Your position on naturalism

[Ignorant]

So if you can establish that it is "a being", and not "being, itself", then it isn't god.

Thank you for your response, sir.  How would we go about establishing this? [1] More importantly, would our various philosophies/theories/beliefs inhibit our ability to be objective in such matters? [2]

1) This is a great question. I think we naturally identify finite "beings" as finite simply by encountering them as such. God is not a "being" among many, as if he were one really interesting straw of hay in a haystack. He IS being, as if he were "hay-ness, itself". He must be related to every "being", therefore, at its most fundamental/primary level. If "a being" is being something at all, then it is somehow related to the-act-of-being. If "a being" IS that act, I'm not sure the experience would be finitely intelligible like the rest of our experiences. The intelligible finitude of "things" (or "beings") is enough to know that it is not god.

Think of it this way: Imagine what it would be like to "discover" something as abstract as "being, itself". Imagine discovering "love, itself" or "truth, itself" or "beauty, itself" or "goodness, itself". Anything discovered as even remotely "concrete" is enough to tell you that it isn't god, or being, or love, or truth or beauty or goodness.

[addition made in edit]: "Being, itself" "truth, itself", "goodness, itself" etc. may not exist, but I'm pretty sure we recognize the difference pretty easily between "true things" and "truth, itself".

2) Only with some philosophies/theories/beliefs. You would first need a philosophy/theory/belief about the meaning of objectivity in order to attempt acting/judging objectively at all. For example, Excited Penguin was very adamant about the philosophy of naturalism. That is a philosophy about real objects and what can be validly learned and said about them. If it is a good philosophy, then it helps us "be objective" in an adequate way. If it is a bad philosophy, then it inhibits us from such a way.