I suggest you start thinking about the idea of (a) god, and spend less time supposing you know anything about (the idea of (a)) god.

This is me thinking about the idea of (a) god. How are any of supposed to really know anything about God, (the idea of (a)) god, or anything for that matter if we don't try to think up in our limited understanding of anything spiritual (if such a realm exists) a model to fit such ideas?

The problem I have - maybe I'm unfair to pin it on you in your OP - is the presupposition that it is even meaningful to say "God" without first establishing, if just for the purpose of the discussion, what "God" is or means.

That is, I read you as presupposing God exists, whence your subsequent comments given that He exists. But God as a presupposition is such a being that if you grant His existence, then you can argue anything you like from his existence.

But there's been no attempt to ground the presupposition anywhere at all, in anything at all. And this is interesting because that's what people have been doing since time immemorial.

Let's try this: see if you can articulate any proposition, or anything at all, whatsoever, about God, that itself is not arguable; i.e., does not presuppose that which it is asserting. For example, you might say, well, God is good! To which any number of millions of people might respond, "Under which king, Bezonian?"

Were we speaking of horses, you might start with, "Horses have four legs." And indeed they do. That might not get us far along the road of discussion, but at least it's a start. But when the subject is God, even such a simple start is unattainable. So, the problem is to reconcile the apparent impossibility of saying anything reasonable about God, with the fact that everyone has something to say about God, and some of which contains some sense. What is it, then, about the idea of God that engenders sense, when the concept itself in itself contains no sense that can be found. Who is God, or perhaps more accurately what is God?

This is the correct path to take, and work to do, if yours or any discussion of God is to be anything other than idle nonsense. Or, if you want to make sense put sense in at the start.

Let's try this: see if you can articulate any proposition, or anything at all, whatsoever, about God, that itself is not arguable — tim wood

Are we allowed axioms? If yes:

Axiom: God is not omniscience

Then even God cannot know if there is another greater god than him in existence somewhere. If God ever meets a greater god, the outcome is as follows:

- Greater god is evil, our god is good, our god is punished
- Greater god is evil, our god is evil, our god is punished
- Greater god is good, our god is evil, our god is punished
- Greater god is good, our god is good, our god rewarded

The only satisfactory outcome is if our god is Good. God was intelligent enough to create the universe so he will have worked out the above and hence will be a good god.

We can then look at the state of the world and additionally deduce God is not omnipotent...

Let's try this: see if you can articulate any proposition, or anything at all, whatsoever, about God, that itself is not arguable
— tim wood

Are we allowed axioms? If yes:

Axiom: God is not omniscience — Devans99

No. You have to grasp that unless you're simply creating fantasies, you have to establish some ground for any assertion you make. If you want it in some way - any way - to be more than just your personal fantasy (which by the way, has no business on a philosophy site), then you have to subject your thinking to the task of making your notions sensible, in some sense or way.

You have to decide which is more important: to make sense with a grounded idea that might just be worthwhile, or to just eject random useless notions. You can have your personal fantasies, perfectly all right, but inappropriate here.

So you don't get to make axioms. You only get to struggle to make sense. Good luck! And will you have the courage to pursue sense where it takes you, or even the sense to recognize that it wants to take you somewhere?

you have to establish some ground for any assertion you make — tim wood

'God is not omniscience' is a good axiom IMO. A self-evident truth: Its not possible to know everything. For example all the digits of pi. So I think there was sufficient grounds for my argument.

But perhaps you mean that the existence of God is not well grounded? There is no hard evidence either way for/against existence of God, so people have degrees of belief:

- Some Christians claim with 100% certainty that God exists (rather irrational IMO).
- An agnostic might believe the existence of God is 50% likely
- A atheist might perhaps be only 5% convinced of God's existence
- An Uber-Atheist might claim a 0% chance of God's existence (rather irrational IMO).

Even with only a 5% chance of God's existence, discussions over the nature of God are still worthwhile and productive. There is quite a lot you can deduce about God especially if you drop the traditional definitions (3Os). For example: God is not male or female as God was not the product of bi-sexual reproduction. As a unisexual its possible he/it could jealous of humans as he can't have sex or masturbate.

Try these two: what does it mean (for you) to have (believe in) a god? And, if it is possible in any sense whatsoever to know or reliably suppose anything about god, how do you account for that knowledge?

Btw, opinions and beliefs, as substitutes for reasoned argument, are completely out of court, here.

Try these two: what does it mean (for you) to have (believe in) a god? And, if it is possible in any sense whatsoever to know or reliably suppose anything about god, how do you account for that knowledge? — tim wood

I conjecture it is likely that God exists; that's not the same as belief.

I think there are different ways of learning about God:

- Through his works (the universe)
- Through ourselves (intelligent creatures share common traits).
- Through metaphysical deductions.

So we can conjecture, for example, he is an keen astronomer and he likes to do things on a grand scale. The universe seems to run like clockwork without his involvement so he's probably quite hands-off.

I think there are different ways of learning about God: — Devans99

Maybe. You're assuming what is in fact in question. You have also not understood my question, "How do you account for that knowledge?"

This isn't, "Where and how did you get that (which you think is) knowledge?" Rather it is, how does it come to be knowledge? What makes it knowledge?

My point is that knowledge is constituted by the knower. If you know god, then you made him up - or you made up that which you think is knowledge of god. That's the box you need to escape, if you're a philosopher of religion. If you're not such a philosopher, if you're not interested in the question, then you merely need to find a church of people you believe to be like-minded with you, and be a communicant with them. To be here, though, you need to at least attempt arguments of sterner stuff than so far you've adduced

Rather it is, how does it come to be knowledge? What makes it knowledge? — tim wood

It is knowledge of a hypothetical. I see no problem with that; aliens are hypothetical but we can still make deductions about their nature?

I noticed it when we discussed infinity that you could not take on board new ideas... I think you are having a similar issue with the possible existence of God? Do you believe God does not exist with 100% certainty? That would take an act of belief of staggering irrationality. People with an open mind don't close down the possibilities like that.

I noticed it when we discussed infinity that you could not take on board new ideas — Devans99

I consider and weigh new ideas according to my abilities and best judgment. As I recall, your claim was that actual infinities could not exist, as, e.g., with infinity marshmallows. With this I have no problem. But you seemed to go a lot further, for which the only supporting arguments were idiosyncratic redefinitions of matters already thoroughly explored and well-defined. Allow that and you can argue anything you like.

You seem to consider God from a naive standpoint, does He exist? Maybe He exists. Given that existence is more-or-less well defined and well understood, the better question is, what must God be, to be an existing thing? What are the possible kinds of existence such a being must have?

This challenges your understanding of God - but you do not seem to grasp the nature of the challenge. (I don't claim to make it very clear - my bad; but you ought to be troubled by your own efforts and your own conclusions, however tentative, so far, they are.)

You seem to consider God from a naive standpoint, does He exist? — tim wood

I was not; if you recall, I considering the attributes of God (should he exist).

What are the possible kinds of existence such a being must have? — tim wood

I'm mostly a materialist so any God should be material (and finite... you lost that debate BTW). The only type of non-material God I'd allow is God as the root user of the the Matrix-Style simulation we are in. But then in that case, it would be we who are immaterial and God is still material (as I assert). I'm not big on spiritualism.

Powerful and intelligent but not omnipotent or omniscient. Unless of course we are in a simulation, in which case God's powers could approach on omnipotent/omniscient.

Timeless and permanent. Both dead and alive at the same time (from our perspective).

Given that existence is more-or-less well defined and well understood, the better question is, what must God be, to be an existing thing? — tim wood

I think that existence is well defined and well understood, is far from the truth.