The Million Dollar Question

[Statler Waldorf]

It depends which religion you're talking about.

The Major Olympians

Zeus - King of the gods and ruler of Mount Olympus; god of the sky, and thunder

He was a supreme being in the sense that he was the chief god but there were other gods in the Major Olympian group - Poseidon, Apollo, Ares, Hephaestus, Hermes and Dionysus. The other deities in the group were goddesses. These weren't the only Greek deities either.

No the definition would still apply, each of those gods or goddesses were supreme in one attribute or domain.

Observable Universe, and by that I mean MATTER in motion which we CAN observe indeed had a beginning, in terms of our own logic that is (where concept of time is fundamental, without it we would not be able to comprehend anything at all).

Steady State Theory defends notion that MATTER in the Universe is eternal.

If the Universe is absolutely everything that can possibly be, was and is, than great beyond which OUR (and all other possible ones) universe(s) arose from could very well be eternal and that in itself is a steady state, on a quantum level (eternal foam, lol) of course

Are you arguing for the Landscape now?

Thats a terrible comparison because the definition of a integer and a numeral are internal coherent and if ask anyone with any education on the subject. Now your definition is a supreme, and that falters unless you wonna say pagans never worshipped gods. You also may want to inform your fellow theists of this definition as they don't seem to understand.

How is the definition of an integer internally coherent? You’ll have to elaborate because to me it’s an abstract concept. I see no problem with the Dictionary’s definition for a god; a supreme being makes perfect sense.

You’re an atheist right? What do you lack a belief in?

A number or integer can be representative of actual things:

I have one sheep oh look there is another sheep that makes two sheep.

Wait, how do you know that you had one sheep and that you now have two sheep?

We can think of the integer as a box that contains the value of the amount of sheep we have.

We can think of the term god as a box that contains the name of the Supreme Being we believe in.

No that's not how it works.

Here is what you have just said in essence.

If you can't adequately describe what a god is, we should believe in it.

This is a false line of reasoning based on the assumption that non-belief has to include total knowledge of the thing you don't believe in.

That is not what I am saying at all. I am saying that if you cannot define what a god is then you cannot claim to lack a belief in it. If I do not know what a “Zaboom” is then I cannot say I have never seen one because it could be a synonym for something that I have seen. If you cannot define the term god then you cannot say you lack a belief in gods.

Look there's a Gargle Snark! you have to believe it exists Waldorf because you don't know all of its properties.

Precisely! I cannot claim to lack a belief in Gargle Snark because it may be just another word for something that I do believe in.

At best you could claim to be some form of weak agnostic because you do not know what the term god means and you may actually believe in the existence of one and just not know it.

The million dollar question is: Who made God?

Why would a non-contingent being require a maker?