Posted by Baron Greenback [12.255.181.7 - 12-255-181-7.client.attbi.com] on 12 July 2002 at 01.13.47 ZuluTime:

In Reply to: lack of deity posted by whoami on 12 July 2002 at 00.13.04 ZuluTime:

First of all, I need to know if we both have the same definition of God. While I see you have already made efforts in that direction, your dismissal of Jurrassosaurs' definition seemed counterproductive. As you are no doubt aware, we need to have agreement on definitions of terms before we can continue.

If, however, we can both agree that God is an omnipotent, omniscient, and/or omnipresent being, then saying there is no god is just saying that there are no beings that are omnipotent, omniscient, and/or omnipresent. In other words, it is saying that there are no intellegent beings that can do any possible thing, know everything, and/or be everywhere at once yet.

If, however, we tend toward a more Christian definition, that God is the being written of in the King James bible, who according to the book was not omniscient or omnipotent (although, by Revelations 19:6, he finally becomes omnipotent, and later on omniscient, the entirety of the rest of the bible detailing, among other things, the learning process of this entity), and by modern conjecture where the Lucipher, Nebuchadnezzer, and Satan are one being and a "hell" (as opposed to Sheol, being a shallow pit) exists, not omnipresent either, but WAS responsible for the creation of the Universe and has demonstrated supernatural powers far, far beyond the abilities of human beings, including but not limited to ressurection, plagues of locusts and frogs, floods, matter creation, and the ability to use avatars, then saying there is no god is saying that there is no single, intellegent force that created the universe, then created life on earth, and then explained to the created beings of earth who he was and what he wanted from them.