" exists but does nothing and has no connection to our perceivable world then who the hell cares.

[Neosutra]

What makes an entity super?

[Max™]

If the god we are referring to was created by another entity, force, fill in the blank, then the god we speak of is not the greatest conceivable being. Therefore, it is not a god.

What is the greatest conceivable being capable of conceiving?
How does it exist without everything being defined as a part of it?
How can you be happy with "it just is" as an explanation?

Your answer produces more questions, that is a bad answer.

What makes an entity super?

A fucking cape and a big red S on their pajamas, obviously.

[Max™]

double*

[Jefe]

See my post above, it already answers those questions.

[Max™]

No it does not.

Simply saying the subject is the answer is a null argument.

If you are claiming omni-God as the answer to all things, yet you cannot ask the logical questions which arise from your "answer", then your argument is broken.

Either it is completely unknowable, and thus worthless as an explanation, it is at least partially knowable, and thus raises new questions which makes it worthless as an explanation, or it is fully knowable which still raises new questions.

There is no way to posit God as an explanation which provides any net gain in understanding or the ability to explain events.

It is the sort of answer a child would come up with... or a deranged person... or a cat.

[zoobernut]

What makes an entity super?

I think you are taking the term a little bit too literal. I meant super as in above our plane of existence.

[quannum]

If the god we are referring to was created by another entity, force, fill in the blank, then the god we speak of is not the greatest conceivable being. Therefore, it is not a god.

I spy a sloppy attempt at the ontological argument.

[kareface]

No it does not.

Simply saying the subject is the answer is a null argument.

If you are claiming omni-God as the answer to all things, yet you cannot ask the logical questions which arise from your "answer", then your argument is broken.

Either it is completely unknowable, and thus worthless as an explanation, it is at least partially knowable, and thus raises new questions which makes it worthless as an explanation, or it is fully knowable which still raises new questions.

There is no way to posit God as an explanation which provides any net gain in understanding or the ability to explain events.

It is the sort of answer a child would come up with... or a deranged person... or a cat.

My cat is an atheist, he told me so.

[Neosutra]

I think you are taking the term a little bit too literal. I meant super as in above our plane of existence.

How do you define above?

[zoobernut]

Ok outside? Not perceptible by us. Really you are just picking at semantics here. I was agreeing with you and just using a term other than god to prove my point.

The idea of a god like entity is not the issue its the idea that this entity controls our lives and creates everything and created the universe and has these powers.

Philosophically it is interesting because most people focus on the existence of god by defining what it can do not what it is. But when you take out what it can do and just look at the possibility of it existing beyond its behavior then people stop caring because at that point its existence has no impact on humans or our world.

[Neosutra]

Ok, what can god do then?

And yes, it is all semantics Q.Q.

[zoobernut]

I was saying it is an interesting concept that most people say they are arguing the existence of god either against or for it but rather they are arguing the abilities of god not the existence.

[Metah]

Trying to read through the posts here, but its hard to reply to everything, so here's my shot at it in general.

In its simplest form, god is defined as 'that which nothing greater can possibly be conceived'. Now of course, this has the limitations of what we as humans can conceive, but then you can argue that our ability to conceive is limitless. Not limitless for all humans at any one given time, but as our civilization continues and expands with time, we are able to conceive more things than our predecessors were. I don't think its too much of a stretch to say that, given that we continue existing as a species, our ability to conceive will continue to expand limitlessly. Its also possible that a being exists that has a perfect ability to conceive.

Now, let's forget about everything else that can be possibly conceived and focus on one thing that we as humans can conceive; existence. Existence is strange, for something can only either exist or not exist. But even then, that is not true, for a half-human, half-fish entity known as a mermaid does not exist and yet exists through our knowledge. It exists because we give it some degree of existence, and there are many things like this. So let's agree that existence establishes itself in degrees; non-existence, existence, and any amount of existence between them. It is difficult to name and measure these degrees of existence between existence and non-existence, but logically they are present.

Now, if you ask any human being what god is, almost without fail you will get an answer that sounds a lot like 'something above me', with above meaning 'greater'. As humans develop, they become aware of themselves, others and their surroundings, and they observe that there are some things that are closer to being perfect than other things in specific areas. However, we also draw a limit, the limit known as perfection. We naturally (do not confuse this with "innately") understand that there are perfections, and that it is possible for something to reach this level we call perfection in any one or all fields. God is supposedly able to reach all perfections, for god is defined as 'that which nothing greater can possibly be conceived'. Simply by having this conversation, you are giving god some degree of lower existence, because you understand the parameters of the definition and can conceive it.

Now, consider what the perfection of existence is. Is it non-existence? Is it existence? This is up for you to decide, but I would reason that existence is a perfection in itself, and it is a perfection that anything that exists holds. Things that do not exist can be granted some degree of existence by those that exist, but it is not perfect. We as humans, we as anything that exists are entitled to a minimum of one perfection; existence. If you consider existence as a perfection, and god as 'that which nothing greater can possibly be conceived', then it only follows through that god exists.

Now, I do beleive god exists, because it does only seem logical to me. That said, I do think god created the big bang, evolution and the natural laws such as gravity. It seems illogical to me that god couldn't have done so. Since god has all perfections, if it could conceive of something with fewer perfections than it, than it could create it, much like a human can create a machine. However, we as humans cannot create something with more perfections than ourselves, for something greater cannot come from something lesser (or at least I know of no such instances). It would only follow that god be the same, it cannot create something with more perfections than it, especially if I reason that god's ability to conceive and understand as perfect. It would understand that it has all conceivable perfections, and as such would be limited.

In this manner, I think god is perfectly above us, but not infinitely above us. There must be some sort of limit that can be defined as perfect, or else it is not perfection. Now, is always existing a perfection? That of which I am unsure, but I think that it is not, because all things must have some beginning, and all things that exist have the guaranteed perfection of existence. If existing is a perfection, then always existing wouldn't matter, because perfection has been achieved.

What does this mean? It means that there may have been a time where god did not exist. But, if you beleive (and if you don't, that's cool with me) that god created all things lower than it, which would be everything, but it did not always exist, then it would follow that something created god. Yet, that doesn't make sense on the premise that it has all perfections, and nothing can conceivably be greater by god (as in, god cannot conceive of something greater). All in all, this would mean that at one point in time (or before time if you want to say that), nothing existed. Then, at another point in time (or when time began), something existed. This would mean that something came from nothing. Yet, if we continue on the premise that non-existence is the opposite of perfection, then if something came from nothing, that means something more perfect came from something not only not perfect, but the polar opposite of perfection. As you can see, this is where I hit my snag. Of course, this snag only occurs if you consider that always existing is not a perfection. If you consider that god always existed, because always existing is a perfection, then this problem does not occur, yet another does. If something always existed, then it had no beginning. I cannot conceive of something without a beginning.

All in all, to me it is reasonable to say that god exists, and that god did create this universe (or created the means to do so, or at least created a lower being that in turn created us, or that there are several gods, each of which who contain all possible perfections and are equally as perfect as each other). However, that's as far as I can go. Whether god(s) always existed or whether god(s) came from nothing is something I cannot answer. I can conceive that something came from nothing, but that does not mean it is possible. I cannot conceive of something always existing, because it has no beginning, which is a prerequisite of existence to me (to exist, it must begin to exist). I can offer no proof of any claim, but I can offer where the proof lies. If it is ever discovered that something came from nothing, that something greater came from something less, therein lies the true proof of the existence of god. But that's just what I reason, of course.

Additionally, it is possible that what I consider the perfection of existence is actually not perfect. Again with the robot, if we as humans create it, then now it exists. Robots exist, and they have the same existence as us. However, unicorns only have a degree of our existence. It is possible that we too are a degree of existence, and cannot fully understand what perfect existence is (at least, not now) due to our limited understanding. This would throw my whole argument into the trash, although it seems to me to be even less provable than saying that existence is a perfection.

Tell me what you think of my opinion, which I claim as my own, but the ideas it stems from I do not.

[kareface]

In its simplest form, god is defined as 'that which nothing greater can possibly be conceived'. Now of course, this has the limitations of what we as humans can conceive, but then you can argue that our ability to conceive is limitless. Not limitless for all humans at any one given time, but as our civilization continues and expands with time, we are able to conceive more things than our predecessors were. I don't think its too much of a stretch to say that, given that we continue existing as a species, our ability to conceive will continue to expand limitlessly. Its also possible that a being exists that has a perfect ability to conceive.

The human mind is not as "limitless" as you might suspect. We have extreme trouble quantifying anything that is too small or too large. Our poorly evolved mammalian brains aren't designed to comprehend such things.

I don't even want to reply to most of your post because it's mostly just you typing to hear the keys being pressed. It would be kind to call the post nonsense.

Now, I do beleive god exists, because it does only seem logical to me.

Instead of your pointless rant, why don't you explain what logic you used to justify a belief in god.

for something greater cannot come from something lesser

This is dumb. You are making nonsensical arguments. I could name countless examples why this is outright wrong. I won't because it's easy enough anyone can think of one...

It would only follow that god be the same, it cannot create something with more perfections than it, especially if I reason that god's ability to conceive and understand as perfect. It would understand that it has all conceivable perfections, and as such would be limited.

If it is perfect, then it should be able to do what ever it wants. You are assigning some attributes to something that by definition is unknowable.

In this manner, I think god is perfectly above us, but not infinitely above us. There must be some sort of limit that can be defined as perfect, or else it is not perfection. Now, is always existing a perfection? That of which I am unsure, but I think that it is not, because all things must have some beginning, and all things that exist have the guaranteed perfection of existence. If existing is a perfection, then always existing wouldn't matter, because perfection has been achieved.

This is another fatuous statement. The concept of a beginning and and end is another construct of our under evolved minds. There is no reason something can't exist eternally in a different state. It's not like your body vanishes when you die, everything that you are composed of goes on to feed new generations of life. Every time we take a sip of water, there's a 99.9999% chance we're drinking something that once was dinosaur urine.

All in all, to me it is reasonable to say that god exists, and that god did create this universe (or created the means to do so, or at least created a lower being that in turn created us, or that there are several gods, each of which who contain all possible perfections and are equally as perfect as each other). However, that's as far as I can go. Whether god(s) always existed or whether god(s) came from nothing is something I cannot answer. I can conceive that something came from nothing, but that does not mean it is possible. I cannot conceive of something always existing, because it has no beginning, which is a prerequisite of existence to me (to exist, it must begin to exist). I can offer no proof of any claim, but I can offer where the proof lies. If it is ever discovered that something came from nothing, that something greater came from something less, therein lies the true proof of the existence of god. But that's just what I reason, of course.

How is that reasonable? There hasn't been an ounce of reason in your entire post. You posit things about an unknowable entity. You butcher ontological arguments to justify a specious claim about reality and existence. I can't believe that a god so powerful would create something with so many imperfections. The human body alone is wrought with flaws. If that is how you see the world around us, you really need to crack a book. I would suggest watching this before you assume anything more..

YouTube - Neil deGrasse Tyson - Stupid Design

"99% of all life that has ever existed is now extinct."

Here's what I think about your post. You assert things about philosophical concepts that have been debated for generations with no gravitas or understanding of them. You look at the world we are bound to with a naive myopia. You posit things that are simply false. There would be little point arguing with you because you basically said nothing for 9 paragraphs. Simply put, debating philosophical ideas is pointless, and what little points you tried to convey were blatant fallacies.

Sorry for being such a strong critic, but I hate people who talk like this.

[Gunitsoldier]

We have a believer people, time to bash his beliefs.