Are Agnostics Welcome Here?

[Ichneumonwasp]

I'm not sure that even makes sense, but it's your mind, not mine.

How does it not make sense? We are stuck here; and all we can do is examine how the universe works. We call how the universe works 'the laws of physics'. It could be that there is a single substance and we view how it works; it could be that there is another being directing the substance we see; it could be that the single substance is mind and that we are simply thoughts within that mind. There is no way for anyone to determine what actually is; we can only watch and model how it works.

 

[Belz...]

How does it not make sense? We are stuck here; and all we can do is examine how the universe works. We call how the universe works 'the laws of physics'. It could be that there is a single substance and we view how it works; it could be that there is another being directing the substance we see; it could be that the single substance is mind and that we are simply thoughts within that mind. There is no way for anyone to determine what actually is; we can only watch and model how it works.

The problem is you're trying to have it both ways: if this creator is using the laws of physics then it is interacting with them.

1) There is no indication that this is happening.
2) Such a creator would therefore be detectable.

The only way to avoid this is to posit a creator which never interacts with the universe at all, at which point it no longer is a creator.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

The problem is you're trying to have it both ways: if this creator is using the laws of physics then it is interacting with them.

1) There is no indication that this is happening.
2) Such a creator would therefore be detectable.

The only way to avoid this is to posit a creator which never interacts with the universe at all, at which point it no longer is a creator.

It isn't using the laws of physics. Its actions are what we see as the laws of physics. We only describe what we see and we call them the laws of physics. We could just as easily call them the actions of god. Some people do, in fact.

This sort of god is detectable in the sense that its actions can be seen.

There is no way to say that this isn't possible unless you can tell me what the laws of physics actually *are*.

 

[FattyCatty]

I disagree that the only answer for belief is to "push God completely outside...meaningless or absurd)." That's too much of a blanket statement. Many people manage to believe in their God in many different ways, only some of which are "outside of everything we know" or are "annulling the 'exists' part of the claim 'God exists')."

Can you describe a belief in God which doesn't make "God" or "exist" either meaningless or absurd, and which does not at the same time violate what we observe about the world around us?

Well, my belief in God annuls the "exists" claim, as I say God just is. He is outside time and space (which came from Him when he created them, as did existence). My description of God is in my last response to you. And it is not meaningless or absurd to me. Meaningless or absurd are in the eye of the beholder, so using them when discussing God is in itself meaningless or absurd.

You know more about other beliefs in God than I do (I've only recently started learning about it) but they seem to include a passive God the creator and a God manifested in nature.

It doesn't matter if He violates what we observe in the world around us. He is not part of the universe, the universe is part of Him. But if you don't believe in the existence of God, you will always see any belief in Him "either meaningless or absurd"; how can I change that, no matter what my description of God? You've already made up your mind.

Why should we have evidence when, as in your analogy above, we haven't looked everywhere and we don't have the tools to see everything.

Because we don't need to look everywhere and see everything.

God has never been, for example, a rock on the far side of a distant planet.

I certainly don't think He has, but I can't know it.

It's like I've said before, you don't need to check behind the fridge in order to know that your apartment isn't infested with galaxy clusters.

But God isn't a galaxy cluster. He is outside of time and space so could be anywhere; He doesn't exist in our sense, He just is, so how could He be detected?

When we look at the cosmos, do we see any indication of God? No.

Speak for yourself. We don't actually see God, but we see indications of His creations; sometimes people say, "I see God in a newborn baby," or "I see God in the wonder of nature."

When we look at religious rituals, prayer, and such, do we see any evidence of divine or supernatural response? No.

I'm not familiar with religious prayers and rituals; I do know that some people believe they get a response from God. And would we be able to recognize a divine response if there were one? How would we know what form it would take?

When we examine the human body and mind, do we find any evidence that there's a soul? No.

A soul, like God, could not be seen or measured with our instruments.

When we examine scriptural claims about God, do they turn out to be accurate? No.

I'm not familiar with scriptural claims. I do know that some scientists believe Genesis actually matches the development of the universe as science currently understands it.

In fact, when we look at all claims about God ever made, do we find even one which holds up when tested against modern knowledge? No.

I disagree. The complexity and the number of interrelationships and coincidences of nature and of how human beings work becomes more apparent (and increases as our knowledge of it increases). This makes the claim that God created the universe and the processes in it more valid and even opens up the concept of occasional intervention.

In fact, everywhere we look, and with every test that is possible to perform, we find that God is absent.

That is because you are looking with a mind already made up. And there are no tests that can find God. There may be tests that could find some of His actions, but God is outside the realm of science.

The best that its defenders can do is to assert that God looks exactly like not-God, or retreat into their own individual mental experience, which isn't evidence for anything.

Science does not involve itself with the existence of God. Individual mental experience can be personal evidence (not reproducible or testable) that makes a sufficient reason for believing in God.

You must be a materialist and a rationalist.

We do not need to test to see if God might actually be ensconced in a sand dune on a distant planet, because that's not the kind of thing that God has ever been.

How in the world could you ever know either that God isn't there or that He has never been there.

We have tested the things that God was supposed to have been, and God has failed.

The "things that God was supposed to have been" come from people. They are attempts to explain the unexplainable and to know the unknowable. Your are blaming God for what people have done. God hasn't failed.

Why can we not simply admit this and move on?

Why can't you simply admit this is something we can't know, and that everyone has their own beliefs and that the beliefs of others are just as valid as yours because no one knows, and move on?

You can't have evidence of God's existence; it's outside the realm of science.

No, it's not.

Why do people continue to repeat that assertion when it's not true, and when they have no reason why it should be true?

I disagree with you. The assertion is true and I have good reasons to say so. When I first started thinking about this in the thread about astronomer Martin Gaskill, I Googled for information on science and religion. I found this site (which shows up first on a search for God outside realm of science):

Science doesn't draw conclusions about supernatural explanations

Do gods exist? Do supernatural entities intervene in human affairs? These questions may be important, but science won't help you answer them. Questions that deal with supernatural explanations are, by definition, beyond the realm of nature — and hence, also beyond the realm of what can be studied by science. For many, such questions are matters of personal faith and spirituality.
<snip>
Moral judgments, aesthetic judgments, decisions about applications of science, and conclusions about the supernatural are outside the realm of science, but that doesn't mean that these realms are unimportant. In fact, domains such as ethics, aesthetics, and religion fundamentally influence human societies and how those societies interact with science. Neither are such domains unscholarly. In fact, topics like aesthetics, morality, and theology are actively studied by philosophers, historians, and other scholars. However, questions that arise within these domains generally cannot be resolved by science.

Another source I found was this:

Untestable Claims

Claims that are not testable are simply outside the realm of science. A good example of this is the old creationist argument that God created the world to appear exactly as if it had evolved naturally over four billion years, fossils and all. This claim is certainly consistent with the evidence, but it makes no predictions that can be tested against future observations. In fact, it is designed to eliminate any observable distinction between an evolved and a created world. It is therefore important to identify such claims as untestable and therefore nonscientific because such claims are worthless to the advancement of knowledge. They cannot, by definition, be eliminated through evidence; therefore they must be banished to a realm outside of science.
What can a scientific skeptics’ group say about such claims? Only that they are outside the realm of science, and that science can have only an agnostic view toward untestable hypotheses. A rationalist may argue that maintaining an arbitrary opinion about an untestable hypothesis is irrational-and he may be right. But this is a philosophical argument, not a scientific one. If an individual makes a personal choice to maintain a belief regarding an untestable hypothesis with no claims to evidence in support of that belief, then there is no scientific basis on which to challenge the belief. It is best labeled faith, which distinguishes it from a belief based on evidence.

The most obvious such belief is a person’s answer to the question, “Does God exist?” There is simply no scientific way to know the answer to this. Certainly many people think they know the answer, and that is satisfying to them. Some have written entire books on why the universe does not need to have a god, but that does not prove that a god is nonexistent. Indeed, any omnipotent being worth his salt should be able to create a universe that doesn't have obvious inconsistencies in it.

So that question comes down purely to faith. Either you believe in a god, or you don't. Science cannot answer that question.

If God is what God has always been... if God makes itself known to people... if God works within the world... then of course it's amenable to scientific inquiry.

I don't know what God has always been. But if God manifests Himself to people, if He makes His works apparent, then I agree that would be amenable to scientific inquiry.

God cannot be immune from scientific inquiry if you claim that it is something which exists.

God's existence is outside the realm of science. And God just is, he doesn't have our sort of existence.

 

[dafydd]

And God just is, he doesn't have our sort of existence.

True, he has no existence.

 

[Leumas]

No. I already answered that several times. This type of god directs everything that happens. All we can do is examine what happens. We call it the laws of physics. From the god's eye view, though, he is doing it all himself, intentionally.

So if I give you a chair and tell you it is a table...what would you say?

If it is a chair in all aspects but I claim that it is in fact a a table pretending to be a chair....does that make it so or does that make me DELUDED?

If god, for all intents and purposes, is indistinguishable from nature, why should I pretend that it is not nature?

 

[Complexity]

The difference is while considering all ideas equally, I give them the time of day and chew on them. Some I favour others I don't. However they all get filed in my memory.

I do not regard all ideas equally, the ones I favour I hold in high regard. The ones I don't favour, I give little regard to.

At no point do I disregard ideas before considering their content.

Nonsense.

Ideas multiply rapidly, far too rapidly to consider the 'content' of and chew on each.

You truly have no idea how minds work, do you?

 

[Complexity]

I'm not sure that this is what you meant, but first I would explain to the alien about God as I understand Him. I would tell the alien that God is beyond our comprehension and we can't really know Him.

The alien is still laughing his ass off...

 

[The Norseman]

To pre-empt the inevitable -- but isn't this the same as proposing that green pixies exist? I answer, no. We have a theoretical means of looking for Santa Claus or green pixies. There is no means to look for a Deist God that does not interact with the universe. I think that puts the concept of that type of god into a different category than anything within the universe. It's just an unecessary idea of no consequence.

The reason we have a theoretical means of looking for Santa or pixies is because they're an identifiable, definable entity. The god concept does not also have this identifiability or definability.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

The reason we have a theoretical means of looking for Santa or pixies is because they're an identifiable, definable entity. The god concept does not also have this identifiability or definability.

They are within the universe. This sort of god either is the universe or is external to it. That is the reason why no one can examine it. This god is defined. Do you want more definition? I agree completely that people often leave the god concept undefined to such a degree that it slips and slides all over the place.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

So if I give you a chair and tell you it is a table...what would you say?

If it is a chair in all aspects but I claim that it is in fact a a table pretending to be a chair....does that make it so or does that make me DELUDED?

If god, for all intents and purposes, is indistinguishable from nature, why should I pretend that it is not nature?

This god is entirely distinguishable from nature from a god's eye view. Its actions are simply what we call nature. It's not my fault that we apply the wrong word to it. Want to call it nature, sure go ahead. Theists want to call it god's action.*









*I don't know you well, so I hope you realize this is an exercise and has nothing to do with my or anyone in this thread's actual beliefs

 

[Piggy]

Based on what I've been learning, this is an invalid deductive argument, as the truth of the premise doesn't guarantee the truth of the conclusion. So if you are claiming certainty for the conclusion, your argument doesn't work.

If you meant it as an inductive argument, the conclusion would be "p is more or less likely". The "more or less" would depend on your evidence.

Well, let's look at that one again....

If you can't see any elephant in a room, is there one there?

Depends. Is it a well-lit outhouse, or is it an indoor carnival with trap doors and such all over the place?

So we can imagine a couple of scenarios like this:

I can't see any elephant in this room.
[A or B]
There isn't any elephant in this room.

It works if A is "It's not possible to hide an elephant in this room."

It doesn't work if B is "It is possible to hide an elephant in this room."


And this...

I can't see any elephant in this room.
It's not possible to hide an elephant in this room.
There isn't any elephant in this room.

... is true even if you can't see every detail of the room, like the dust, for example. It's also true if you can't see anything outside the room. And it's true even if you can't see into all the spaces of the room , such as inside a packet of staples or under an overturned saucer.

This is not to compare God to an elephant, of course, but just to illustrate the point that if evidence is lacking where it would be if a thing were true, then that thing is not true.

We've looked for gods, and they've not been there. The entire worldview they were a part of has turned out not to be real. If you believe in God, why not believe that there's a lake of water above the sky?

So your choice is to believe anyway, despite the lack of evidence where it should be, or to decide that God is something it never was (that is, to invent something else and move the "God" label over to it instead), or to push God into an unknowble nowhere or make it into an unimaginable nothing.

There's really no other alternative.

 

[Piggy]

I would tell the alien that God is beyond our comprehension and we can't really know Him. But we try to by putting Him into terms we understand.

God just is, he does not "exist." He is everything and everywhere He wants to be; it is God that "contains all dimensions or levels of existence one may care to define." God contained these things until he created them as separate things and gave them existence. He contained existence until He created it outside Himself; He contained the universe until he created it outside himself when he created existence. He contains every other possible universe until He chooses to create them.

God is a something outside time and space, so we don't have instruments that would allow us to see Him. We don't have empirical proof of His existence. All we have is faith and belief.

The bolded parts tell me that you're not talking about anything here.

Because seriously, if this thing is truly outside spacetime and can't be detected by any means and is incomprehensible and unimaginable, then you're talking about an I-don't-know-what and nothing more.

I can certainly understand the concept of a hyperdimensional "container" (so to speak) for this universe and others, a context within which universes arise and die, but as for the stuff you're saying this non-thing is supposed to have done, I can't make heads or tails out of the description, I'm afraid.

I can't imagine what it would mean for anything to do what you've narrated.

 

[The Norseman]

They are within the universe. This sort of god either is the universe or is external to it. That is the reason why no one can examine it. This god is defined.

Not rationally. Though I'm having trouble trying to express just what it is that is irrational about it to refute your point. I'll continue working on it.

Do you want more definition? I agree completely that people often leave the god concept undefined to such a degree that it slips and slides all over the place.

Yes, either that or NOMA. Pretty much anything to prevent any questioning regarding their pet theory.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Not rationally. Though I'm having trouble trying to express just what it is that is irrational about it to refute your point. I'll continue working on it.

Fair enough. I'm not entirely sure it can be defended but I'm going to try.

Yes, either that or NOMA. Pretty much anything to prevent any questioning regarding their pet theory.

Most definitely. There isn't anything they can do with this god, though. I still hold to the idea that god needs to be worthy of worship by definition and I don't see how this type of god is worthy of worship. At best it is amoral. Every decision they make trying to save their concept leads to consequences that limit them even further.


ETA:

As to the irrationality, it is irrational. It depends on magic. If this god is supernatural, separate from the universe, then it can only interact with the universe by means of magic. It has to be a separate substance than the universe and separate substances cannot interact by any rational means.

 

[Belz...]

It isn't using the laws of physics. Its actions are what we see as the laws of physics. We only describe what we see and we call them the laws of physics. We could just as easily call them the actions of god. Some people do, in fact.

This sort of god is detectable in the sense that its actions can be seen.

There is no way to say that this isn't possible unless you can tell me what the laws of physics actually *are*.

Patterns.

You're welcome.

 

[FattyCatty]

I'm sorry I took so long replying to these posts.

You can't have evidence of God's existence; it's outside the realm of science. I do consider the universe itself to be reason to believe in God, however.

And this God is so imbecilic as to hold a grudge against Adam and Eve and their descendants to the umpteen’s generation because they fell for the tricks of the snake that he made and ate from a tree that he made to become wise which he does not like us to be.
<snip>

This is all about the Bible; I haven't read it yet, though I've started it. So I don't have any comment on it.

Yes I can see how the above farce can be a warrant for belief, says Plantinga. My argument is that if this is all true then it is warranted….thus there is a warrant for it. Anyone who dismisses the above as a load of claptrap because of the preconceived assumption that it is twaddle is committing a logical fallacy. I am going to assume it is true and show how it is warranted…..just read my trilogy of books repeating over and over the fallacy of circular “reasoning” and repeating trite arguments made centuries ago by Aquinas and Calvin ignoring the fact that they have been trashed by countless others long before I was born. But this of course will not matter to people who are looking for anything that enables them to alleviate their Cognitive Dissonance and I will laugh all the way to the bank. You see I have just found a way to peddle philosophy to the rabble in the good old tradition of Snake Oil Peddlers…..just buy my books and see how your lack of ability to realize the fallacies in them can help you shed the pain of all that Cognitive Dissonance you suffer from…..Come one….Come All…..just a few dollars and you can reinforce your wishful-thinking while I realize mine.

Authors write books and expect to be paid for it. They are entitled to write more than one book. Alvin Plantinga, according to Wikipedia,

He has delivered the Gifford Lectures three times, and was described by Time magazine in 1980 as "America's leading orthodox Protestant philosopher of God."

So I really place no credence in your tirade.

I didn't say I considered the universe to be evidence for the existence of God, I said it was a reason. Evidence and reasons are not the same thing, although evidence can be a reason. So why is this a contradiction? And I think that that I should have said, "Science can't find evidence of God's existence...," rather than saying, "You can't have evidence of God's existence...."

What is the difference between the two? If science can't find evidence of a god's existence, then you can't have evidence of that god's existence. If you can't have evidence of a god's existence, then science can't find evidence of that god's existence. Sounds like the two are equivalent. If you want to propose something else than science for acquiring knowledge, then that something will either turn out to be equivalent or it will be guaranteed to be inferior in terms of acquiring knowledge. Of course, this depends on the definition used for "knowledge" and "reality". Would you care to take it from there?

I remembered that some people believe that they have evidence of God's existence because of personal experience. So I was trying to make the distinction between science finding testable, reproducible evidence and someone saying their personal experience was evidence.

There are no gods, and you should stop believing that there are.

Not a fact. My beliefs are none of your concern as they have no effect on you other than aggravation.

It is unseemly and damaging to the rest of us.

Evidence for each of these, please.

As for your advice on the putative distinction between 'evidence' and 'reason', please stop wasting our time.

I have the right, on this forum, to join in discussions and make posts. I make an effort to use words correctly and check the dictionary if I am unsure. Reasons are explanations or justifications (this is usually the first definition) as I use them. Evidence is facts used to provide proof of something or demonstrate the truth of an assertion. Neither is mentioned as a synonym of the other in the definitions I have viewed. So I think the distinction between them more correctly omits the "putative."

You may disagree with my posts. You might want to chose not to read them and/or to put me on ignore.

FattyCatty:

You are using the universe as evidence of God's existence. I agree that not in all contexts "reason" means "evidence", but in the context of your quote, I can't see how it doesn't.

What does "reason" stand for when you said "I do consider the universe itself to be reason to believe in God", if not?

Reason in the sense of a justification. I began to believe in God because of how I perceive and feel about the universe; that is my reason for believing. Evidence would be facts, something concrete to prove something or show that it is true. I am not explaining this well but they are distinct to me. If I said that the reason I believe in God is the wonder of a baby, would that be evidence? To me it wouldn't. The reason is based on a feeling, not on a fact.

I didn't say I considered the universe to be evidence for the existence of God, I said it was a reason. Evidence and reasons are not the same thing, although evidence can be a reason. So why is this a contradiction? And I think that that I should have said, "Science can't find evidence of God's existence...," rather than saying, "You can't have evidence of God's existence...."

You're going to have to explain to me what you mean, then, because I can't follow you. Evidence is anything used to support or deny a proposition. If you say, for instance, that you believe in God because the universe exists then you are using the existence of the universe as evidence for your belief in the existence of God.

See the answer to Dani, above.

 

[Leumas]

So I really place no credence in your tirade.

You have so far insulted me TWICE despite me trying to hold a civil discussion with you….. I did not direct any insults at you but you have ...TWICE... at me.

Let me show you how irrational and biased you are (despite you claiming objectivity).

Thank you for the suggestions and the arguments to look at; also, thank you for the suggestions of videos and books. I will probably start with the bible and then with John Polkinghorne and Alvin Plantinga; when I am a little more clear about what I believe, I will be able to look at the counter-arguments you have referenced.

In the above you say you need to find out WHAT you believe…..but you have leaned towards Christianity…and you want to read authors that AFFIRM it…. Polkinghorne is even an ANGLICAN PRIEST…..the anglican faith was created by a HORNY TYRANT who created the whole anglican church to SERVE HIS NEEDS and lusts for women and power.

But what made you lean towards christianity…..you yourself have stated that you have not read the Bible…..could it be INCULCATION and INDOCTRINATION and cultural and geographical biases??

This is all about the Bible; I haven't read it yet, though I've started it. So I don't have any comment on it.

You also have not read either of the authors you claim you want to read to research affirm your beliefs.

No, I haven't read it. So far, I've been reading excerpts from things on the Internet. I can't afford to buy any books right now and haven't been out to go to the library. And yes, I really need to read the Bible.

You also claim that you have no money to buy and read them nor even the time to go to a library (??)….but I gave you a FREE youtube video to watch…… Did you watch it?....why not? It is free and as you obviously have a computer it is within your reach….so why not? Also there are numerous bibles on line that you could have read LONG AGO….so why not?

The answer is because you are BIASED and are not researching....you have made up your mind…and of course as per most people like you….WITHOUT reading anything.

Authors write books and expect to be paid for it. They are entitled to write more than one book. Alvin Plantinga, according to Wikipedia, So I really place no credence in your tirade.

Here again ....you are talking about something you have not read.....BUT I HAVE.....and you are preferring to go by REPUTATION than actually verifying things for yourself.....BUT I HAVE.

So despite me reading the book you are more inclined to reject my informed (out of firsthand experience) opinion of it and IGNORANTLY call it a “tirade” with total benightedness stemming from you having not even opened the book that I have gone out of my way to purchase and read out of respect to your stance in the above post.


You are a benighted dupe who is looking for means to affirm his Wishful Thinking and to alleviate his Cognitive Dissonance and ways to insult people who contradict your IGNORANTLY already made up “mind”.

 

[punshhh]

But space-time, from what I understand about some of the latest thinking, appears to be a 'thing' like energy is. I don't think we can picture it properly as simple dimensional extension. I don't know enough about it, though, to be anything but flummoxed by it.

Yes I also see it as a thing, I was using "spacetime" in its common usage, ie extension and temporal progression.

The trouble I have from this point is that I use finely crafted concepts to model ideas tackling such questions and words don't easily convey the concept.

I will have a go and see if it makes any sense;

Imagine a forcefield in the form of a flat plain, rather like a membrane(this is the universe). God is on one side and an observer is on the other side.

The observer cannot detect anything in front of him because the membrane is a uniform flat surface and transparent like glass. He can't see God either because God is invisible.

God blows(or speaks) and the observer notices fine ripples appearing out of nowhere(in the membrane which he can see due to slight deformations in the surface of the membrane).

As he watches the ripples become more pronounced until suddenly one ripple escapes the surface and becomes a sphere or particle and floats off into the void. This particle on its own has no size, position, velocity, spin or time as these quantities are relative and until there is more than one particle such things are meaningless.

Gods breath is inside this particle as a bit of it was captured in the particle as it formed as a hollow sphere.

Now God blows again(from inside the particle) and the particle divides into numerous other particles. From that precise moment of division size, position, velocity, spin and time are all present for each particle relative to the whole group of particles.

Now we have space and time and entropy and the rest is history.

The one substance is this first particle.

 

[The Norseman]

Yes I also see it as a thing, I was using "spacetime" in its common usage, ie extension and temporal progression.

The trouble I have from this point is that I use finely crafted concepts to model ideas tackling such questions and words don't easily convey the concept.

I will have a go and see if it makes any sense;

Imagine a forcefield in the form of a flat plain, rather like a membrane(this is the universe). God is on one side and an observer is on the other side.

The observer cannot detect anything in front of him because the membrane is a uniform flat surface and transparent like glass. He can't see God either because God is invisible.

God blows(or speaks) and the observer notices fine ripples appearing out of nowhere(in the membrane which he can see due to slight deformations in the surface of the membrane).

As he watches the ripples become more pronounced until suddenly one ripple escapes the surface and becomes a sphere or particle and floats off into the void. This particle on its own has no size, position, velocity, spin or time as these quantities are relative and until there is more than one particle such things are meaningless.

Gods breath is inside this particle as a bit of it was captured in the particle as it formed as a hollow sphere.

Now God blows again and the particle divides into numerous other particles. From that precise moment of division size, position, velocity, spin and time are all present for each particle relative to the whole group of particles.

Now we have space and time and entropy and the rest is history.

The one substance is this first particle.

Um. No you don't. As I've been saying -- and Piggy as well, far better than I -- the term 'god' is meaningless as you use it. There's nothing "finely crafted" at all about throwing around the term as you have and then making some vague definitions which do nothing to address what exactly this 'god' thing is.

You say, "God is invisible." I then ask, "What is this God that has the capacity to be invisible?"

You say, "God blows (or speaks)." I then ask, "What is this God that has the capability to blow or speak?"

You say, "God is on one side..." I then ask, "What is this God that 'is' (i.e., exists)?"

What no one has been able to come up with is what is the primary attribute? The primary attribute of the thing which may be defined as the basic nature a particular thing is composed of. What a thing is, specifically, that it may do particular things or affect those around it in a particular way.

This is exactly what Piggy has been saying but suggesting using Venn diagrams as a way to illustrate this idea.

The problems arise when people attempt to answer the question by wild speculation and imagination in a vain attempt at keeping their personal god-concept away from all inquiry and investigation.