What the hell are you talking about? I said my hypothetical god was intelligent, and defined what I meant by it. Your problem was that the structure containing that intelligence isn't perceivable by us and I said, "so what?" I have made a claim and it has been consistent throughout. Disprove it if you can.
What you're describing is not intelligence. You're inventing something that on the surface appears similar to what we understand as intelligence, but actually does not originate or function in the same way. To the full extent of our reasoning and observations, actual animal/brain intelligence cannot originate in the way this God intelligence would have to originate, it could not survive in this "outer" irrational environment...and its functions are not sufficient for accomplishing what this "God" would be understood to do. You're distorting intelligence to the point that is not actually intelligence or consciousness, but actually an "I don't know what." It is not a claim.
Exactly how do you infer that from my statement?
You have placed this God outside of all bounds of our universe, with no actual properties given to this place. No rationality or consistency etc. Just "might" and "could" and "it is such that this is not precluded from happening." These aren't actual claims of a place.
This is about the fourth time you've said that and yet to back it up with any actual logic or reasoning. Just saying it doesn't make it so.
When you put forth a place where our normal laws of cause and effect and thermodynamics and reasoning break down, you allow our normal ideas of mathematics and consistency and sense and meaning to break down there too. In this place where God is undisprovable, "1 + 1 = 3" and "yellow is shorter than tomorrow" (just to mix it up) are also undisprovable, because we lose all basis for making or challenging claims.
So my hypothetical god is possible.
If at some point the laws of reason or nature that preclude it are violated or fall apart (like the 1st Law of Thermodynamics in the case of a creator God)...then yes the hypothetical God is possible. But,
to the full extent of our reasoning and knowledge, that does not happen.
No, I'm saying he does things we can't detect reliably. It's not the same thing. In order for an effect to become known to us, it has to be observed. And it has to be observed often enough to be accepted as fact. If my hypothetical god's interactions are only rare and only observed by very few, their claims would likely be dismissed. That doesn't mean they aren't happening.
Then you're not claiming he does anything. Unless you want to get into claiming that God takes the form of pure coincidence totally indistinguishable from chance and makes things happen?
The problem is the "given everything we've ever observed or reasoned" bit. It's a qualification that specifically excludes that which we don't understand yet and makes the statement "god is impossible" as meaningless as "god is not disprovable" by those who allow god to be anything and everything. That we haven't observed it reliably doesn't make it not exist.
It doesn't exclude that which we don't understand. There may still be (and in fact there are) phenomena that we observe and don't understand. What it excludes are things that violate all reason and natural law, making them impossible to the full extent of the word.
It's not that we
don't understand how 1 + 1 = 3. 1 + 1
does not, has not, will not and cannot equal 3, given everything we've ever observed and reasoned.
No it isn't. Your constraints on the intelligence and consciousness of my hypothetical god were that the structure exist in this universe when I have specifically stated that they don't. The structure, his body if you prefer, exists outside our perception. I haven't changed any definitions and have been consistent throughout.
My issue with this is that you have not put forth a place ("not here" is not a place) or characteristics ("it thinks but not like thinking the way we understand it" is not thinking. It's a Humpty Dumpty definition).
And what known sense is that? Are you now defining what god should and shouldn't be?
To the extent that I'm saying that God should be consistent, have some properties and not be nonsense, then I suppose I am saying what God should and shouldn't be. Just so that it can be an actual claim that is not self-disproving. Once you shift to defining God as a normal brain and body that is somewhere far away that we can never see (or as your can of Sprite), you are inventing something totally new as "God" that is a total shift of definition from anything anyone else agrees.
But if what you're saying is that you can INVENT a definition of God that exists and is provable (i.e. the soda can definition), then I agree with you.
Because the whole purpose of me providing a definition and the subject of this debate from the outset was that "god" is undefined. You don't get to say that "god" is a meaningless term and then complain the meaning I provide doesn't qualify as "god".
If your point is that God is undefined, then I agree with you, but I also add that an undefined concept is nonsense.
If you want to argue against your concept of god, go for it, but I'm not going to defend it. If you want me to provide a meaning for the term, stop making assumptions I haven't made.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2627907#post2627907
and
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2629859#post2629859
and I will add the following:
Some people have observed his interactions with this universe but have little to no evidence to support them.
I will check back on the URL's if I haven't already covered something said there. As for the last part, I feel that it's another "God is my soda can" definition. If God is experiences people have or anything else that is indistinguishable from "Not God"...then you have a God that I suppose is undisprovable (although I would think about it more before fully agreeing) but also at the same time not God in any known or accepted sense.
Zealous much?
