Evidence for God being "a superior being" ?

[tavarish]

We consider everything. We apply what fits.

And we can definitely see how accurate that interpretation is because God has only one working model in the world.

...



How can you distinguish traits of a being whose existence is indistinguishable?

That doesn't make any sense.

At all.

And I disagree. I'd reach the conclusion that an entity that cannot be demonstrably distinguished from being non-existent is most likely a fabrication of the person asserting it. Also, the sheer fact that your claim that "You would have to reach the same conclusions" is demonstrably false. Look at all the religions and denominations in the world, there is no consensus on the definition of what God is specifically.

No you wouldn't because you couldn't. I'd very easily dispose of your idea. Same with any wildly illogical statement. What you have with a coherent and logical God model is something you can't dismiss. I'd disagree that there isn't a consensus. Show me any actual Christian definition and I'm sure I'd agree with it. Same goes for any mature consideration of god (mature conforming to the intellectually coherent).

Consensus means everyone agrees, not just people under your tent. By the way, there are Christians who have wildly varied definitions of God and his attributes. Just look at how the Westboro Baptist Church interprets divine intentions versus that of a Unitarian Church. Apply that to all the other denominations which pick and choose what doctrines and attributes they want to apply to their God and you have a drastically different picture.

I'm not talking about having a vague interpretation of "omnimax being", I'm talking about specific attributes and definitions for this God and his motives.

Destructive/ negative. Given creation adds then the balance that takes away is anti God. Positive is good.

Destruction happens all the time. It's actually inevitable. Is there an opposing force that is equal to God influencing the universe? I've never heard of the concept of anti-God in the bible in terms of universal energy distribution.

Because God as creator observably made order. To make chaos would be the opposite. Evidentially we have a God of creation & not destruction. God, again, is unrestricted and can do as he wants. In this reality, we observe order.

Good job begging the question.

"Why is God the creator?"

"Because he created"

It's a nonsense statement, and touches on really vague and ambiguous claims. "In this reality" - as opposed to any other reality? Please be realistic and come down to Earth. To have evidence for something, you have to have clearly defined parameters. You have to first define your God, then provide evidence that he exists in a way that is distinguishable from non-existence, then provide evidence as to his necessary intentions and actions and give an account for why that is. You can't just make an assertion saying "God just is" and expect people to go along with it. It's a practically and logically incoherent premise because it relies on an extra unobservable step in the process, and kills the line of questioning, without giving any real insight to anything.

I'll make a logically consistent statement:

If apples exist, invisible dragons exist.

That doesn't make it true.

I can't see how it's possible to deviate from the consensus. It's how I'm arguing with you : because I have a coherent model and so does every other religious person that argues this model.

A model of God that is literally indistinguishable from being non-existent is a coherent model.

If you believe that, I have a sandbox in Kuwait that I'm selling - perhaps you're interested.

So you're saying there's no problem with creation being to God what geometry is to Math? We're in agreement then?

I'm saying you're missing the point of my questioning and begging the question and regurgitating tautologies.

You misquoted me unfairly there. He has these attributes because we have worked out that we can logically apply them.

You don't seem to understand what I'm asking at all.

You say that his attributes are what we've worked out so far. Fine. For the sake of argument, I'll grant you this premise. How then, can you claim that he is capable of anything outside these parameters?

In addition,

How would you distinguish an all-powerful being from a really powerful one?
How would a being that thinks he is all-knowing find that he is actually all-knowing or not?

How can you say that you can logically apply parameters to such an entity when such parameters are illogical when paired together?

Being a physical object with known causes, we can give evidential proofs as to the formation of the orange colouring.

In the static model of God, we can demonstrate logical progression to each attribute similarly.

And what is the account for why these attributes are observable? Why does God put forth the attributes you're seeing, rather than any others?

2. How do you work out the intentions of an entity of which you can't establish its existence?

From the logically deducible from evidence. Establishing existence is contrary to the logical model, and would be contradictory to the model.

You're off your fucking rocker. Existence isn't an attribute OF something, it's the state to which all attributes apply. You can't say something is green and non-existent, that makes no fucking sense. You say a God exists, apply attributes to him, then say his existence is somehow secondary and irrelevant?

Do you not understand how you could apply this to literally any fabrication of the imagination and have it come out with the same conclusion?

3. Given that there are certain criteria for God, is there anything that can happen that would convince you that there is no God in control of all this? I'm talking about an event so unlike his nature that it would negate your version of his alleged attributes.

I don't see how. Belief isn't external but internal. At any point I could decide not to believe which would be extremely minor in comparison, but fundamentally crucial to my world view.

Ok, what would a catalyst for such an event be?