(March 27, 2017 at 10:29 am)ma5t3r0fpupp3t5 Wrote:(March 27, 2017 at 10:02 am)SteveII Wrote: Why do you think my definition is wrong?
Before you go saying that God is everywhere, that is not going to hold up. The universe is expanding. If God was everywhere, is God expanding? Or perhaps becoming diluted? Additionally, the universe if finite. Does that mean that God is finite. More silly conclusion can be drawn from a too-simplistic view: for example, is a portion of God in my coffee cup and the rest of him outside of it? No, God does not occupy space and is therefore not literally everywhere. I believe he is cognizant of and causally active at every point in space.
You actually have a point here. Deities don't necessarily need to be everywhere all the time, it's just that they should be able to be anywhere at any time if they wish to. Of course I don't believe any such god exists, but for the sake of definitions, this argument is sound.
The problem is where you stated earlier that God is not physical and doesn't occupy any space. That to me is synonymous with non-existence. Existence is physical.
There are plenty of things that exist that are not physical: Logic, mathematics, aesthetics, language, concepts like justice, fairness, etc.
