The "omni" god concept is nothing more than human phycology projecting a utopian autruism. It is projecting anthropromorphic human qualities on the unknown. It is filling in the gaps with fiction to give humans a false sense of understanding.

You wont get any emperical definition of god. It is a playdough word that can be twisted to suit the believers justification for claiming it.

The "omni" claims are not a definition of what god is made of or what it is, those "omni" claims only adress what it's powers are, not what it is.

God is a word used to mask ignorance of the unknown. It is a retarding word that stunts the growth of the ability to go beyond current knowlege. "Since we don't know, a magical puppiteer in the sky did it".

When one excapes using this word and faces reality it opens the door to break our current cealing of knowlege. It is infinatly likely that the species will die out without coming close to knowing most of what is yet undiscovered.

However, "God" "deity" "supernatural" are meaningless words in regards to objectively mesuring the world around us and woefully inadiquate. I'd trust a microscope or tape mesure before I'd believe any superstitious garbage out of any holy book of any religion.

 Good luck getting a definition. You will get one, but I have yet to see one that doesnt look like Swiss Cheese.

Funny, this post has been here for a quite a while and no takers. I wonder what they are afraid of? 

This question has been asked dozens of times over the last couple of years.  Although there have been a couple of ill-advised attempts, there has not yet been one definition that didn't literally beg a question.

This alone should speak volumes about the rationality of religion -- to commit one's life to something that has no definition would seem the height of irrationality.

I learned a long time ago that the best way to deal with you ignostic types is to have a God that physically exists.

My God is a fruit smoothie. Specifically, my God is the 3-Berry Blast, from Orange Julius. Its "qualities" are thus: a blend frozen yogurt, sugar, strawberries, blackberries, and raspberries. It is very tasty.

As for why I have chosen to deign it a deity, the answer is simply that I get more out of it.

P.S. Love the sig. Classic. 

You just proved my point once again that you are in the same boat as any other ancient fairy tale lover.

You definded an ambiguous word with ambiguity, the staple of the theist diet. 

You kept asking me for a definition of God that we can test/falsify. I kept saying that there isn't, you cannot test for purpose/meaning.

I've also stated in other threads, that the reason for my belief is the thought of why is there something rather than nothing. 

WTF?

Of course you can test for purpose or meaning.

1. My purpose is to build cars.

2. We know what cars are.

3.I produce yo yo s insted.

4. Since we know what cars are we can compare them to other objects and determine weither or not they are cars.

If you were intelectually honest her is what you should say, "You kept asking me for a definition of God that we can test/falsify. I kept saying there isnt."

BINGO!

Now add to that, " I merely like what I believe even though I cant prove it".

Pantheism is as bad an explination for the universe as tarrot cards, alchemy and Ouiji boards and as reliable as horriscopes.

You just have a pet project you merely want to believe is real. And for over 3,000 years people just like you thought the ball of gass glowing in the day sky was a being too.

So Captian, when you can prove that a galaxy or super nova has the same function as a neron in the human brain, when you can do that, get back to me. Untill then, I will religate it to the same catigory as I do ghosts knocking up girls and human flesh surviving rigor mortis.

My definition is a little like Cpt's, unsurprisingly as we are both pantheistic and otherwise moderate believers.

I submit God is just like us, a set of state functions correlated over probability axioms by self awareness or consciousness. Mediators between diverse state functions known to theists as 'angels' are superpositional states, these are neither like god nor man.

Man is non-local; thus man is defined as a state function or configuration of a universal state in an aspect of probability, and likewise is god. Neither are caused. Cause is a probability axiom sufficient for tuning a conscious perception of state correlations, eg I drive on a road therefore in the same state space is also the remnant physicality of it having been caused by the act of human construction, causality validates but does not cause, causality is not the end of validation potential, absurd things are validated in spite of the rules of causality simply because causality is one of many valid probabilities. Nothing is caused, cause is a corrollary to decoherence.

sets of probable states are unlimited. The set of probable states which is god is infinite and includes human consciousness. Human consciousness is unified with the coherent wave function, it does percieve the infinite multiverse, this perception is passed to the egotisitical mind, the I being which we know unequivocally is unified with the physical, the reason these two are unified is that very reason, the I ego filters the reception of consciousness. When you touch a table, your I ego knows the table, your consciousness knows it as the seed from which grew a tree that it was and as the lump of sedimentary rock that it may never be. The I ego, filters this knowledge using a process of optimal decision making into what is the most probable and rational state in this state space, therefore it is a table to your hands. the I ego and the physical are inseparable, one forms the other, they each form each other. 

God, is the primary and the ultimate manifestation of this form of existence. The alpha and omega of type-human state functions.

I know.... you hate it.... so Fire away.

There is a link below answering the opening Post on what is God.

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atma_Bodha 

Eloise,

Setting the argument from quantum waveform conciousness aside (which sounds like it came out of that What the Bleep documentary) your argument is actually quite simple.  It gets summed up in the last sentence... "God, is the primary and the ultimate manifestation of this form of existence. The alpha and omega of type-human state functions."

To restate that in more common form...

Imagine the greatest thing ever.  The only way that thing could be even greater than that is for it to really exist.  Since you can imagine said ultimately great thing, it must in fact exist.  Therefore, God exists.

I don't remember the name of that argument, but I know the falacy in it is that it assumes that existance of said imagined concept is the measure of greatness and that just because I can concieve of a thing, that it must exist in some way.

If I've got that completely wrong, let me know, but that's what it comes accross as.  Also, no need for the self-targeting last line of "I know.... you hate it.... so Fire away."  Don't presume to know that we hate your reasoning, some of us (read me, that I know of for certain) think that your reasoning is flawed, not necessarily contemptable.

ugh, that's pretty insulting you know, Jones, being compared to what the bleep. but no matter calling the definition of god I posted 'quantum waveform consciousness' is incorrect. In my defnition the probability wave is the realm of 'angels' not 'god' or 'man'. the human consciousness is receptive to it, but the ego understands it on limited terms.

LOL. it's almost true, but not really. a human life is a set of probability states connected and ordered by a clever ego. The primary form of this would be ordered or arranged in such a fashion that it would provide a resource of first principles for definitions of state. Like a human gamete only resourcing a much vaster system of existence. In an ultimate form the system would optimise the primary resource to some maximum end. But then we're dealing with infinities so there would be infinite sets of infinite sets in optimal configuration and it gets confusing as to what is the difference between the greatest state ever and your current state. what if there's no difference? since we can say that your state has a probability of being among the infinite set of infinite ultimates, and your state exists, god probably exists just as equally as your probability of being perfect by some standard exists.

Could have fooled me. I don't mean that personally, but I think the general air in here being one of contempt for theists who dare is a pretty simple fact of the matter, sometimes at least. but anyhow, lets not get into that, I'm not here to bicker over who's nicer than who, I just wanted to set the record straight on what I presume to know as compared to what I actually experience as a member of this board.