Possible God

The first step is to define God"
I submit that God (as opposed to god) be defined begining with:

1) Omnipotence
2) Omnipresence

 

I had an interesting thought. Isn't it possible that an alien intelligence could have created life? Look how much science has advanced in the last 100 years. Imgine if it continued to advance at this pace for another million years. Isn't it possible that we could create DNA by then? An alien with unfathomable technology could be seen as God.

 

i propose that big, friendly and invisible is close enough for government work.
that it doesn't have to be omni anything.
just closer to it then anything else happens to be.

 

You should read 2010, 2060, and 3001.

However, this just begs the question of where they came from.
Consider: if we create life, by definition it is silimlar to others and probably created through processes similar to the ones the created us.

 

Big-- compared to what? Size implies substance-- what is it made of?

Friendly? That is purley subjective-- faith and belife are not facts.

Invisible? To what? visilble light? x rays? gamma waves?

No- that's religion, not god.
---
that god is everywhere all the time seems to be a common theme in the major religons. or am I wrong?

 

The term God is a word symbol. It is a symbol that bespeaks a human state of being. We have a choice here of trying to come to a mutual definition of the word God or defining by way of the common experience of the being of God within ourselves. What does God stand for according to our lowest common denominator. Our lowest common denominator is the desire to be. God is our inherent motive at any given moment. The thing we speak for, stand for, go to work for, the thing we are devoted to.

 

I'm empirically oriented.
We need a common definition or we fall from reason and logic to opinion and supposition.

The common concept of THE GOD is as the creator. I'm willing to stipulate this as requirment for Godhead.

So:

1) god created the Universe
2) god is everywhere all the time

and how about

3) god's will is undeniable

Anyone, theist or atheist or inbetween, disagree with these three points as the begining of a working definition?

 

it would be foolish to focus on whats possible- we must focus on whats probable.

I agree with the definition.

 

Well you have missed "all knowing" or omniscient. Given the definition you have provided (that is without considering omniscience), I (with out actually knowing much about physics) would say that gravity is God.

 

Knowing implies a humanistic viewpoint.

i would say that gravity is a manifestation of gods will, but not god

 

Can I add to that definition? See if anyone disagrees with this: God's presence cannot be known directly through empiricism but can be assumed to exist through God's undeniable will and all that it imposes.

4) God isn't directly observable through empirical means.

5) Gods existence can be indirectly observable through its undeniable will by its creation that Gods undeniable will allows.

6) God does not want to be known directly, only indirectly, so it can be said that God generates faith through its undeniable will so that it can be understood by its creation as he allows us to understand for purposes unknown.

7) God's purpose to create/generate faith may to be to generate dialogue between its creation concerning its existence or non existence, perhaps to guide its creation towards his desired will. So, Gods undeniable will generates or moves along the process that follows Gods undeniable will.

8) God is omnipotent and omnipresent so it can be said that his undeniable will is the same. If God wants his will to fulfill itself, it will because he is omnipotent. If God's will is also omnipresent, then it is available also to its creation. Therefore, God's will is inevitable because it is both impossible to supersede and to evade by all that he creates. If God created the universe, then everything within that universe is bound by his will, which is inevitable.

 

Prove that faith is the product of his will.

 

If God does not want to be directly known, then that will generate faith. Faith in a higher power exists for Gods creation. We are his creation because God created the universe. God will is a part of God's qualities: Omnipotence and Omnipresence. If God is omnipotent it gives him free will to do anything he desires, otherwise we can't call it omnipotence. If God created the universe as to not be directly known, then we can say that God would know that it will generate faith. We know that God cannot be directly known because there is no direct empirical evidence. If this is true, then we can say, since God possesses his qualities, then he would not want to be directly known and would know that it would lead to faith. So if God knows that his creation would generate faith, and his creation is a part of his will, then we can say that faith is a product of his will because we know, through definition, that God is omnipotent.

 

I'm unsure as to the point of this. God has not been proven to exist, there is no evidence for God's existence. If there isn't evidence for God's existence how are we defining God? How are we saying anything about god at all? A physical thing is defined by its properties and actions. If we haven't observed its properties or actions, how are we defining it? We're making shit up.

Until you provide evidence for god's existence, god has no properties, makes no actions, influences and creates nothing. God can't "not want to be known", god can't be considered to do or be anything at all. This is presuppositional bs.

 

I am just going by the definitions that were laid out in this thread and I followed from them as best that I could.

I am not here to try to prove God's existence if that is what you might be thinking. If I understand correctly, it seems like this entire thread would be a waste of time for you because you stated that since there is no evidence for God's existence, then in the end it is merely "prepositional bs".

But to remark on what you said about God's existence, I would say that if such a being existed then it can be said that the existence of faith may point to such a being existing while not providing evidence for such. The God that I have discussed would be the one defined by OP.

I was commenting on since we know that Faith exists while not knowing God exists, then where would it follow if the definition of God defined by OP and the knowledge of faith lead to in the understanding of that God.

 

I have faith in the existence of a gnome king living in the sky. The existence of my faith may provide evidence for this.

 

Okay I'll make this clearer.

P1 God doesn't want to be known.

P2 This produces faith that is observable.

C The existence of faith is evidence for God's existence

The problem is that for P1 to be true, C has to be true. You assume what you're trying to prove in your first proposition. To be able to say P1 at all, C must first be true, but C is dependent upon P1 being true. This is circular reasoning.

Nothing at all can be said about God other than God is a concept invented by people.

 

I don't believe that it would provide evidence for it inasmuch as it would point to the possibility of such a creature to exist.

That's a strange faith that you have there, but who am I to judge

 

I didn't use faith as evidence for God described in this thread. I used faith as evidence as being a part of God's will that is defined by OP.

 

To say that anything is God's will you must first have evidence that it is in fact God's will. This means evidence that God is existing. You have none.

The possibility of God is meaningless and a given. It rests on the solid fact that nobody can prove that a God doesn't exist. But this doesn't mean anything now does it?