Possible God

Thank you for acknowledging that my view is not wholly solipsistic.

 

Sorry, but that's an out of context quote.

"You're reaching. the validity of a statement is not depedent up on the words being spoken or heard-- that's Solipsism."

I was refering to you attempt to slip in human-nessacary with the "disembodied state" comment.

 

I am reaching to understand you. It wasn't a comment it was a question that you have yet to answer.

 

The answer to Am I speaking from a disembodied state is--
yes! I'm on the internet!

But seriously, the answer is that the validity of a statement is not depedent upon the words being spoken or heard.

Even the bible purports to begin before Universial(?) Life was created.
If we stipulate that the bible is the word of god, then god once existed without human description.

Hence, it must be possible to describe god without using human beings as a reference point.

Logically, if we stipulate that god is omnipresent, then we may search for --things-- that are omnipresent with a reasonable expectation that some aspect of god is among them.

The problem is finding characteristics worthy of stipulation. I use "omnipresnt" because this is as close as we've gotten to agreement between everybody purporting to be following the god of Abraham, the dominant god on our planet.

 

Very well, almost more mental leap frogging than even I am wont to practice.
However the omnipresent does not require us go far in our search.
Let's give God a third and perhaps affixing coordinate:
Omniscient, all knowing.

 

This assumes the personifacation of god is correct. Something for which we lack evidence or even indication.

 

It is not possible for a human being to describe God without being the descriptor.

What you say is not logical. To verify the omnipresent we need be concurrently present to the omnipresent.

Well it is the only description other than omnipotent that you have agreed to.

 

Knowledge is, being shared. This requires no persons.

 

I've been out of pocket for awhile. Are we still hung up on the "omniscient and omnipresent" issue? I think I mentioned awhile back that neither is an essential element of divinity, so I fail to follow the argument.

 

"stipulation" does not require proof. It is tenative acceptence of a piece of data for the sake of Argument.

"omnipresence" is basic to Judeo-Christian-Islamic beliefs. (I know those religions are filled with contradictions-- but "god is watching" is basic to all three, and they are, after all, the belief systems that are most influential in today's world.)

 

The Sky Dude has little resemblance to my God, the presence "in whom we live, and move, and have our being." He's not only "watching"; He's an integral part of us.

 

I say we define god as the most perfect conceivable being.

 

Is this sentence perfect ? I think so ..
Do I do God's will ? I will breathe and suppose so .
God don't will
so much that i get annoyed .
Do I know God ?

 

My God would be pessimistic enough to make appropriate the unjustified hatred of my neighbor. But there is nothing appropriate to the good will of building the happy cities of the new profit motive. That's why there is the possible God of nuclear suburban development.

 

In that case, I saw god in Hollywood the other night.

smoked a bowl, took six quick shots of maker's mark, looked up-- there she was!

 

I wasn't actually serious about my proposition to define god, I merely heard someone else say it. They were arguing that god must exist by definition because god is defined as the most perfect being, and existence is a necessary condition of that perfection. Totally fails but interesting argument anyway.

 

I'm with ya!