Is it possible for this God to exist?

[Tenko]

One of my favorite things to do a long time ago was find quick ways to prove the non-existence of a god using traits described to me by other people. It would frustrate them, but if you're going to believe in an existing God then he had better not have self-contradictory properties.

 

Well now that I'm Christian, I'll have a go at attempting to define traits which do not disqualify themselves from existence. If no one can point out reason to believe in non-existence, would that not mean the question is 'up in the air' or 'on the table' until proven or disproven one way or the other? I'm not saying we should treat an unproven question as though it is true, I'm saying that we should treat an unproven question as though it could be true, at least theoretically, given assumption of specific non-contradictory traits.

 

Before you ask what reason there is for entering these assumptions (basis in reality, evidence, fact, research, etc), or what reason there is for evaluating a hypothetical being which emerges from the traits assumed, let me explain.

 

Let's say someone designs a new invention called 'the printing press'. Now, at this point in time no printing press can be seen, examined, or used, because there are none anywhere. The only evidence that the printing press works as the inventor claims is a mechanical drawing he made on a large piece of paper. All we could do would be to enter the assumption that, with all parts shaped and put together, this machine would do what we think it would do. And we would also have to evaluate this hypothetical device using its assumed traits before building it, or else we cannot design it and then we cannot build from a working design. To do anything otherwise equals abandoning the pursuit of building the printing press.

 

Now let's ask, why even bother evaluating the possibility of God existing? We have many books claiming to be messages from God. Many people have near-death and OOB experiences, some have astral projection experiences. Some people think dreams are from a different level of reality. Some people claim memories of past lives. Some people claim to have experienced miracles.

 

If any one of these things happens to a person, why should that person not then consider the possibility of God? Should that person really just find the first sentence they don't understand and snap the book shut and say they've disproven the whole thing? I mean, everyone does what they want to. It just seems to me that some people give very little consideration to ideas that are not instantly self-terminating (possibly valid ideas) because they don't like that particular subject, but when talking about other subjects, a lot of consideration is expected. Or perhaps it's that one subject is already delcared moot, no matter what new arguments are brought forth?

 

Instead of the common idea of omniscience, let's say that "God can find out anything about anything in His universe." This trait also places the information elsewhere, as an accessible medium, instead of requiring it to all be stuffed into one mind and all be conciously thought of simultaneously forever. This also draws closer the claim that "we were created in His image."

 

Instead of the common idea of omnipotence, let's say that "God can do anything possible except sin." 'anything possible' rules out logically impossible feats while preserving the infinite range of potential valid actions. We know that God hates hypocricy and therefore would not practice hypocricy, thus God who tells us to not sin should also not be sinning.

 

Instead of the common idea of omnipresense, let's say that "God can go to any place and time in His universe, in as many different visits as He wants." This is carefully worded to allow God to be in more place than one, simultaneously, yet still be logically possible.

 

Some people like to define God as invulnerable to logical attack, or existing where A can equal non-A, or existing with an inpenetrable barrier between Him and us, in order to evade good arguments against their claimed traits. Defining anything that way makes it self-implode, so we have to add the trait "God exists within the boundaries of reality," and the trait "God is at least one unit of something," and the trait "God can reach out and intervene here."

 

#1. God can find out anything about anything in His universe.

#2. God can do anything possible except sin.

#3. God can go to any place and time in His universe, in as many different visits as He wants.

#4. God exists within the boundaries of reality.

#5. God is at least one unit of something.

#6. God can reach out and intervene here [no barrier preventing it].

 

Are any of these traits contradicting each other or themselves?

Is there a trait that must be added or else the whole thing falls apart?

Is there a trait here that must be removed or else the whole thing falls apart?

If you can show me something wrong here I'd try to fix it or abandon whatever trait needs to be abandoned.

 

Disclaimer:

Keep in mind that these are just assumed traits for a hypothetically existing God, or for a God whose existence is still possible or 'on the table' based on described traits. This is not an attempt to prove the existence of God - only an attempt to put the possibility of His existence back on the table.

[Wuzzums]

This is all speculation and given it's not contradictory falls into the real of plausibility. All atheists agree that such a being as you propose is feasible, nobody can predict the future. But what's the point? It's just fantasy, sci-fi literature. Plausibility =/= existence.

 

You said you're a christian, and it's confusing for me when you use the word "God" because it's seem to me you're arguing for the deist world view in the rest of your post. Arguing for or against the deist theory is like arguing for and against the existence of Obi-Wan Kenobi in a galaxy far, far away. If it's in the bounds of reality and there's no tangible proof for its existence, any argument for its existence is as valid as any argument against its existence.

 

You say "Planet Krypton exists" to which I reply "It cannot exists because squirrels have fuzzy tails". Why can't a planet (which exist) called Krypton (which is a name that exists) exist because of the tails of squirrels (which exist)? Well because of all the made-up reasons. It's just fantasy, I can make as much stuff up as I want.

 

Now if you're arguing for your God, the christian god, then it's a whole different story. That god has a specific definition, and that definition is self contradictory, therefore the christian god does not exist. End of story.

 

And now let's assume that your god, let's call him Dog for the sake of argument, does in fact exist without a shadow of a doubt. So there's a being out there called Dog which can:

#1. Dog can find out anything about anything in His universe.

#2. Dog can do anything possible except sin.

#3. Dog can go to any place and time in His universe, in as many different visits as He wants.

#4. Dog exists within the boundaries of reality.

#5. Dog is at least one unit of something.

#6. Dog can reach out and intervene here [no barrier preventing it].

 

What has changed in my life considering Dog always existed? Nothing. Physics is the same. Biology is the same. Religion is as irrational as before. Society is the same. It's like the discovery of dark matter, it has absolutely zero intrinsic value to me. My life is exactly the same and will stay the same as it was before the discovery of dark matter.

[dsayers]

Tenko, I think the more important question is: Why do YOU NEED God to exist?

 

In order for religion to be valid, you have to accept a number of claims that do not conform to reality as we know it:

 

1) Consciousness can exist without matter and energy.

2) Only one consciousness exists without matter and energy.

3) The consciousness that YOU were taught about can exist without matter and energy.

4) He intervenes.

 

Point 2 is particularly problematic because only one of anything existing is nearly a statistic impossibility. Point 4 is the clincher. If he intervenes, then no belief is necessary. If he doesn't, then it's just as Wuzz pointed out: The difference would be meaningless.

 

So can God exists? It seems impossible due to reasons of internal inconsistency.

[Tenko]

You said you're a christian, and it's confusing for me when you use the word "God" because it's seem to me you're arguing for the deist world view in the rest of your post.

It's funny because I was raised catholic and ran fast away from that into athiesm, and from there into deism with no affiliated religion, then had revelations and became christian. So I have some roots in philosophy and logic, and I can't accept the idea of a self-contradictory god as being the living God that I believe in now.

 

 

This is all speculation and given it's not contradictory falls into the real of plausibility. All atheists agree that such a being as you propose is feasible, nobody can predict the future. But what's the point? It's just fantasy, sci-fi literature. Plausibility =/= existence.

Arguing for or against the deist theory is like arguing for and against the existence of Obi-Wan Kenobi in a galaxy far, far away.

 

The point is that, if God exists and the Bible is His message to us, then we will miss out on eternal life if we don't consider the possibility of God's existence. If God exists, and His message is some other book, then vital instructions are being ignored. This is not the same as a galaxy far, far away, because it has implications which stretch out into you and either save you or damn you; because God's intervention reaches here from that far away.

 

If it's in the bounds of reality and there's no tangible proof for its existence, any argument for its existence is as valid as any argument against its existence.

If it's within the bounds of reality but no one has collected acceptable proof, then regardless of any arguments given for either side, the truth value of the proposition is still in question because proof has not yet been entered into the equation. The arguments offered without proof are no more valid as proof than a self-contradictory statement.

Again, I'm not claiming deductive proof through my arguments, I'm just trying to point out that this idea might be worthy of "remaining on the table," until evidence of the proposition emerges either way.

 

You say "Planet Krypton exists" to which I reply "It cannot exists because squirrels have fuzzy tails". Why can't a planet (which exist) called Krypton (which is a name that exists) exist because of the tails of squirrels (which exist)? Well because of all the made-up reasons. It's just fantasy, I can make as much stuff up as I want.

When trying to discover, say, the cause of a disease before knowledge of germs, one must be able to imagine many things and test those imaginations for truth or falsehood before they can arrive at the discovery of germs. How far can these imaginations go when trying to visualize the cause of a disease? No limits, like you say. How far do these imaginations need to go? Only as far as to discover germs.

 

Now if you're arguing for your God, the christian god, then it's a whole different story. That god has a specific definition, and that definition is self contradictory, therefore the christian god does not exist. End of story.

So as far as looking at the above listed traits from a deistic perspective, it's still on the table?

From a christian perspective, If God's traits are self-contradictory, then let's examine some of those.

 

What has changed in my life considering Dog always existed? Nothing. Physics is the same. Biology is the same. Religion is as irrational as before. Society is the same. It's like the discovery of dark matter, it has absolutely zero intrinsic value to me. My life is exactly the same and will stay the same as it was before the discovery of dark matter.

What if one of God's traits is that He saves righteous people from death? All the sudden you have incentive to seek God and learn, and punishment for making your life "exactly the same no matter the discovery."

Tenko, I think the more important question is: Why do YOU NEED God to exist?

A question even more important than that one would be, does God exist? Because the truth exists independently from anyone's needs. So regardless of why I feel I need God, the question on the table is His existence. Another good question would be, does your need or lack thereof for God affect the truth value of His existence?

 

 

In order for religion to be valid, you have to accept a number of claims that do not conform to reality as we know it:

1) Consciousness can exist without matter and energy.

2) Only one consciousness exists without matter and energy.

3) The consciousness that YOU were taught about can exist without matter and energy.

#5. God is at least one unit of something.

[dsayers]

#5. God is at least one unit of something.

 

No. Saying "God" refers only to a concept. The ability to describe something is not proof of its existence.

[Kevin Beal]

Can he be seen, heard, touched, detected in any way?

 

If not, then he doesn't exist.

 

If so, then present this evidence.

[Tenko]

No. Saying "God" refers only to a concept. The ability to describe something is not proof of its existence.

Well I'm not claiming that anything I've written here is deductive proof of God's existence. I'm just trying to keep the idea 'on the table' as possible.

Can he be seen, heard, touched, detected in any way?

If not, then he doesn't exist.

If so, then present this evidence.

Many people claim to hear or otherwise receive answers to their questions in prayer, and the Bible claims that this will happen as a result of prayer as well. I know that someone else's testimony is not proof. I am providing a possible example of seeing or hearing God. It would have to happen to you, of course, before you believed, unless you had faith before. And it takes an inch of faith to pray in the first place, because if you think nothing is going to happen, why bother?

 

If you cannot hear God due to a lack of faith (as described in the Bible) then I understand why you percieve no evidence. It might be that evidence cannot penetrate the barrier built from lack of faith, unless an inch of a crack forms first.

[Wuzzums]

The point is that, if God exists and the Bible is His message to us, then we will miss out on eternal life if we don't consider the possibility of God's existence. If God exists, and His message is some other book, then vital instructions are being ignored. This is not the same as a galaxy far, far away, because it has implications which stretch out into you and either save you or damn you; because God's intervention reaches here from that far away.

 

But your definition of Dog is not the same as the Bible's definition of God. 

#1. Dog can find out anything about anything in His universe.

#2. Dog can do anything possible except sin.

#3. Dog can go to any place and time in His universe, in as many different visits as He wants.

#4. Dog exists within the boundaries of reality.

#5. Dog is at least one unit of something.

#6. Dog can reach out and intervene here [no barrier preventing it].

In contrast to:

#1. God can find out anything about anything anywhere. (he is all-knowing)

#2. God can do anything possible. (he is all-powerful)

#3. God can go to any place and time in His universe, in as many different visits as He wants.

#4. God existed since before the dawn of reality. (he was there even before the Big Bang)

#5. God is at least one unit of something.

#6. God can reach out and intervene here [no barrier preventing it].

So God can't exist because he has self contradictory traits thus the Bible has no value. Dog can exist because he's in the realm of possibility but he wrote or inspired no Dog version of the Bible hence nobody can know his will. Catch-22.

[J-William]

No, it is not possible for a self-contradictory entity made out of nothing and possessing infinite complexity yet evolving from nothing to exist.

 

I ask you, is it possible that I am a wizard who can do magic like Harry Potter?

[Tenko]

But your definition of Dog is not the same as the Bible's definition of God. 

#1. Dog can find out anything about anything in His universe.

#2. Dog can do anything possible except sin.

#3. Dog can go to any place and time in His universe, in as many different visits as He wants.

#4. Dog exists within the boundaries of reality.

#5. Dog is at least one unit of something.

#6. Dog can reach out and intervene here [no barrier preventing it].

In contrast to:

#1. God can find out anything about anything anywhere. (he is all-knowing)

#2. God can do anything possible. (he is all-powerful)

#3. God can go to any place and time in His universe, in as many different visits as He wants.

#4. God existed since before the dawn of reality. (he was there even before the Big Bang)

#5. God is at least one unit of something.

#6. God can reach out and intervene here [no barrier preventing it].

So God can't exist because he has self contradictory traits thus the Bible has no value. Dog can exist because he's in the realm of possibility but he wrote or inspired no Dog version of the Bible hence nobody can know his will. Catch-22.

But the set of traits being evaluated here is the one I posted at the top. If you want to evaluate your traits for God, we can do that. But I don't know how stating new traits for God invalidates the traits I posted at the top. We're not evaluating the common form of omnipotence, etc, we are evaluating logically possible forms (albeit more limited) forms of those things.

 

If you are saying that the Bible claims God can do everything including that which is logically not possible, I would like to see the verse which says something along those lines. Because I don't know of any.

No, it is not possible for a self-contradictory entity made out of nothing and possessing infinite complexity yet evolving from nothing to exist.

 

I ask you, is it possible that I am a wizard who can do magic like Harry Potter?

But you didn't even read what I wrote.

 

I am choosing traits which are specifically non-contradictory, and I have chosen a trait which states that "God is at least one unit of something." so I'm not actually claiming that God is made out of nothing. I also never said that God was infinitely complex.

 

Could you take a look at the argument again?

[Wuzzums]

If you are saying that the Bible claims God can do everything including that which is logically not possible, I would like to see the verse which says something along those lines. Because I don't know of any.

Psalm 147:5

Great is our Lord and mighty in power;

his understanding has no limit. 

1 John 3:19-20

By this we shall know that we are of the truth and reassure our heart before him; for whenever our heart condemns us, God is greater than our heart, and he knows everything.

Psalm 139:4

Even before a word is on my tongue,

behold, O LORD, you know it altogether.

Isaiah 46:9

I am God, and there is none like me,

declaring the end from the beginning

and from ancient times things not yet done.

Matthew 19:26

But Jesus looked at them and said, “With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.”

 

Luke 1:37

For nothing will be impossible with God.”

 

Isaiah 40:28

Have you not known? Have you not heard? The Lord is the everlasting God, the Creator of the ends of the earth. He does not faint or grow weary; his understanding is unsearchable.

 

Psalm 147:5

Great is our Lord, and abundant in power; his understanding is beyond measure.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I can copy-paste all day: here's the link http://www.openbible.info/topics/omnipotence

[Tenko]

First of all, thank you for taking the time to look up all those quotes. I'm checking them with my KJV Bible.

 

KJV Psalm 147:5 "Great is our Lord, and of great power: his understanding is infinite."

If God has all the time he needs to study a problem and fully understand everything involved before deciding what to do about it, I would call that infinite understanding, because no matter how cmoplex the problem presented God still has enough time to figure it out. "His understanding is infinite" is different from "God knows all things, including things impossible to know." I just don't see it here.

 

KJV 1 John 3:19-20 "And hereby we know that we are of the truth, and shall assure our hearts before him. For if our heart condemn us, God is greater than our heart, and knoweth all things."

To be able to know all things is possible if all things includes a finite set of things. If God created this universe and can examine it from a distance taking as much time as desired, then God certainly is capable of knowing all things about His universe.

 

KJV Psalm 139:4 "For there is not a word in my tongue, but, lo, O Lord, thou knowest it altogether."

If God can see a person's every move and hear their every word, from birth to death, then why is it not fair to say that God knows everything that you're going to say and do?

 

KJV Isaiah 46:9-10 "Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me, Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure:"

This verse is saying that God can see past, present, and future, and can 'declare' them to us (prophecy), and that there is none like Him who can do that. I don't see anything here that include logically impossible feats.

 

KJV Matthew 19:24-26 "And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God. When his disciples heard it, they were exceedingly amazed, saying, Who then can be saved? But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible."

Jesus is saying here that men cannot save themselves, only through God can man be saved. That a rich man trying to get into heaven by himself is ridiculously hard, but with God it becomes possible. The context of all 3 verses makes it logically understandable, unless you remove all but the last 7 words from the context and that wouldn't even be a complete sentence.

 

KJV Luke 1:36-38 "And, behold, thy cousin Elisabeth, she hath also conceived a son in her old age: and this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren. For with God nothing shall be impossible. And Mary said, Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word. And the angel departed from her."

Again, taking context into account here 1:37 is talking about Elisabeth who was called barren for her infertility being able to do that which is impossible, conceive, because "with God nothing shall be impossible". The context implies that God can do in His universe that He created what He wants to do; that He has the power to do so.

 

KJV Isaiah 40:28 "Hast thou not known? hast thou not heard, that the everlasting God, the Lord, the Creator of the ends of the earth, fainteth not, neither is weary? there is no searching of his understanding."

Would man have the time to learn every little thing that God can know or that God does find out? Man has to sleep, God does not. Moreso than that, there's so much that God knows that it would take a phenomenal time to learn it all. Can man comprehend every single thing that God comprehends? There is no searching for God's understanding, as far as people on the earth are concerned, because it's an impossible task for them to accomplish in their current state with the time limit they each have.

 

KJV 147:5 "Great is our Lord, and of great power: his understanding is infinite."

The true word of God from the KJV does not say "his understanding is beyond measure".

When the Bible says that God knows the future and communicates it to us in the form of prophecy, there are many things one can do with that information. Three things that come to mind are:

#1. Spend a lot of time pondering irrelevant extremes to find one which does not allow prophecy to work, then dismiss everything relevant to prophecy using this imagined model.

#2. Pick your nose.

#3. Check out the prophecy. Is this stuff really happening?

 

So long as you're stuck debating technicalities and definitions and what-not, you will totally miss prophecy which is cloaked in metaphor, because your requirements are too technical and rigid to allow metaphor a chance for consideration.

[Mike Fleming]

If God might exist, then why not might Gods exist?  The idea is simply a human fantasy.   The chances that what we have made up in our fantasy actually conforms to the truth is so infinitesimally small you can just as well say it doesn't exist.  Just as someone else pointed out it's like saying the planet Krypton "might" exist.  Or a teacup floating around the Earth "might" exist.  Or leprechauns.  And on and on.  We say these things don't exist for shorthand.  We don't have absolute proof, but when was the last time a fantasy story made up by humans turned out to be true?

 

And if you look at astronomy and cosmology and physics it paints a completely different picture regarding the creation of planets and stars than the bible.  There is no reason to believe that there is a creator of the universe and in fact current evidence suggests, without yet being totally conclusive, that there is no creator or creators.  So you have almost overwhelming evidence pointing toward no creator and fantasy stories telling you that there is definitely a creator.  That's an easy decision for me.  There is no Loch Ness Monster and there is no God.

[Tenko]

You make a good point that people throughout history have fantasized their own religions, or even their own interpretations of religious text. And that the imaginitive power of man is certainly capable of doing an even better job at making stuff up than it already has. So, what does it mean when we accept the premise "99.9% of people make stuff up about God, for whatever reasons" as being assumed true? Nothing.

 

For consensus does not equal truth value.

 

The truth value of God's existence is not modified by how many people are correct or incorrect, empirical or imaginitive.

 

We are not evaluating the existence of the Loch Ness Monster nor Leprachauns, at least that's not what I was doing in the first post. To try and say that "Because unicorns have not been proven to exist, that means anything that hasn't been proven to exist must not exist due to my failure to prove it one way or another," is to find an excuse to stop looking, an excuse which is not technically valid.

I anticipate the next response as being, "Why should we not give up looking for unicorns and the loch ness monster? Why should we keep trying to prove their existence or nonexistence?" And my answer to that is this:

 

My post is not about encouraging the search for bigfoot, nor unicorns, etc. My post is about encouraging the search for God. How many implications does the discovery of bigfoot have on you, personally, and how many implications does the discovery of God have on you, personally? That's a big difference between the two, isn't it?

 

So why should we not give up looking for God? Because God is a lot greater than bigfoot or a unicorn, and God can do much more for us than bigfoot or a unicorn, and God can give us eternal life unlike bigfoot and a unicorn, etc.

I just discovered reputation points. I have -24 so far.

 

Interesting to know that if someone is polite and rational they are unpopular here. Or is it my beliefs that are unpopular?

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

 

Interesting to know that if someone is polite and rational they are unpopular here. Or is it my beliefs that are unpopular?

Well you're a christian and your bible requires you put atheists like us to death. You are also positing a god that is supposedly non-contradictory while telling us you believe in a god that is contradictory. What's polite or rational about that?

Yes, Your beliefs are unpopular. Nazi beliefs are unpopular too. So what?

[Mike Fleming]

You make a good point that people throughout history have fantasized their own religions, or even their own interpretations of religious text. And that the imaginitive power of man is certainly capable of doing an even better job at making stuff up than it already has. So, what does it mean when we accept the premise "99.9% of people make stuff up about God, for whatever reasons" as being assumed true? Nothing.

 

For consensus does not equal truth value.

 

The truth value of God's existence is not modified by how many people are correct or incorrect, empirical or imaginitive.

 

We are not evaluating the existence of the Loch Ness Monster nor Leprachauns, at least that's not what I was doing in the first post. To try and say that "Because unicorns have not been proven to exist, that means anything that hasn't been proven to exist must not exist due to my failure to prove it one way or another," is to find an excuse to stop looking, an excuse which is not technically valid.

I anticipate the next response as being, "Why should we not give up looking for unicorns and the loch ness monster? Why should we keep trying to prove their existence or nonexistence?" And my answer to that is this:

 

My post is not about encouraging the search for bigfoot, nor unicorns, etc. My post is about encouraging the search for God. How many implications does the discovery of bigfoot have on you, personally, and how many implications does the discovery of God have on you, personally? That's a big difference between the two, isn't it?

 

So why should we not give up looking for God? Because God is a lot greater than bigfoot or a unicorn, and God can do much more for us than bigfoot or a unicorn, and God can give us eternal life unlike bigfoot and a unicorn, etc.

I just discovered reputation points. I have -24 so far.

 

Interesting to know that if someone is polite and rational they are unpopular here. Or is it my beliefs that are unpopular?

 

You need to change 99.9% to 100% in your first paragraph.  Then derive your conclusions from that fact and they will be very different to what you are currently positing.

 

It is as ridiculous to search for God as it is to search for unicorns.  Both concepts have come entirely out of the minds of men and never had any basis in fact.

[LanceD]

You need to change 99.9% to 100% in your first paragraph. Then derive your conclusions from that fact and they will be very different to what you are currently positing.It is as ridiculous to search for God as it is to search for unicorns. Both concepts have come entirely out of the minds of men and never had any basis in fact.

This statement is ridiculous. What's so impossible about a horse with a horn? There are many horses running around and many animals with horns. To say that a horse with a horn is as impossible as a magical being that can know everything and time travel is absurd. To the OP. You say that these traits you've signed your God are logically possible, then you say he can time travel and find out anything he wants? How are those two feats logically possible? Also if God can interact with the universe then by what means does he do so? He has to interact with matter and energy in order to influence matter and energy. Which means we should have no problem measuring acts of God, unless of course the way he does this is "magic" which then invalidates his existence. I'm also confused as to how he saves me from death. Everything we know about biology shows that consciousness is a result of the brain, which is matter and energy. So how does he save me? Does he snatch up my body and take it to space to live with him? Or are you implying that our beings are not attached to our bodies? Because if this is the case I think the first thing you need to do is prove the existence of the soul, because without that your whole idea here is pointless and you are wasting your time trying to prove the existence of a God who can do nothing to help you.

[J-William]

I am choosing traits which are specifically non-contradictory, and I have chosen a trait which states that "God is at least one unit of something." so I'm not actually claiming that God is made out of nothing. I also never said that God was infinitely complex.

Well then what you're talking about is not god, so why do you call it god?

[Wesley]

I am choosing traits which are specifically non-contradictory, and I have chosen a trait which states that "God is at least one unit of something." so I'm not actually claiming that God is made out of nothing. I also never said that God was infinitely complex.

I haven't read the whole thread, so I may easily be missing something obvious, and if so then I would be happy for it to be pointed out.

 

It seems to me that if you are "choosing traits" then you are admitting that God is not something that exists anywhere outside of your own mind.

[Lians]

This fellow's been around since 2007... Talk about impenetrable to reason.