# Define God
**URL:** https://boards.straightdope.com/t/define-god/284623
**Category:** Great Debates
**Created:** [January 13, 2005, 11:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/define-god/284623 "2005-01-13T23:54:48Z")
**Posts on this page:** 20
**Page:** 4
### Author:  [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)
#### Post date: [January 16, 2005, 5:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/define-god/284623/61 "2005-01-16T17:43:01Z")
> [@II Gyan II](#):
>
> Ok. In your logical argument, the referent ‘God’ is just a variable?
Yes. Precisely, it is a logical variable (as opposed to a mathematical variable; i.e., its value does not change). But the cogent definition has been both given here and linked separately to the proof.
> [@](#):
>
> So, I could do the following:
>
> 1. it is possible that Oblaa exists, and (2) if Oblaa does exist in actuality, then It must exist necessarily, and come up with ‘Oblaa does exist’.
So long as you define Oblaa as Supreme Being (Necessary Existence), then “Oblaa” and “God” are names for the same entity. You could do the same thing in math as well. Xlofa plus xlofa equals four, so long as by “xlofa” we mean the successor to one. I have no problem calling God whatever you wish — It already has many different names anyway: Dieux, Dios, Allah, Jahweh, etc. — so long as we are not equivocating.
> [@](#):
>
> In your proof, you define God as Supreme Being, and you linked to a dictionary definition which just loops back onto the referent. Could the universe be a Supreme Being?
It is an epistemic possibility, but there are metaphysical problems. If you’re curious, I’ll be happy to go into those, but I don’t want to bother you with them otherwise.
---
### Author:  [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)
#### Post date: [January 16, 2005, 5:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/define-god/284623/62 "2005-01-16T17:45:05Z")
> [@Enola Straight](#):
>
> Again…Heresy.
>
> Creator/=Created.
Not necessarily. If he is equating the universe with God, then he is proposing that the universe is eternal (setting aside the aforementioned problems that entails). It is a pantheistic declaration.
---
### Author:  [@II\_Gyan\_II](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/II_Gyan_II)
#### Post date: [January 16, 2005, 7:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/define-god/284623/63 "2005-01-16T19:29:55Z")
> [@Liberal](#):
>
> It is an epistemic possibility, but there are metaphysical problems.
Go on.
---
### Author:  [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)
#### Post date: [January 17, 2005, 12:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/define-god/284623/64 "2005-01-17T12:15:17Z")
> [@II Gyan II](#):
>
> Go on.
If the universe is eternal, then it has always existed. If it has always existed, then its entropy ought to be 100%. Positing that it was a singularity until a few billion years ago doesn’t help. Even Hawking himself now agrees that singularities do not escape the inevitable influence of thermodynamics: “I thought at first that the no boundary condition did indeed imply that disorder would decrease in the contracting phase. I realized that I had made a mistake: the no boundary condition implied that disorder would in fact continue to increase during the contraction. The thermodynamic and psychological arrows of time would not reverse when the universe begins to contract or inside black holes”. ([Cite](http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/week26.html).)
---
### Author:  [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)
#### Post date: [January 17, 2005, 12:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/define-god/284623/65 "2005-01-17T12:34:45Z")
> [@](#):
>
> If the universe is eternal, then it has always existed. If it has always existed, then its entropy ought to be 100%.
This is confusing “all of time” with “an infinite amount of time”. The singularity is 13.7 billion years away from here, not an infinite number of years away from here. That 13.7 billion years is still the _always_ in that direction.
Singularities do indeed throw up many problems in various fields physics such as thermodynamics and quantum mechanics. You call these ‘metaphysical’ problems, and of course I say that they are still _physical_ problems and that the metaphysical is unnecessary.
[A summary for **Gyan, RaftPeople** and others](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=4599618&postcount=6).
---
### Author:  [@II\_Gyan\_II](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/II_Gyan_II)
#### Post date: [January 17, 2005, 1:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/define-god/284623/66 "2005-01-17T13:56:30Z")
> [@Liberal](#):
>
> If the universe is eternal, then it has always existed. If it has always existed, then its entropy ought to be 100%.
Why? Maybe the universe can get disordered without limit. Maybe the entropy overall is 100%, but local regions oscillate. In any case, this is a physical problem, not a metaphysical one.
---
### Author:  [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)
#### Post date: [January 17, 2005, 2:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/define-god/284623/67 "2005-01-17T14:54:17Z")
> [@II Gyan II](#):
>
> Why? Maybe the universe can get disordered without limit. Maybe the entropy overall is 100%, but local regions oscillate. In any case, this is a physical problem, not a metaphysical one.
Not that kind of metaphysical. Metaphysical in the sense of alethic. (Recall the example I gave of “A is A”.) I’m afraid that I’ll have to call upon you to describe mathematically a “disorder without limit”, and local entropies greater than complete and less than zero such that an average is 100%.
---
### Author:  [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)
#### Post date: [January 17, 2005, 3:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/define-god/284623/68 "2005-01-17T15:29:02Z")
The problem with ontological proofs is that, in general, they do not “speak to the heart” – they may _bolster_ and strengthen faith in someone who has it, but they won’t _engender_ it, in general, in someone who does not. (And I’ve weaseled that statement because there **are** people for whom it does work, but I choose to speak in generalities here.
Perhaps the whole existence-of-God thing may be dealt with by simply exploring the idea of **Cecil Adams**. Seriously. I am neither trying to make a joke nor to belittle anyone’s faith. But many of the arguments for and against the existence of God are very much similar to the more light-hearted ones that surround the existence and nature of **Cecil**. He is seen as a source of wisdom, much writing is alleged to be from him, some people think he’s a fraud perpetrated by a coterie of writers purporting to speak for him, he never reveals himself… The parallels are intriguing, and by dissociating the argument from issues in which people have emotional investments, we might get somewhere in analysis.
---
### Author:  [@II\_Gyan\_II](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/II_Gyan_II)
#### Post date: [January 17, 2005, 3:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/define-god/284623/69 "2005-01-17T15:46:15Z")
> [@Liberal](#):
>
> I’m afraid that I’ll have to call upon you to describe mathematically a “disorder without limit”, and local entropies greater than complete and less than zero such that an average is 100%.
I’m not sure how anyone would describe mathematically whether ‘disorder without limit’ is possible. I’m sure, with enough effort and definitions, someone could present a symbology purporting to show it possible or not. Not sure what Truth that would show.
---
### Author:  [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)
#### Post date: [January 17, 2005, 5:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/define-god/284623/70 "2005-01-17T17:00:15Z")
> [@II Gyan II](#):
>
> I’m not sure how anyone would describe mathematically whether ‘disorder without limit’ is possible. I’m sure, with enough effort and definitions, someone could present a symbology purporting to show it possible or not. Not sure what Truth that would show.
No problem. Now, we’re simply back to where we were before you made those assertions. If you wish to continue anew, please proceed.
---
### Author:  [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)
#### Post date: [January 17, 2005, 5:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/define-god/284623/71 "2005-01-17T17:03:16Z")
> [@Polycarp](#):
>
> The problem with ontological proofs is that, in general, they do not “speak to the heart” – they may _bolster_ and strengthen faith in someone who has it, but they won’t _engender_ it, in general, in someone who does not. (And I’ve weaseled that statement because there **are** people for whom it does work, but I choose to speak in generalities here.
I agree with you in essence, but I don’t know why it’s a “problem”. I, for one, put a great deal of faith in reason. If an argument is valid, and I cannot reasonably hold against its premises, then I have no intellectual recourse other than to accept its conclusion. Reason does speak to my heart, and is why I find objectivist philosophy (stripped of Rand worship) to be so beautifully compelling.
---
### Author:  [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)
#### Post date: [January 17, 2005, 5:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/define-god/284623/72 "2005-01-17T17:04:18Z")
> [@Polycarp](#):
>
> The problem with ontological proofs is that, in general, they do not “speak to the heart” – they may _bolster_ and strengthen faith in someone who has it, but they won’t _engender_ it, in general, in someone who does not. (And I’ve weaseled that statement because there **are** people for whom it does work, but I choose to speak in generalities here.
That’s one problem; the other problem is that their definition is necessarily so vague that they tell us nothing. Once you put anything concrete into the definition (does God know whether I’m wearing clean underwear? Does God like me? Did God create igneous rocks?), then you’ve redefined God away from that entity proven by ontological debates. As such, you end up with a God who in no degree resembles that worshipped by most monotheists.
Daniel
---
### Author:  [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)
#### Post date: [January 17, 2005, 5:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/define-god/284623/73 "2005-01-17T17:12:24Z")
> [@Left Hand of Dorkness](#):
>
> That’s one problem; the other problem is that their definition is necessarily so vague that they tell us nothing. Once you put anything concrete into the definition (does God know whether I’m wearing clean underwear? Does God like me? Did God create igneous rocks?), then you’ve redefined God away from that entity proven by ontological debates. As such, you end up with a God who in no degree resembles that worshipped by most monotheists.
>
> Daniel
Nonsense. I have no idea what you know about my underwear, whether you like me, or whether you’ve created anything important — but does that contradict an assertion that you exist?
---
### Author:  [@II\_Gyan\_II](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/II_Gyan_II)
#### Post date: [January 17, 2005, 5:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/define-god/284623/74 "2005-01-17T17:43:30Z")
> [@Liberal](#):
>
> No problem. Now, we’re simply back to where we were before you made those assertions. If you wish to continue anew, please proceed.
Ans we’re back to where you made your assertion about the problems with an eternal universe.
---
### Author:  [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)
#### Post date: [January 17, 2005, 6:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/define-god/284623/75 "2005-01-17T18:45:10Z")
> [@Liberal](#):
>
> Nonsense. I have no idea what you know about my underwear, whether you like me, or whether you’ve created anything important — but does that contradict an assertion that you exist?
No, but that’s not what I said. I was pointing out that the being defined into existence by the ontological proof has no concrete features at all–in other words, the proof tells us nothing of interest about the being.
If you claim you have a brother, but you are unable to tell me whether your brother has freckles, what age your brother is, whether this brother is male, whether the brother is human, whether the brother knows me, where the brother lives, etc., then I’ll grow increasingly uninterested in this theoretical brother of yours. Similarly, the ontological proof provides us with no interesting information about the entity it calls “God.”
The entity that most monotheists call “God,” on the contrary, knows whether I’m wearing clean underwear; loves me (or hates me if the monotheist is named Phelps), and created igneous rock. That’s the difference.
Daniel
---
### Author:  [@Asteroide](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Asteroide)
#### Post date: [January 17, 2005, 7:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/define-god/284623/76 "2005-01-17T19:54:02Z")
> [@Sample\_the\_Dog](#):
>
> The tally so far
>
> * * *
>
> Ok, here’s what I glean so far. Pretty basic stuff, but that’s good.
>
> Fundamental characteristics of God which the vast majority of monotheists would agree with:
> Creator and sustainer of the Universe
> Omniscient
> Omnipotent
> Corrollary to 2 & 3: Necessarily implies some sort of self-awareness, a type of consciousness (even if we’re using that phrase rather metaphorically)
> How’s that?
>
> Bear in mind that if we reach some consensus here, we can dispense w/ wrangling over the issue of whether lack of any fundamental characteristics gives atheists the higher ground or makes disbelief in God something other than opinion.
Well, I hate to lower the tone here, but getting backto the OP…
The closest thing to a universal characteristic for gods and God(s) seems to be eternity/immortality. Close second would be some type of super-powers, although as has already been pointed out, absolute powers bring their own problems - omnipotence, omniscience and infallibility don’t sit too well together - but I believe there’s a consensus for some degree of superhuman/supernatural powers.
God as source or creator seems to be common to the modern monotheist religions, beyond that I think you’d find it hard to get close to a consensus.
My 1.85 cents.
---
### Author:  [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)
#### Post date: [January 17, 2005, 8:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/define-god/284623/77 "2005-01-17T20:13:29Z")
> [@Asteroide](#):
>
> The closest thing to a universal characteristic for gods and God(s) seems to be eternity/immortality. Close second would be some type of super-powers, although as has already been pointed out, absolute powers bring their own problems - omnipotence, omniscience and infallibility don’t sit too well together - but I believe there’s a consensus for some degree of superhuman/supernatural powers.
For God, I’m thinking you’re probably right. But for Gods, I’m not so sure. Norse Gods are all gonna die one day (with two exceptions, I think), and I’m sure there are other examples of dying Gods outside of Nietschze. (The motif of the Dying God can be said to be not really an example of mortality, since the Dying God’s resurrection is integral to the story).
Daniel
---
### Author:  [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)
#### Post date: [January 17, 2005, 9:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/define-god/284623/78 "2005-01-17T21:54:44Z")
> [@II Gyan II](#):
>
> Ans we’re back to where you made your assertion about the problems with an eternal universe.
Sorry, but Homey don’t play dat game. Until you find a reputable source, or become capable of formulating a sound argument, as to why entropy would not be 100% in an infinitely old universe, my assertion stands unchallenged.
---
### Author:  [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)
#### Post date: [January 17, 2005, 10:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/define-god/284623/79 "2005-01-17T22:09:16Z")
> [@Left Hand of Dorkness](#):
>
> No, but that’s not what I said. I was pointing out that the being defined into existence by the ontological proof has no concrete features at all–in other words, the proof tells us nothing of interest about the being.
No analytical proof of any kind, including the ontological proof, defines anything into existence. Defining God as Necessary Existence is not the same as asserting that God exists necessarily — just as defining the Pope as the head of the Roman Catholic church does not establish that there is a Pope in power. The definition precedes the proof. The assertion is its penultimate logical wiff.
> [@](#):
>
> If you claim you have a brother, but you are unable to tell me whether your brother has freckles, what age your brother is, whether this brother is male, whether the brother is human, whether the brother knows me, where the brother lives, etc., then I’ll grow increasingly uninterested in this theoretical brother of yours. Similarly, the ontological proof provides us with no interesting information about the entity it calls “God.”
I think it’s interesting information that God exists, and I think the supremacy of Its existence is extremely interesting. Your demand is illogical. There are untold millions of pieces of information about my brother. Whatever might interest you is entirely subjective. Why should your interests interest me?
> [@](#):
>
> The entity that most monotheists call “God,” on the contrary, knows whether I’m wearing clean underwear; loves me (or hates me if the monotheist is named Phelps), and created igneous rock. That’s the difference.
Santa Claus wears a red suit, knows whether you’ve been naughty or nice, and climbs down chimneys. If he does not exist, of what relevance — let alone interest — is any of that information?
---
### Author:  [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)
#### Post date: [January 17, 2005, 10:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/define-god/284623/80 "2005-01-17T22:11:57Z")
> [@Liberal](#):
>
> Sorry, but Homey don’t play dat game. Until you find a reputable source, or become capable of formulating a sound argument, as to why entropy would not be 100% in an infinitely old universe, my assertion stands unchallenged.
Eternal and infinitely old do not seem to be synonyms for me; indeed, if one accepts the idea that time began with the Big Bang, then the universe “prior” to the Big Bang existed in a perfectly eternal state, I’d think.
Daniel
[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/define-god/284623.md?page=3)
[Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/define-god/284623.md?page=5)