God definition

wavefreak
Theist
wavefreak's picture
Posts: 1825
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
God definition

I posted this as part of a response in antohter thread. Bring out the cannons ...

 

God is a sentient entity of sufficient scope that it can exert its will upon us without our consent and against which we have no recourse.

 

I am not concerned with proof of existence only issues with the definition itself.


illeatyourdog
illeatyourdog's picture
Posts: 580
Joined: 2007-07-20
User is offlineOffline
wavefreak wrote: And what

wavefreak wrote:
And what makes this definitionweak as opposed to just different? By invoking weak, you are implying that any definition of god must be more in tune with calssical ideas. Why is this a requirement? 

 

By weak I mean you set no sufficient or neccessary conditions for this entity aside from it having intelligence and being natural.  Since everything else, such as omni-traits, being a creator, etc. are up in the air, all we have to go on in terms of neccessary or sufficient conditions is that it must be both intelligent and natural. 

" Why does God always got such wacky shit to say? . . . When was the last time you heard somebody say 'look God told me to get a muffin and a cup tea and cool out man'?" - Dov Davidoff


wavefreak
Theist
wavefreak's picture
Posts: 1825
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit wrote: Again,

Hambydammit wrote:

Again, the point you're missing is that you're trying to create a definition for god, but you're allowing things that are not god to be possible answers for the definition. You must refine it such that we cannot imagine anything except what you mean for god to be.

 

It is clear that I don't mean a man with MD and a nuke. Or an enraged elephant. Perhaps by qualifying it to there is no case in which we can deny the exercising of this entity's will? In the general case, we can resist the will of other human and animals, even if there may be special cases were we are powerless. But for an entity of this scope, we cannot resist the excercising of is will ever.

.


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Quote: It is clear that I

Quote:
It is clear that I don't mean a man with MD and a nuke.

It is clear from this thread that you mean to define something called "god."

But, your definition is not clear.  That's the point, wave.  I  know you believe in a god of some sort, and that you're trying to define it.  If I were to look at your definition without knowing that's what you were going for, I would not necessarily arrive at god.  I might arrive at an elephant.

So, do you want us to understand that you believe in some kind of god, or are you trying to make an accurate definition?

If you want an accurate definition, you must do more work, because this one is too open ended, and could rightfully describe hundreds, perhaps thousands of things that you are not intending to define.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


wavefreak
Theist
wavefreak's picture
Posts: 1825
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit wrote: If you

Hambydammit wrote:

If you want an accurate definition, you must do more work, because this one is too open ended, and could rightfully describe hundreds, perhaps thousands of things that you are not intending to define.

 

I understand what you're getting at.  So change this

 

 

God is a sentient entity of sufficient scope that it can exert its will upon us without our consent and against which we have no recourse.

 

to this

 

 

God is a sentient entity of sufficient scope that it can exert its will upon humanity  without  consent and the expression of this will cannot be averted by any means.

 

There are really two key parts. One is that such an entity can do whatever it wants to us individually or in our entirety without our consent. The other is there is no way possible for us to avert the exertion of this entity's will.

By changing from "us" to "humanity", it eliminate anything that cannot act on humanity as a whole. So enraged elephants are out. Even a madman with a nuke cannot act upon the whole of humanity.


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
could it destroy the

could it destroy the universe if it wanted to?

could it commit suicide?

What are the limits of its power?

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


illeatyourdog
illeatyourdog's picture
Posts: 580
Joined: 2007-07-20
User is offlineOffline
wavefreak wrote: God is a

wavefreak wrote:
God is a sentient entity of sufficient scope that it can exert its will upon humanity  without  consent and the expression of this will cannot be averted by any means.

 

Is there still the possibility of a creator entitiy being above this "God" entity?

" Why does God always got such wacky shit to say? . . . When was the last time you heard somebody say 'look God told me to get a muffin and a cup tea and cool out man'?" - Dov Davidoff


wavefreak
Theist
wavefreak's picture
Posts: 1825
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit wrote: could

Hambydammit wrote:

could it destroy the universe if it wanted to?

could it commit suicide?

What are the limits of its power?

 

 

For me at least, defining the limits of its power is irrelevant. It is only important that its power is sufficient that we cannot resist its will. And, discussing the limits of power leads us into omninipotence which is a logical dead end. 


wavefreak
Theist
wavefreak's picture
Posts: 1825
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
illeatyourdog

illeatyourdog wrote:

wavefreak wrote:
God is a sentient entity of sufficient scope that it can exert its will upon humanity without consent and the expression of this will cannot be averted by any means.

 

Is there still the possibility of a creator entitiy being above this "God" entity?

 

Possible but not required. There is nothing requiring nor preventing this entity from being the top dog or creator of the universe. 


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Quote: For me at least,

Quote:
For me at least, defining the limits of its power is irrelevant.

Um... duh. Limits are the definition. To say it has power is to say what power it has. To say what power it has is to say what power it doesn't have.

In other words, if you don't set limits, todangst and deluded and I, and anyone else who feels like it, will chide you for not even denting the problem of incoherency inherent in any and all god definitions.

If you want natural, you've got to provide a natural definition.

Quote:
It is only important that its power is sufficient that we cannot resist its will.

Not even remotely. That could be a giant alien sitting in the core of jupiter with its finger on the button that will blow up the earth. He might only have one ability in the entire universe -- namely, the ability to blow up the earth at will.

Quote:
And, discussing the limits of power leads us into omninipotence which is a logical dead end.

Slowly, but surely, the light is dawning, grasshopper.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


wavefreak
Theist
wavefreak's picture
Posts: 1825
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit

Hambydammit wrote:

Quote:
For me at least, defining the limits of its power is irrelevant.

Um... duh. Limits are the definition. To say it has power is to say what power it has. To say what power it has is to say what power it doesn't have.

In other words, if you don't set limits, todangst and deluded and I, and anyone else who feels like it, will chide you for not even denting the problem of incoherency inherent in any and all god definitions.

If you want natural, you've got to provide a natural definition.

Quote:
It is only important that its power is sufficient that we cannot resist its will.

Not even remotely. That could be a giant alien sitting in the core of jupiter with its finger on the button that will blow up the earth. He might only have one ability in the entire universe -- namely, the ability to blow up the earth at will.

Quote:
And, discussing the limits of power leads us into omninipotence which is a logical dead end.

Slowly, but surely, the light is dawning, grasshopper.

 

 

What is important to me is what is plausible. A giant alien at Jupiter's core is equivalent to a tea pot in orbit. A type III Kardeshev civilization at least fits within the realm of the physically possible. The key question for me is at what point does an entity, ANY entity, become of sufficient capability that is functionally god? And my definition identifies a lower bound on this capability. An upper bound is irrelevant because any entity that exceeds that bound qualifies.


Cernunnos
Cernunnos's picture
Posts: 146
Joined: 2007-07-04
User is offlineOffline
Quote: God is a sentient

Quote:
God is a sentient entity of sufficient scope that it can exert its will upon humanity  without  consent and the expression of this will cannot be averted by any means.

How does one become aware that your 'will' has been breached?

I suppose this is something you think has happened to you. 

Either you are right or slightly insane. Don't be scared to join the masses, we are all part loopy - it's in the double-helix! Goddamn it!

 

I like ants. There are some species that regurlarly move nest. How do you think they come to the desire to relocate and realise where to go when they lack distinct individual sentience  - annexed by god? Love thy officious neighbour Smiling

 

Your definition sounds like mob mentality don't bleat but baa! 

 

I often say that when you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot measure it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meagre and unsatisfactory kind.


wavefreak
Theist
wavefreak's picture
Posts: 1825
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
Cernunnos

Cernunnos wrote:

Quote:
God is a sentient entity of sufficient scope that it can exert its will upon humanity without consent and the expression of this will cannot be averted by any means.

How does one become aware that your 'will' has been breached?

I suppose this is something you think has happened to you.

Either you are right or slightly insane. Don't be scared to join the masses, we are all part loopy - it's in the double-helix! Goddamn it!

 

I like ants. There are some species that regurlarly move nest. How do you think they come to the desire to relocate and realise where to go when they lack distinct individual sentience - annexed by god? Love thy officious neighbour Smiling

 

Your definition sounds like mob mentality don't bleat but baa!

 

 

Eviction notice?

While this is an excellent question, it is concerned with how such an entity interacts with humanity. For now I am focussing on what, not how.


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Quote: What is important

Quote:
What is important to me is what is plausible.

But wave, god is implausible.  In order to make the definition plausible, you've got to separate it from all the other definitions somehow.  This is what you want, right?  To define god in a way that it might actually be falsifiable, and the definition would be coherent?

If that's what you want, then what should be important to you is accurately and completely defining all of your terms within your epistemological rights.  If you're just interested in popping off a definition that suits your brain, but doesn't help anyone else, then have at it, but I'm not going to bother trying to help you refine it because it's going to be just as useless as every other definition.

 

Quote:
The key question for me is at what point does an entity, ANY entity, become of sufficient capability that is functionally god?

The logical answer is at no point.  Even if we were to be able to transport an early human to this century, we wouldn't be functionally gods.  The caveman might perceive us as some sort of deity, but that would be a flaw in his perception, not the reality of the situation.

 

Quote:
And my definition identifies a lower bound on this capability. An upper bound is irrelevant because any entity that exceeds that bound qualifies.

But your lower bound is defined so loosely that it could mean almost anything, so you're essentially not defining the term at all.

 

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


wavefreak
Theist
wavefreak's picture
Posts: 1825
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
Hamby, I understand what

Hamby,

I understand what you're saying, I'm just struggling with providinge language that clearly expresses my thoughts. The launguge itself is frought with problems without even realting it to deities. Just the idea of enforcing ones will over another creates questions about just what is "will", is there such a thing as free will, etc. If there is no such thing as free will how does it change the definition?

Having said that, mayabe something more austere might work. A naive set theory description might go like this,

Let X and Y be sentient entities where interaction is possible.

Let X' and Y' be the sets of all actions possible by X and Y.

X is a god to Y if for any action i in X' there exists no action in Y' that can prevent i. 

 

 

Meh. 


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Quote: I'm just struggling

Quote:
I'm just struggling with providinge language that clearly expresses my thoughts.

I've been hoping for months that you would reach this conclusion yourself, but the struggle is because you're trying to provide language for an incoherent concept.

Quote:
X is a god to Y if for any action i in X' there exists no action in Y' that can prevent i.

An ant is incapable of preventing any action an elephant wants to do.  Therefore, elephants are gods to ants.

Elephants are also gods to bush babies.

Bush babies are gods to dung beetles.

Everyone's been trying to explain this to you for months, wave.  Your concept of god is not a god.  It's a being of very large scale compared to another being.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Quote: Just the idea of

Quote:
Just the idea of enforcing ones will over another creates questions about just what is "will", is there such a thing as free will, etc. If there is no such thing as free will how does it change the definition?

Right.

Free will is not defined coherently.

The problem that you're running into over and over is that for you to define a thing that could properly be called god, you're going to have to invoke incoherent or infinite concepts, which are always going to bring you right back to where the god concept fails for supernaturalists.

I've been hoping this would dawn on you, but I'll go ahead and tell you.  A natural god is just as incoherent as a supernatural god.  Remember when jmm realized the supernatural doesn't exist, and I told him he wouldn't find himself in any better position with regard to god?  This is why.  In order for anything to be god in a sense that has any relevence, it has to invoke incoherent concepts.  Whether natural or not, "god" is a broken concept.

This is why you can't find the language.  There isn't any because the concepts are not coherently describable.

 

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


wavefreak
Theist
wavefreak's picture
Posts: 1825
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit wrote: An ant

Hambydammit wrote:

An ant is incapable of preventing any action an elephant wants to do. Therefore, elephants are gods to ants. 

Not true. An ant could prevent an elephant from drinking water if at the moment the elephant stuck its trunk in the water the ant stung the elephant in the eye. So there is an action in Y' that prevents an action in X' and hence an elephant is not a god to an ant.

    I'm sure such special cases exist for elephants and bush babies, etc, etc.


illeatyourdog
illeatyourdog's picture
Posts: 580
Joined: 2007-07-20
User is offlineOffline
wavefreak wrote: Possible

wavefreak wrote:
Possible but not required. There is nothing requiring nor preventing this entity from being the top dog or creator of the universe.

 

Dude, look.  You have to set a barrier somewhere.  If you allow for the possibility of a higher entity then "god", then there is the possibility that "god"'s expression of his will can be averted.   

" Why does God always got such wacky shit to say? . . . When was the last time you heard somebody say 'look God told me to get a muffin and a cup tea and cool out man'?" - Dov Davidoff


wavefreak
Theist
wavefreak's picture
Posts: 1825
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
illeatyourdog

illeatyourdog wrote:

wavefreak wrote:
Possible but not required. There is nothing requiring nor preventing this entity from being the top dog or creator of the universe.

 

Dude, look. You have to set a barrier somewhere. If you allow for the possibility of a higher entity then "god", then there is the possibility that "god"'s expression of his will can be averted.

 

I am not concerned with how this entity relates to anything but humanity.


illeatyourdog
illeatyourdog's picture
Posts: 580
Joined: 2007-07-20
User is offlineOffline
wavefreak wrote: I am not

wavefreak wrote:
I am not concerned with how this entity relates to anything but humanity.

 

Nevertheless, you have to specify if their are other entities other than "God" that are also capable of effecting humanity or if this is the only entity of its type, as well as types above, that is both able to and does.  So, since you do allow for other entities or more powerful entities, you also allow for these other entities to also interfere with human affairs.  The problem is, now you have no way to determine if the interference with humans is due to this entity or other entities which draws into question if this "god" entity really has the power to enforce his will with no possibility of it being averted unless you specify that "if their are other entities other than "god" that interfere with human affairs, they do act in accordance with the "god" entity".  

" Why does God always got such wacky shit to say? . . . When was the last time you heard somebody say 'look God told me to get a muffin and a cup tea and cool out man'?" - Dov Davidoff


wavefreak
Theist
wavefreak's picture
Posts: 1825
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
illeatyourdog

illeatyourdog wrote:

wavefreak wrote:
I am not concerned with how this entity relates to anything but humanity.

 

Nevertheless, you have to specify if their are other entities other than "God" that are also capable of effecting humanity or if this is the only entity of its type, as well as types above, that is both able to and does. 

First, I have no desire to get into the infinite regress of who created god and who created the creator of god, ad infinitum. As far as I'm concerened this is as usless as asking if god can create a rock so big that he can't move it. 

 

Quote:

So, since you do allow for other entities or more powerful entities, you also allow for these other entities to also interfere with human affairs. The problem is, now you have no way to determine if the interference with humans is due to this entity or other entities which draws into question if this "god" entity really has the power to enforce his will with no possibility of it being averted unless you specify that "if their are other entities other than "god" that interfere with human affairs, they do act in accordance with the "god" entity".

I have only specified that humanity cannot avert this entity's will, not whether another entity can or can't. 


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Quote: First, I have no

Quote:
First, I have no desire to get into the infinite regress of who created god and who created the creator of god, ad infinitum. As far as I'm concerened this is as usless as asking if god can create a rock so big that he can't move it.

Right.  You're proud of yourself for bashing supernaturalists for ignoring the incoherencies of their half-definitions, but you want us to let you get by with a half definition of your natural god.

Methinks thou oughtest remove thine own mote ere thou gettest cranky with the supernaturalists.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


wavefreak
Theist
wavefreak's picture
Posts: 1825
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit

Hambydammit wrote:

Quote:
First, I have no desire to get into the infinite regress of who created god and who created the creator of god, ad infinitum. As far as I'm concerened this is as usless as asking if god can create a rock so big that he can't move it.

Right. You're proud of yourself for bashing supernaturalists for ignoring the incoherencies of their half-definitions, but you want us to let you get by with a half definition of your natural god.

Methinks thou oughtest remove thine own mote ere thou gettest cranky with the supernaturalists.

 

I don't understand your complaint. I can write a computer code that contains an infinite loop and run it until my computer crashes. It is utterly useless. Is it my fault that for thousands of years theists have asked useless questions like "who created god?"  Why am I compelled to ask or even answer such questions? It's a dead end. What you are putting before me is a subtle form of "No True Scotsman". Any "real" formulation of a deity must address questions such as "where did it come from?". But science doesn't proceed that way. It starts from the simplest and works towards uncovering the more complex. Speculation servers to drive scientific thought but when it comes to actual scientific work, questions that have a chance of being answered are what get the attention. Why would any reasonable approach to theism not be the same? Instead of trying to answer ALL the questions at once, which results in endleess arguments and useless dead ends, I am choosing to start with something I can at least wrap my brain around. It's almost as if I'm not allowed any defintion of god accept ones that are nonsense. And if it isn't nonsense then its not a definition of god.

 


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Quote: I don't understand

Quote:
I don't understand your complaint.

Believe me. I've noticed.

Quote:
Why am I compelled to ask or even answer such questions? It's a dead end.

No, it's not a dead end. You've just gotten in a weird loop yourself, and you keep turning left.

Quote:
What you are putting before me is a subtle form of "No True Scotsman".

No, it's not.

No true scotsman is an ad hoc explanation, essentially. When someone presents evidence that something is not true for group A, you go back and change the definition of group A.

What I'm doing is trying to explain to you that if you want to have a natural god, you will have to work within natural limits. Limits. Limits. Limits. DEFINITIONS.

I'm telling you that before you can believe in a natural god, you must define it in such a way that it really is natural. What you're doing is using natural terms and leaving in the vagueries of mysticism. This is before the definition, not after. It would be impossible for me to give you a NTS argument because you haven't given us any coherent definitions yet. You're still doing exactly the same thing that supernaturalists do -- you're creating a definition so hazy that wherever we look for your god, he'll be hiding in a convenient loophole in the definition!

Quote:
But science doesn't proceed that way. It starts from the simplest and works towards uncovering the more complex.

Uh huh. And you haven't answered the simple questions about your god yet. Outer boundaries are the simplest definitions. In fact, most every definition we deal with in our lives is simply a delineation of outer boundaries.

Quote:
Why would any reasonable approach to theism not be the same?

Because you must have the answers to the simple questions before you can ask the complex ones, just like you said a minute ago! You have to know that water evaporates when it boils before you can start asking questions of molecular stability at extremely high temperatures.

Theism can't even answer the simple question: What is a god?

Quote:
Instead of trying to answer ALL the questions at once, which results in endleess arguments and useless dead ends,

You see the trees, and you're missing the forest.

Quote:
I am choosing to start with something I can at least wrap my brain around.

That's just it, wave. You have an abstract in your brain that seems to make some sense, but it's actually incoherent. This becomes obvious when you try to put it into words. Unfortunately, rather than seeing the obvious answer -- the concept of a natural god is as incoherent as that of a supernatural one -- you continue to try to create a definition fuzzy enough to let a god slip through.

Quote:
It's almost as if I'm not allowed any defintion of god accept ones that are nonsense.

That's what you're not seeing. They all ARE nonsense because the concept itself is incoherent.

It's not me that's allowing it, wave. It's your concept. I'm just pointing out the incoherencies which would exist whether someone happens to be standing in a forest watching the tree fall or not.

Quote:

And if it isn't nonsense then its not a definition of god.

I don't know how better to say it. If only you would listen to your own words.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


wavefreak
Theist
wavefreak's picture
Posts: 1825
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit wrote: That's

Hambydammit wrote:

That's just it, wave. You have an abstract in your brain that seems to make some sense, but it's actually incoherent.

What, precisely, is incoherent about this?

 

Let X and Y be sentient entities where interaction is possible.

Let X' and Y' be the sets of all actions possible by X and Y.

X is a god to Y if for any action i in X' there exists no action in Y' that can prevent i.

 


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Quote: Let X and Y be

Quote:

Let X and Y be sentient entities where interaction is possible.

Let X' and Y' be the sets of all actions possible by X and Y.

X is a god to Y if for any action i in X' there exists no action in Y' that can prevent i.

It's coherent.  It's also not god, because there are plenty of sentient beings on this planet that are utterly powerless to prevent any desired action of other sentient beings.

 

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


wavefreak
Theist
wavefreak's picture
Posts: 1825
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit

Hambydammit wrote:
Quote:

Let X and Y be sentient entities where interaction is possible.

Let X' and Y' be the sets of all actions possible by X and Y.

X is a god to Y if for any action i in X' there exists no action in Y' that can prevent i.

It's coherent. It's also not god, because there are plenty of sentient beings on this planet that are utterly powerless to prevent any desired action of other sentient beings.

 

 

 

Give me an example that fits this definition using any two sentient species on this planet. 


wavefreak
Theist
wavefreak's picture
Posts: 1825
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
Let me give an example of

Let me give an example of why I think the defintion works.

 

First, pick two sentient species. I'll pick a human and a rat. Is a human a god to a rat based on the definition given? No. For there is an action the rat can take that will prevent an action attempted by the human.

 

THere is a cookie on a table. The human's action is to take the cookie and eat it. The rat's action is to jump up on the table and snatch the cookie before the human can pick it up. Hence, there is an action in the set of the human's possible actions that can be prevented by an action in the rat's set of possible actions.
Thus, the human is not a god to the rat.


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
I'll refer back to the

I'll refer back to the elephant, and let's go with, um, a hamster. There are things that the hamster can do that might change an elephant's mind about something, but there is nothing that a hamster can do that we can say is actually preventing the elephant from doing what it wishes.

I know, you can imagine a scenario in which the hamster sees an ant, and to prevent the elephant from stepping on the ant, the hamster eats the ant.

But this silly little dialog is illustrating the very problem with your definition. You're using words like "any" and "all" in an infinite sense. In the material universe, everything has a limit, and for any two sentient creatures, we can imagine a far fetched enough scenario in which the small one can thwart the big one. In the same way, your god would have to be infinitely powerful to be able to prevent all possible breaches of his will by humans. I can suppose, for example, that this creature's will would be that I would not create a mental image of my cat in my brain. For it to be able to exert that kind of power over me, we are right back to talking about infinites.

This is my point, and has been all along. You say your definition is natural, but for it to be possible in the way you're using it, it invokes infinite power, and puts you right back with the supernaturalists.

How many different ways can I explain the same thing?

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


wavefreak
Theist
wavefreak's picture
Posts: 1825
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit wrote: I'll

Hambydammit wrote:

I'll refer back to the elephant, and let's go with, um, a hamster. There are things that the hamster can do that might change an elephant's mind about something, but there is nothing that a hamster can do that we can say is actually preventing the elephant from doing what it wishes.

I know, you can imagine a scenario in which the hamster sees an ant, and to prevent the elephant from stepping on the ant, the hamster eats the ant.

But this silly little dialog is illustrating the very problem with your definition. You're using words like "any" and "all" in an infinite sense. In the material universe, everything has a limit, and for any two sentient creatures, we can imagine a far fetched enough scenario in which the small one can thwart the big one. In the same way, your god would have to be infinitely powerful to be able to prevent all possible breaches of his will by humans. I can suppose, for example, that this creature's will would be that I would not create a mental image of my cat in my brain. For it to be able to exert that kind of power over me, we are right back to talking about infinites.

This is my point, and has been all along. You say your definition is natural, but for it to be possible in the way you're using it, it invokes infinite power, and puts you right back with the supernaturalists.

How many different ways can I explain the same thing?

 

Infinities are not part of the definition. Does you have an infintie set of potential actions? And are there any of your potential actions that require infinite power to prevent? 

 Look at the definition for what it is. Stop inserting properties that are not part of it.


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Quote: Infinities are not

Quote:

Infinities are not part of the definition. Does you have an infintie set of potential actions? And are there any of your potential actions that require infinite power to prevent? 

 Look at the definition for what it is. Stop inserting properties that are not part of it.

I'm really sorry, wave.  I don't know why you can't understand what I'm saying, but I honestly can't think of any other ways to say it.  The infinite is implicit in your definition because it doesn't set limits.

I'd love to keep saying the same thing over and over all night, but if you haven't grasped it by now, it's probably pointless.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Whoops... hit post too

Whoops... hit post too quick...

Meant to add that I AM looking at the definition for what it is.  You're the one insisting that I look at it for what you mean, not what it says.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


wavefreak
Theist
wavefreak's picture
Posts: 1825
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
A set is not required to be

A set is not required to be finite. The set of real numbers has no limits. From this definition you can hypothesize an entity whose set of actions has a member that requires an infinite amount of power to prevent. And it would follow from the definition that there is no entity that is its god. So the defintion doesn't collapse under infinities anyway.

 

edit:

Actually, this is not correct. An action that requires infinite power to prevent does not prevent that entity from having a god. 


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Quote: The set of real

Quote:
The set of real numbers has no limits.

Wave, stop being dense.  The set of real numbers is limited to real numbers.  Numbers are a concept, not matter or energy.  Neither matter nor energy can be infinite, so this is a false analogy anyway.

Quote:
From this definition you can hypothesize an entity whose set of actions has a member that requires an infinite amount of power to prevent.

Uh huh.  And that member would necessarily be infinite in some way.  Otherwise, something less than an infinite amount of power would suffice to prevent it.  See how you keep trapping yourself?

Furthermore, there is not an infinite amount of power, since power is either matter or energy.  So, neither of these members can exist in the real universe. 

 

Quote:
And it would follow from the definition that there is no entity that is its god.

Wave, you're being positively batty right now.  Take a step or ten back and try to look at your definition objectively.  It's completely bogus, and I've shown you this over and over.  It implicitly relies on the infinite to have any meaning whatsoever, and the infinite rules out the existence of this being.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


illeatyourdog
illeatyourdog's picture
Posts: 580
Joined: 2007-07-20
User is offlineOffline
wavefreak wrote: First, I

wavefreak wrote:
First, I have no desire to get into the infinite regress of who created god and who created the creator of god, ad infinitum. As far as I'm concerened this is as usless as asking if god can create a rock so big that he can't move it.

How come the mere mention of other gods means I am making an infinite regress arguement? My primary concern, at the moment, with your definition is of "God"'s will not being able to be averted by "any means". I know you mean that no human can alter the will or power of "god" but if their are other gods, which your definition allows for, you have to make it clear that only "god" intereferes with humans or that these other entities above, or below "God" also act in accordance with "God"'s will. If you don't then your definition allows for another entity interfering with humanity against the consent of "God".

Quote:
I have only specified that humanity cannot avert this entity's will, not whether another entity can or can't.

Which is exactly my point.

" Why does God always got such wacky shit to say? . . . When was the last time you heard somebody say 'look God told me to get a muffin and a cup tea and cool out man'?" - Dov Davidoff


Cernunnos
Cernunnos's picture
Posts: 146
Joined: 2007-07-04
User is offlineOffline
Quote: Let X and Y be

Quote:
Let X and Y be sentient entities where interaction is possible.

Let X' and Y' be the sets of all actions possible by X and Y.

X is a god to Y if for any action i in X' there exists no action in Y' that can prevent i.

 

When X is god how limited is X'? Remember you don't like the supernatural.

If treating Y as humanity does the ability and extent of X increase as the population increases?

There's around 6.7 billion simultaneous actions taking place to prevent i.

 If this god has mass he will be subject to gravity, causing action. This action will be altered by every movement of every Y. If this god has no mass it travels at speed c and can not experience humanity or anything that happens.

I often say that when you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot measure it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meagre and unsatisfactory kind.


wavefreak
Theist
wavefreak's picture
Posts: 1825
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
Cernunnos wrote:   When X

Cernunnos wrote:
 

When X is god how limited is X'? Remember you don't like the supernatural.

No magic allowed. Actions must be based in whatever underlying laws govern reality. This does not necessarily limit the actions to laws currently known by us.

Quote:
 

If treating Y as humanity does the ability and extent of X increase as the population increases?

It may, but it may not be required. If there is some upper limit on the future capabilities of humanity, then X would only have to be sufficient to deal with that upper limit.  

Quote:
 

There's around 6.7 billion simultaneous actions taking place to prevent i.

 If this god has mass he will be subject to gravity, causing action. This action will be altered by every movement of every Y. If this god has no mass it travels at speed c and can not experience humanity or anything that happens.

This is addressing how such an entity interacts.  I need to go there, but this definition isn't for that. Your thoughts about mass aren't necessarily an issue. I have a finite amount of mass yet can directly affect many people. I don't think that an entity must be of greater mass than humanity to affect all of humanity. 


wavefreak
Theist
wavefreak's picture
Posts: 1825
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit wrote: Wave,

Hambydammit wrote:

Wave, stop being dense.

 

Wave, you're being positively batty right now. 

I can't escape the feeling we are talking past each other and not actually communicating.

As I reframed the defintionin the language of sets, perhaps you could offer your objections in the language of sets. It may clarify what we mean as opposed to what we say. 


wavefreak
Theist
wavefreak's picture
Posts: 1825
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
illeatyourdog

illeatyourdog wrote:
wavefreak wrote:
First, I have no desire to get into the infinite regress of who created god and who created the creator of god, ad infinitum. As far as I'm concerened this is as usless as asking if god can create a rock so big that he can't move it.
How come the mere mention of other gods means I am making an infinite regress arguement? My primary concern, at the moment, with your definition is of "God"'s will not being able to be averted by "any means". I know you mean that no human can alter the will or power of "god" but if their are other gods, which your definition allows for, you have to make it clear that only "god" intereferes with humans or that these other entities above, or below "God" also act in accordance with "God"'s will. If you don't then your definition allows for another entity interfering with humanity against the consent of "God".
Quote:
I have only specified that humanity cannot avert this entity's will, not whether another entity can or can't.
Which is exactly my point.

 

If X is god to humanity, then there is nothing WE can do to thwart its will. This would include pleading to some other entity to thwart its will for us. And an entity capabable of thwarting X can do so, but we would have no direct influence in the process.


illeatyourdog
illeatyourdog's picture
Posts: 580
Joined: 2007-07-20
User is offlineOffline
wavefreak wrote: If X is

wavefreak wrote:
If X is god to humanity, then there is nothing WE can do to thwart its will. This would include pleading to some other entity to thwart its will for us. And an entity capabable of thwarting X can do so, but we would have no direct influence in the process.

 

So if "God" wants a certain group of humans to remain living, and another entity simply decides to destroy those humans with a tornado, things are just hunky dory since humans didn't plead, rather this other entity acted of its own accord?

" Why does God always got such wacky shit to say? . . . When was the last time you heard somebody say 'look God told me to get a muffin and a cup tea and cool out man'?" - Dov Davidoff


Cernunnos
Cernunnos's picture
Posts: 146
Joined: 2007-07-04
User is offlineOffline
Quote: I don't think that

Quote:
I don't think that an entity must be of greater mass than humanity to affect all of humanity.

Wrong way round. If god has mass humanity can thwart many of its wishes, severely reducing its possible actions! (It can not do anything that may be prevented by us). If god does not have mass it is travelling at the speed of light and is therefore azoic.

To get around this you are fast approaching the omni properties...Gods actions, although subject to physicality can not be avoided as God's prediction and knowledge of events is always accurate enough so that humanity can never prevent any plan. This is so near to all knowing and all powerful it might as well be. In fact I think your purpose here is to invent a God that is the most powerful natural sentient thing that can overwhelm humans even on a personal level...Narcissus we aint goddamned special! We aint goddamned special Umberto!

Also the thing you describe has never been detected directly or indirectly through its actions. The abilities you give this God would allow it to be incredibly useful supposing it is not defunct. If it exists it is clearly holding back so much that it is not our ally. 

I could go on but I'm sure you see some problems. The being you postulate if plausible does not interact with humanity. Therefore I think you need to try something else.

If you get rid of the sentient part the Sol fits quite well Eye-wink 

But "God isn't big enough for some people". 

 

 

 

 

I often say that when you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot measure it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meagre and unsatisfactory kind.


wavefreak
Theist
wavefreak's picture
Posts: 1825
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
illeatyourdog

illeatyourdog wrote:

wavefreak wrote:
If X is god to humanity, then there is nothing WE can do to thwart its will. This would include pleading to some other entity to thwart its will for us. And an entity capabable of thwarting X can do so, but we would have no direct influence in the process.

 

So if "God" wants a certain group of humans to remain living, and another entity simply decides to destroy those humans with a tornado, things are just hunky dory since humans didn't plead, rather this other entity acted of its own accord?

Hunky dory? I suppose if you're into pain.

 

It sounds like you are asking if it is possible for humans to become collateral damage in conflicts between deities. Why not? We cause plenty of colatteral damage ourselves. What would make us immune to it?


wavefreak
Theist
wavefreak's picture
Posts: 1825
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
Cernunnos wrote:

Cernunnos wrote:

 

Wrong way round. If god has mass humanity can thwart many of its wishes, severely reducing its possible actions! (It can not do anything that may be prevented by us).

Can you give me an example?

Quote:

Also the thing you describe has never been detected directly or indirectly through its actions. The abilities you give this God would allow it to be incredibly useful supposing it is not defunct. If it exists it is clearly holding back so much that it is not our ally.

In the opening post, I specifically said existence would not be addressed. And, why would such an entity necessarily be our ally consdering that we are prone to violence and selfishness? All you are doing is projecting what you think a deity's personality should be based on what you perceive to be the needs of humanity and the "right" thing to do. The defintion offered says nothing about whether such an entity is benevolent, neutral or malevolent.

 

 



Cernunnos
Cernunnos's picture
Posts: 146
Joined: 2007-07-04
User is offlineOffline
Quote: Can you give me an

Quote:
Can you give me an example?

Mass can't be in the same place at the same time. So god can do no action where there is a possibilty that some bit of humanity occupies point (x,y,z,t) when some bit of god needs to be there.

Imagine trying to walk along a busy a street following the path you desire, where you must remain unaffected by everyone else and any accidental interaction is nonsensical.

Quote:
In the opening post, I specifically said existence would not be addressed. And, why would such an entity necessarily be our ally consdering that we are prone to violence and selfishness? All you are doing is projecting what you think a deity's personality should be based on what you perceive to be the needs of humanity and the "right" thing to do. The defintion offered says nothing about whether such an entity is benevolent, neutral or malevolent.

- If you do not want this God to possibly exist in reality at least allow the definition to have the modesty of being pretend. I realise you don't want to talk about whether this thing actually exists or not but you do want to think about how it would don't you?

- I don't understand your question. I said your equivocal entity was not humanities ally and said why. The reason I made the ally comment was really to ask you "is this what you want?" (if your definition is correct your god is pointless to humanity if existing) as you made the new definition ad hoc...you are now defending it vehemently?

All I am trying to do you is show you how your definition has holes when put up against the rules of the real world.

What do you want to resolve?

Attributes of your personal natural God? Then forget about humanity for now.

Whether there can be an existing natural God? Then don't ignore others concerns.

A contingent definition of God? Then don't think you can invoke it...and it would really help to know if this would be for fun or to relate to your own experiences.

Your approach is currently a bit scatterbrained, all I know is that you desire there to be some sort of powerful natural god. Try starting simpler...

i.e

Quote:

The reason I think there is a god is because ______.

I think god can exert his will upon me because ______. Therefore it is sentient.

I think I am not special therefore god can do this to all humanity alike.

I think the scope of this god is restricted by the invariable laws of nature.

I conclude from the above that ______ or ______ .

Hence I come to this definition ______ for god.

Is this reasonable?

 

I often say that when you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot measure it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meagre and unsatisfactory kind.


illeatyourdog
illeatyourdog's picture
Posts: 580
Joined: 2007-07-20
User is offlineOffline
wavefreak wrote: ]It sounds

wavefreak wrote:
]It sounds like you are asking if it is possible for humans to become collateral damage in conflicts between deities. Why not? We cause plenty of colatteral damage ourselves. What would make us immune to it?

 

1) I am not assuming its possible, I am assuming it has already happened since you havnt told me otherwise. 2) Now you are primarily concerned with this entities relation to humanity.  Surely this includes not having them killed off for an arbitrary reason by another entity.  If your response to "What if another tnity destroys many humans against the consent of 'God'" is "Sure, why not?", that seems like a contradiction since you say his will, in relation to humans cannot be averted by any means yet, what I just described is "god"'s will, in relation to humanity, being averted. 

" Why does God always got such wacky shit to say? . . . When was the last time you heard somebody say 'look God told me to get a muffin and a cup tea and cool out man'?" - Dov Davidoff


wavefreak
Theist
wavefreak's picture
Posts: 1825
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
The problem with this

The problem with this thread is that nobody has accepted the definition as sufficient for a deity. All the other questions are irrelevant until that is accepted. There is no point discussing if this entity is benevolent, has mass, is infinte, or anything else until the defintion itself is accepted or rejected.

If an entity exists that fits the definition, is it a deity? If not, give your objections in the language of naive sets. Otherwise we will just go endlessly back and forth.


illeatyourdog
illeatyourdog's picture
Posts: 580
Joined: 2007-07-20
User is offlineOffline
Th real problem with this

Th real problem with this thread is that the one who came up with the definition refuses to make clear qualifications for the definition which makes every question relevant.  Furthermore, despite this, the author of the definition refuses to beleive that questions which help qualify the definition are relevant.

" Why does God always got such wacky shit to say? . . . When was the last time you heard somebody say 'look God told me to get a muffin and a cup tea and cool out man'?" - Dov Davidoff


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Quote: The problem with

Quote:
The problem with this thread is that nobody has accepted the definition as sufficient for a deity.

Wave, you freakin' asked us if it was an ok definition. The objective answer is no. Do you want us to placate you and tell you a lie?

Your definition is great, Wave. Have fun with it. Happy?

Quote:
If an entity exists that fits the definition, is it a deity?

Dude, how many ways do we have to demonstrate that your definition cannot describe an existing entity?

Quote:
Otherwise we will just go endlessly back and forth.

Only one person is going back and forth. The rest of us realized your error about two seconds after reading the definition. We're just trying really hard to help you understand.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Cernunnos
Cernunnos's picture
Posts: 146
Joined: 2007-07-04
User is offlineOffline
Quote: The problem with

Quote:
The problem with this thread is that nobody has accepted the definition as sufficient for a deity.

Ok, the definition describes a deity.

This deity is inept (please reread thread). 

I often say that when you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot measure it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meagre and unsatisfactory kind.


wavefreak
Theist
wavefreak's picture
Posts: 1825
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
What is astonishing to me

What is astonishing to me how utterly dense and inept all of the responses have been.

 

Let's posit the existence of a being with the following PRIMARY characteristics.

1) Supernatural

2) Omniscient

3) Omnipotent

4) Omnibenevolent

 

How do we determine this entity cannot exist? Not by attacking secondary characteristics, but by showing that the primary characteristics themselves are problematic. Theological non-cognitivism destroys the very notion of supernatural. Logic alone is enough to prove non-existence of said entity vis-a-vis the Law of Noncontradiction. It isn't necessary to discuss HOW and entity might know everything, or what force it embodies to be omnipotent. The characteristics themselves created the logical conditions necessary to show the impossibility of existence.

So who is going around in circles? I have yet to hear anything about the primary characteristics of the entity I defined. Lots of blather about secondary charactreristics. This forces me to conclude one of these things:

 

1) Nobody is capable of dealing with this definition on the level of abstraction at which it was offered.

2) Nobody is willing to deal with this definition at the level of abstraction at which it was offered.

3) Nobody has any objections to the primary characteristics of this entity.

 

I don't think 1 is even remotely possible. I doubt 3 is true. So I must conclude that endlessly enumerating and attacking possible secondary characteristics is a willfuil choice.

 

So, class. Let's try this again.

 

Let X and Y be sentient entities where interaction is possible.

Let X' and Y' be the sets of all actions possible by X and Y.

X is a god to Y if for any action i in X' there exists no action in Y' that can prevent i.

 

 

This is a very precise defnition. Let's see if you can offer a precise answer.