So, just what are we talking about?

[Occhidiangela]

Yet another player for the Omni Trifecta . . .

[--Pete]

Hi,

God: A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions.

That's a pretty much just the Jewish/Christian definiton of God, but by no means the only one.

That is the only one that matters. Not because it is the Judeo-Christian definition, but because any entity that does not have the attributes of omniscience, omnipotence, and omnipresence is not sufficiently "powerful" to be a god. And the main thing wrong with Cryptic's definition is the use of "God" rather than "gods". Not all the properties required for godhood need to be in one individual/entity/manifestation. Which is what makes the pantheon of some systems acceptable candidates for the basis of a religion (as opposed to a mythology). The modern tendency to make the Earth, nature, the universe, the Big Bang, money, or Friday evening god is just a reflection of immaturity, ignorance or cowardice.

--Pete

[Cryptic]

>>In my experience, those who claim the title rarely deserve it.

Wow, trollish, but I'll nibble.

I love Massive Attack - I explored them a bit early on, and liked them more when Mezzanine came out (because of Liz, but the album impressed me). 100th Window is one of my favorites of last year.
;)

You're not referring to Mad Max the 1979 movie, are you? "Purist" punk was already dying by that time. The poor punks of today have to deal with things like Rancid.

[Cryptic]

>>That's a pretty much just the Jewish/Christian definiton of God, but by no means the only one.

Actually, it's the dictionary.com definition.
:rolleyes:

[--Pete]

Hi,

Going to dictionary.com and typing in "god" gave me a full page of material, only the first line of which you quoted. Dictionaries usually give their definitions ranked by frequency of usage. Often it is the case that the common usage is incorrect in a technical discussion (e.g., velocity, speed, science).

Given that one of the definitions from that page is, "A very handsome man. ", it is rather apparent that a bit more thought and a better search are needed.

ADDENDUM: Googled "theological definition of god" as a phrase, got a lot of interesting hits just on the first page. Too much to quote, but of interest to those who would like to learn more. (And, yes, according to the Humpty Dumpty rule, Google *is* a verb.)

--Pete

[Cryptic]

I find theoretical definitions of god (God?) pretty interesting, actually. Einstein's view of Spinoza's God always struck me as close to the mark.

**

Q: Do you believe in the God of Spinoza?

A: I can't answer with a simple yes or no. I'm not an atheist and I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many different languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God. We see a universe marvellously arranged and obeying certain laws, but only dimly understand these laws. Our limited minds cannot grasp the mysterious force that moves the constellations. I am fascinated by Spinoza's pantheism, but admire even more his contributions to modern thought because he is the first philosopher to deal with the soul and the body as one, not two separate things.

**

We could quibble over the particulars of what constitutes a deity (as amusing as that would be to said divinity), but I don't have the energy myself, since I'm certain that any valid theoretical construct we could come up with has left no traceable physical presence as of yet.

What I'd like to see, though, is what other people think the definition of "God" is. I'd participate little and read much, because it would be thoughtful and fun to read.
B)

[kandrathe]

Anyway, not meaning to poke at this dog food. I thought that rather than inadequately trying to explain something as complicated as why I think the way I do about Gödel, I would be better off to refer you to where I developed my opinion. I build robots, and I try to keep current with the frontiers of AI. I'm frustrated by the Minsky approach, and so I've turned to looking more at neurosurgery and brain model research which led me to Roger Penrose.

Roger Penrose claims that this (alleged) difference between "what can be mechanically proven" and "what can be seen to be true by humans" shows that human intelligence is not mechanical in nature. This view is not widely accepted, because as stated by Marvin Minsky, human intelligence is capable of error and of understanding statements which are in fact inconsistent or false. However, Marvin Minsky has reported that Kurt Gödel told him personally that he believed that human beings had an intuitive, not just computational, way of arriving at truth and that therefore his theorem did not limit what can be known to be true by humans.

So, I take it that even Gödel thought that there was a difference between mathematical "Truth" and the "truth" arrived at by human intuition.

Also, on Wikipedia I stumbled on this reference to something that had left a residue some 20 years ago when I had studied about all this. Presburger Arithmetic Which if I understand correctly is axiomatically complete and provable. Gödel's theorem requires the axiomatic system to be sufficiently strong, which Presburger Arithmetic is not. Anyway, it leads me to some doubts in general about the universality of Gödel's theorem.

And this tidbit is interesting on Peano Axioms;

In 1936, Gerhard Gentzen proved the consistency of Peano's axioms, using transfinite induction.

All mathematicians assume that Peano arithmetic is consistent, although this relies on intuition only. However, early forms of naive set theory also intuitively looked consistent, before the inconsistencies were discovered. This has been a source of confusion for a number of people, especially nonmathematicians.

The point is that we do have to rely on our intuition, and that it brings something new. Roger Penrose has argued that this intuition is what differentiates men from machines, but his arguments are dubious. The modern set theory often considers axioms postulating existence of large cardinals - none of them can be proved within set theory, nor is it possible to prove consistency of these axioms. But mathematicians generally do not exclude the possibility that some of these axiom systems are inconsistent. The intuition here is much less clear than in the case of natural numbers. Some people argue that even Peano arithmetic could be inconsistent - since intuition is not really a reliable source of truth. This argument can be extended and make us doubt even finite logic itself - these questions go back to Kant and his famous Critique of Pure Reason.

So, that's some of what has formed my opinion, based on my interpretations and shadowy recollections -- but, then again I may be on the side of the misled.

[Chaerophon]

That is the only one that matters. Not because it is the Judeo-Christian definition, but because any entity that does not have the attributes of omniscience, omnipotence, and omnipresence is not sufficiently "powerful" to be a god.

Pete, I think that you just leaped headlong into a classic paradox... Simply put: is God capable of restricting himself in a permanent way? If not, He's not omnipotent. If so, He's not omnipotent because he cannot then "unrestrict" himself. Hence, some would say that God cannot possibly be omnipotent, just "mostly potent".

[--Pete]

Hi,

I first heard "Can god make a rock so big he can't move it" when I was in elementary school. I was impressed at the time, but I've learned a lot since then. Many books have been devoted to the problem. The theologians have come to many conclusions. Here is a pretty typical example.

Believe me, that is a minor quibble in the whole discussion of the existence of god. Many more profound arguments are available. A very good web site with well reasoned arguments is here. Don't let the title fool you, there is much more on that site than just a discussion of Pascal's Wager.

--Pete

[Chaerophon]

Many philosophers and theologians regard this puzzle about omnipotence as not a very serious problem. What they often say is that God can do whatever is logically possible. God cannot create contradictions, they say, but that is no real limitation of God's power. To talk about an actually existent contradiction is just nonsense, they claim; that God cannot create a stone he cannot lift, or that God cannot create an actually existent square circle, is not any serious limitation of God's power. So, they say, we could say that God can do anything that does not imply a contradiction.

I hate to break it to you and your friend there, but many philosophers HAVE regarded it as a serious difficulty. In fact, the entire skeptic school, among others, regard it as a serious argument. This is far from schoolyard stuff, although you may very well have heard it there, it remains a source of division, even today.

By this definition, God is either subject to the laws of logical possibility, or else he has created them in order to be subjected to them. No argument can deny that. Case closed. The rest is just words. Read it again, and tell me how it's not. Who determines what is a contradiction? If it is not God, then he is not omnipotent. If it IS God, then, his inability to act outside of his own limits is, you guessed it, a limit.

Let me put it in other terms. Imagine that I exist in a canyon in the wild. I have bricks and mortar, and I build a wall, sealing the canyon, that I cannot climb and I cannot knock down. I can't get through it, or around it. (I don't have any tools). Does this suggest a logical contradiction to you? If not, then neither should the notion that God could do the same thing to himself. For God, the stuff of life should be as bricks and mortar. If he has limited himself, then his omnipotence in the purest sense is put into question.

[kandrathe]

Actually, I agree with Pete. Partly I think you are assuming that the reality that you are restricted by restricts God. All that God needs is to be omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent in our reality to be God. He may be very mundane in his own reality, who knows. :)

If this reality is the canvas, and God is the painter, then to him we are static and 2 dimensional as the painting is to the painter -- we are incapable of comprehending his abilities within his reality. Not that we really are flat and static, but as an example of how it may be beyond our perception. I like this metaphor, because it also explains the "in his image" stuff.

[--Pete]

Hi,

Not much to add to what kandrathe already said. That argument exists outside of theology in the "irresistible force/immovable object" paradox.

Your final paragraph reminds me of the old joke, "God made man in his image and likeness and since then man has returned the favor."

If god were knowable, then he would not be supernatural and thus would not be god. And this whole discussion would be moot, since a knowable god is a provable god.

--Pete

[whyBish]

All that God needs is to be omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent in our reality to be God.

I can understand 'god' needing to be omnipotent, but why omniscient and omnipresent?

And what about when we move to 'gods' or do we then consider the the system of 'gods' as a 'god'? (Thinking of the Greek ones here, where they are able to decieve each other, so they definately aren't omniscient, they only have power over their own 'realm'(?) so they aren't omnipotent etc.)

Or even going back to a single god, what if god is 'Murphy-esque' and hence not omnipotent either?

[kandrathe]

Hi, I was out digging around and found this. I thought it brought another interesting perspective.

Depictions of Jesus that claim to represent the historical Jesus of Nazareth, but that minimize his Jewishness by an exaggerated separation from his ethnic-religious context cannot be called Christian. Christian faith holds that Jesus as Christian Messiah was born, raised, lived and died a Jewish man. Depictions of Jesus that treat his suffering as the singular triumph of a spiritual hero cannot be called Christian. Christian faith holds that Jesus experienced the same banality of evil and terror that many political prisoners of his day underwent, and that in this way God shared humanly in the unjust sufferings experienced in everyday human life.
“The Passion” cannot be called a Christian film. Moreover, if these depictions of Jesus are taken by viewers to be accurate representations of the meaning and message of Jesus, then the movie is functionally anti-Christian. It is anti-Christian insofar as the overfixation on violence against Jesus provides a dramatic and persuasive escape hatch from the more complicated and demanding witness of the Gospels: that a man whose intimacy with God reverberated through changed relationships that threatened the religious and political powers of his day, and that our own intimacy with God may demand no less. Tom Beaudoin, assistant professor of theology at Boston College, writer for the National Catholic Reporter

[kandrathe]

...but why omniscient and omnipresent?

If God is not bound as we are by time, then all past, present and future events are simultaneously known to God. This is an understanding of God that is "transcendental" to the reality known to mankind. Similiarly, omnipresence, can be ascribed either by the former extradimensionality (or nondimensionality) of God, or for some, that all reality is God. That ties in more with the later part of your question of pantheistic beliefs, where some religions hold that spirits or separate godness inhabit every existing thing, including plants, minerals, animals and, including all the elements, air, water, earth, and fire.

What if god is 'Murphy-esque' and hence not omnipotent either?

Ok, trying the make the intuitive leap here, but I assume you mean that God means well, but somehow if something can go wrong it will. I guess all I could offer would be to suggest that most philosophers make the assumption that a "God" by definition would be the representation of our understanding of perfection. Deism holds that God is above intervention, and theism holds that God is both transcendant and yet involved in our daily lives.

An example would be in the classic Aristotlian definition; Aristotle -- Metaphysics

In the "Metaphysics" Aristotle proposes that the actual is of its nature antecedent to the potential, that consequently, before all matter, and all composition of matter and form, of potentiality and actuality, there must have existed a "Being" who is pure actuality, and whose life is composed of self-contemplative thought (noesis noeseos). The "Supreme Being" imparted movement to the universe by moving the "First Heaven", the movement, however, emanated from the "First Cause" as desirable; in other words, the "First Heaven", attracted by the desirability of the "Supreme Being" -- "as the soul is attracted by beauty", was set in motion, and imparted its motion to the lower spheres and thus, ultimately, to our terrestrial world.   Accordingly, then God never leaves the place in which his blessedness consists. Will and intellect are incompatible with the eternal unchangeableness of his being. Since matter, motion, and time are eternal, the world is eternal.

[Occhidiangela]

Ya got a damn lot 'o gall exposing your lack of wit to me.

QUOTE (Occhidiangela @ Mar 20 2004, 05:36 PM)
I've been to Maine
I've been to Spain
I've been to Spokane

If you'd actually been to Spokane, you would know that the above doesn't rhyme. 

If you bother to check the pronunciation guidance proffered to fourth graders, you would know that a vowel, followed by a single consonant and an E is "generally" pronounced long. Hence, Spokane rhymes with Rain and Spain, not to mention to cocaine, train, and peebrain. (OK, I confess, I have no idea why Love is not pronounced "loave.")

Of course, you, the entire population of Spokane, and doubtless countless others prefer to pronounce the word as though it had no E on the end. How nice, Ebonics for white people.

That contextual illiteracy puts you all in the distinguished company of the population of Mexia, Texas, and Refugio, Texas, all of whom eschew simple pronunciation rules and pronounce their towns' names "Muh Hair" and "Reh furio" rather than "Mex EE Ah" via English or "Me Hee Ah" via Spanish and "Reh foo gee Oh" via English and "Reh foo hee Oh" via Spanish.

EDIT: The g on gee got lost.

In short, you have by your lackwit post consigned yourself, and apparently a great number of your Washingtonian peers, to the intellecutal gutter alongside the silly Texan Rednecks and damp dorsals who you 'sophisticated' Urban wankers talk down at and to all the time.

How does it feel to be suddenly on a first name basis with lackwits?

You are welcome for the lesson.

-Occhi

[FoxBat]

Quick Google on "spokane pronunciation":


http://reference.allrefer.com/gazetteer/S/...89-spokane.html

http://www.hyperdictionary.com/dictionary/Spokane

http://www.bartleby.com/61/76/S0657600.html

http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/us/A0846324.html

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=spokane


Have yet to find a single counter-example.


One should always take care when seriously questioning the intelligence of fellow posters, especially on a language as inconsistent and complex as English.

[Freepaperclips]

It's an translation from one of the local Native American languages (don't know which one off hand), and almost all written translations carry phonetic quirks.

[Freepaperclips]

I'm with you on 100th Window, easily one of the years best. :)

[LiquidDamage]

Re: Occhi's rant on how to pronounce Spokane

What happened to "Ah, but that's part of the joke"?

Did I say something to piss you off? It seems odd that you would come back a week later and suddenly be all hostile about something so mundane.

Perhaps this is parody of a certain crotchety yet inexplicably lovable poster.

Edit: added "Re:" line, for non threaded viewers.