What do I mean by, "God"?

The first thing to a discussion about God is what do I mean when I use the term. In all honesty I prefer the Arabic word, Allah to the English god or even God. The reason for this is that the term Allah can not be used to describe anything but a supreme creator of the universe within which we live. The old Roman and Greek gods would not be applicable to the term Allah. Arabic speaking Christians, Muslims and Jews all use the term.

Having said that that I speak English and not Arabic. For the sake of consistency God shall be the word I use when describing the basis for this religious discussion. So, what is God? The only concept that I am willing to entertain, meaning that which I am comfortable professing faith in, requires the attributes listed below.

• Omnipotence
• Omniscience
  
• Perfection

You will notice that I stop at three. Anything else you want to add, for instance, benevolence or wisdom, necessarily subdivide these three aspects. It's also worth pointing out that these definitions are contradictory. Omnipotence, for instance, contradicts itself. After all if you are omnipotent you are capable of anything, even making a rock so big that you yourself can not lift it. However as an omnipotent entity you can lift all rocks. If you choose to use this contradiction as a proof that God can not exist I will be left with nothing to refute you. You can not prove God exists and to be able to would diminish the concept we are calling "God" into some lesser being. I believe that God can exist as the cause for the universe. Having said that my belief is just that, reasoned, personal faith. The universe seems to me to need an origin, that origin strikes me as God. If you don't believe a creator was necessary then I hope you'll read on for pleasure. This argument is designed to speak to other religious persons and persuade them from their dogma. Especially that which is self destructive or diminishes us as a species.

Omnipotence
The entity which possesses this is capable of anything. Literally anything. Not just the ability to defy natural laws at whim, the ability to create a system of natural laws that sustain a functioning universe where every subatomic particle does exactly what it's supposed to, all the time.

Omniscience
Knowing everything, literally everything. The level of minutiae in this kind of understanding is mind boggling. A complete understanding of how many nanometers of hair have been grown on the left arms of all right handed people in Germany between 1812 and 2041. How many electrons are currently spinning left and what the leftward spin is in relationship to. Put simply knowing the big things, the little things and everything in between.

Perfection
The inability to make mistakes. Alternately the ability to execute all actions without error. I call this an inability first because if you posses perfection and choose to include a mistake into your actions it can't actually be a mistake as it was done intentionally.

That's right, #1 contradicts itself, #2 contradicts #1, with absolute understanding you can not learn and #3 contradicts #1, and #2. After all if you are perfect you can't error but if you are all knowing and all powerful then you have the knowledge and ability to make a mistake.

How did I come to this definition? I think if you ask most mono-theists if God possesses these qualities they will agree. Unfortunately they then often suffer a disconnect because they will tell you part of their dogma wherein the above agreed tenants are shown not to apply to the being they worship. My belief stems from long hours of pondering what would such an entity do if it chose to set a universe into motion.

A note on free will.

It is obvious to me that we have free will. Having said that part of the definition of "Omniscience" is that the being possessing it knows exactly how we will choose each time we are offered a choice. Some people believe that if someone knows what you will choose that means you did not actually have a choice. To rebut this argument I apply the following situations. You and your most cherished friend are riding in a car. Your friend is driving and at speed. They are conscious, and clear of mind. The road bends to the left. You see the turn and you know your friend will guide the car to the left. The decision to turn left is a choice. Your friend can turn, or not turn, or even choose to stop altogether. Since you know your friend wishes no harm to you or the car, you know they will choose the option most likely to maintain the lack of harm, namely staying on the road. The choice is nearly subconscious but it is there.

Need another one? What if you were offered the following choice? You may either endure six years of conscious, gratuitous, awful torture, or you can have some cake. I do not know you, but I do know that when faced with horrible suffering or cake, you will choose the cake. Some of you might say you'd pick the torture just to be contrary but we both know that faced with the reality of torture you would rather have cake.

For a being which is omniscient all choices are this obvious. They are still choices and they still imply free will.