(December 30, 2019 at 1:42 pm)downbeatplumb Wrote:(December 30, 2019 at 1:39 pm)Klorophyll Wrote: The definition of a god entails not needing anything, are you that stubborn to make any progress with this stuff, really?
From my experience the definition of a god is what ever helps the theists argument at the time and is prone to change at any moment.
Or are you going to give us a comprehensive definition!
Do it in bullet points please.
No pal, the mere possibility of a deity needing something jepordizes anything that makes it a deity, namely omnipotence.
A comprehensive definition of God would be the unique, eternal being with at least the two absolute properties of omnipotence and omniscience.
* If we omit the uniqueness property we no longer respect the parcimony principle, a deity with such properties is enough to explain the whole existence. And it's possible to logically rule out multiple deities with these properties.
* Omiting that it's eternal only displaces the problem, what was before this deity existed? And we're back to actual infinite regress of which is, I would argue, logically impossible.