How far reaching are God's powers?

[The Grand Nudger]

It's an interesting line to draw. If a thing has to be an entity or is not a god then it probably isn't true that we're talking about whatever created the universe when we talk about gods. It would also, then, be impossible to demonstrate a god by demonstrating that the universe were created.

Creation of a universe doesn't meet the requirements for godhood.

[Sound Of Reason]

It's an interesting line to draw.  If a thing has to be an entity or is not a god then it probably isn't true that we're talking about whatever created the universe when we talk about gods.  It would also, then, be impossible to demonstrate a god by demonstrating that the universe were created.

Creation of a universe doesn't meet the requirements for godhood.

Definition of terms => WCE = Whatever created everything.

WCE can't be a "thing" nor an "entity" because WCE made them in the first place.
how can WCE be something it existed after him ?
how can WCE not create the universe if it is WCE ?

[The Grand Nudger]

Whatever does not equal whoever.

Whatever caused a hurricane, whoever caused a hurricane. The hurricane god is not, in our formulation, whatever causes hurricanes. It must be whoever. The same is true of universes. Whatever created a universe wouldn't satisfy the criteria for godhood - whoever, however, would.

Your criteria is very clearly for whoever, and at least conceptually, creating the universe is optional. A thing can succeed at that but fail at godhood. I'm not disagreeing, nor do I expect you to argue your beliefs.

[Sound Of Reason]

Whatever does not equal whoever.  

Whatever caused a hurricane, whoever caused a hurricane.  The hurricane god is not, in our formulation, whatever causes hurricanes.  It must be whoever.  The same is true of universes.  Whatever created a universe wouldn't satisfy the criteria for godhood - whoever, however, would.

Definition of terms => WCE = Whatever created everything.

"who" and "what" describes the nature of things in our world, but for WCE nature means nothing because again WCE made it in the first place. So The "what" and "who" are just our language's tools, that I have to use to talk, and whatever I describe WCE with is just for explanation purposes, it's not that WCE has nature and I'm describing it by saying "who".

[The Grand Nudger]

You don't have to say who if a what would satisfy and could accurately describe a god.

If a toaster could have made everything, is it a god? The answer would seem to be no - and from this I conclude that it isn't the creative act which confers godhood, nor are we actually talking about whatever created everything -because a toaster that created everything would not be a god.

We're discussing something more specific, something with different and additional criteria. Your whos and hims. Consider this - we may discover tomorrow that there is some what that created the universe, and we may discover that this what accounts for all of the things a god believer believes about the universe...in short, that their beliefs about the universe were true...but by this criteria and as a consequence of the same discovery, they would discover that their beliefs about god are not.

All but one item in the contents of their beliefs were factual - and still..... sadly, there is no god.

[Sound Of Reason]

You don't have to say who if a what would satisfy and could accurately describe a god.  

If a toaster could have made everything, is it a god?  Is there something different between a god and a toaster that can create everything?  If so...what?

Definition of terms => WCE = Whatever created everything.


a toaster is created, and WCE is not. So it makes all the difference.

[The Grand Nudger]

Creating the universe, however, doesn't make any difference at all.

A whatever that creates everything - not a god.
A whoever that creates everything - a god.

Seems pretty cut and dry, right?

[Peebothuhlu]

Definition of terms => WCE = Whatever created everything.


a toaster is created, and WCE is not. So it makes all the difference.

Uhm... that comment only makes sense simply because you've defined it that way.

'WCE' might actually have been created by 'Something else' with an effective stasis point some where 'behind' or 'above' or otherwise 'else where' but still other than WCE.

Unless your defintiion of WCE is automatically larger that 'The Univers'?

Jus' sayin'.

Not at work.

[Sound Of Reason]

Creating the universe, however, doesn't make any difference at all.

A whatever that creates everything - not a god.
A whoever that creates everything - a god.

Seems pretty cut and dry, right?

Did I said that or is it your claim?

[The Grand Nudger]

I could ask again.

If a whatever, rather than a whoever, created everything, is that a god?

Imagine that future discovery again. I would be able to say "yeah, I see that and agree that it exists and agree that it accounts for the factuality of your every belief about the universe" - could I still maintain that there were no god, on account of that whatever being..whatever, rather than a whoever?