411314

I thought this might be an interesting game to play. I realize that the dominant religions in today's world seem to believe in an omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent, and omni benevolent god, but in your opinion, must a theoretical being poses these characteristics to be defined as a "god". If you had to come up with a theoretical power level and theoretical characteristics for a "god", what would you come up with?

shadowind

i don't think i will ever accept a being as god, besides i think a omniscient,omnipresent,omnipotent,omnibenevolent god that sends people to heaven or hell is a contridiction. according to the view of most people it seems like god created us with the purpose of crowding hell.

__________________
remember "for mere impulse of appetite is slavery, while obedience to a law which we prescirbe to oursleves is liberty"-rousseau: the concept of the general will "if we can not reconcile all opions, then let us endeavour to unite all hearts."-?"to be is to be perceived"-? "‘We can be as honest as we are ignorant. If we are, when asked what is beyond the horizon of the known, we must say that we do not know’-Robert G. Ingersoll

Astreja

My definition of 'god' is somewhat looser than the omni-type:

Able to remotely direct and/or influence events in the physical world through a mind-only interface (although a preference for physical intervention does not disqualify the being from godhood).

In other words, if someone possesses advanced knowledge, abilities and/or onboard biotechnology indistinguishable from "magic", they're a de facto god in my eyes.

Geshtinnanna

Every God must have a worshiper. Or else they are just the weirdo in a robe down the hall.

__________________

greywolf90

uh-oh! i better go find some worshippers.

__________________
"for there is nothing either good or bad but thinking makes it so."- Hamlet

AB517

An agent of change.

Og

To me, the notion of a "being" prevents the label of god from being applied. Being denotes something with a boundary. It indicates something that is "there" and not "here"... It necessarily limits the concept of God.

Applying all the "omnis" to a notion of God creates a paradox if you also give this notion a definition as an entity/being. The moment someone defines a "omni" notion as a being, they have created an oxymoron. This is why there is a conflict between science and religion. Modern theistic religion has solidified the notion of god into a concrete form (being/entity). This solidification blinds them to the truth of the divine.

To me, god is a metaphor for the divine mystery of existence. It's a metaphor that speaks to the fundamental mystery of all things. God is the fundamental ground from which we are all expressions. Our most basic nature is divine whether we are murderers, rapists, parents, lovers, poets, or warriors. We are all expressions of this same mystery. We are not separate from it. God is like the ocean and we are like the waves on the ocean. We rise and fall, and crash into one another or enhance one another or dampen one another, but we are all expressions of the same substrate.

That's what God is to me. The notion of God as a Being is an oxymoron unless you create a very specific and limited definition. The problem with this is that it is then open to testing by the scientific method. For example, if a god is a being who punishes us based on our action as free agents, then this god can be demonstrated as false by showing how we are not, fundamentally, free agents.

Anytime someone binds the notion of God into a concrete form, they sink like a rock and close their minds to the mystery of existence.

__________________
Vi veri veniversum vivus vici. (By the power of truth, I, while living, have conquered the universe)
The self is not a fixed entity but a dynamic process of relationships
You & I, no distinction. - Tat Tvam Asi
Become Who You Are