And you are, naturally entitled to receive things that aren't being transmitted
Er Ok then.
it does not address my argument.
my point.
Oh I see, an extended reply, did not address your point? Perhaps it wasn't
transmitted
the way you prefer? Well the point, still, is that one can define something by adding, just as much as taking away, that it is hard to completely identify anything that is not fully defined, while it would be a stretch to claim that a definition is
always
a reduction - even by arguing, say, that one starts from a 'something' potentially being indistinguishable from 'everything'. I hope that helps.
The idea that God is always limited by description is also an interesting one, since God's great defining characteristics are described often in the Bible by Him and the writers therein - all the while, at the same time, the reader is asked to see the deity as 'limitless'. (He is also, perforce, limited by his nature.) Which, if we take your view that every definition means a reduction, would appear a paradox and God is limited every time we turn a page.
I'm well aware that railing does no good
kurt2000

You are, naturally entitled to what you think.
And you are, naturally entitled to receive things that aren't being transmitted.
No, you copied my answer back to me and claimed 'over-thinking'.
Yep, I sure did! Which brings us to
it does not address my argument.
my point.

I think I sound like someone who made an objective point.
You are, naturally entitled to what you think.
I just made that point.
No, you copied my answer back to me and claimed 'over-thinking'. The fact of this may or may not be true, but it does not address my argument.
I'm well aware that railing does no good
kurt2000

Now you just sound bitter
Really? I think I sound like someone who made an objective point.
although I appreciate imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, you still didn't rebut my point. Which is now the second point.
But I just made that point. Nice to see you finally catching up.

Neither is dismissing what someone said by calling it 'over-thinking'. Oh wait, I'm sorry that's only when I do it. Right?
Now you just sound bitter, and although I appreciate imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, you still didn't rebut my point. Which is now the second point.
I'm well aware that railing does no good
kurt2000

Quoting me back to myself is not really a rebuttal.
Neither is dismissing what someone said by calling it 'over-thinking'. Oh wait, I'm sorry that's only when
I
do it. Right?

Let's do that over-thinking thing again
Quoting me back to myself is not really a rebuttal.
And so my point stands. Good times indeed.
I'm well aware that railing does no good
kurt2000

Whatever make you happy. But perhaps you need to get out more.
If you're not out there, I'd rather not.
Really? Let's check the OED, shall we?
Yes! Let's do
define
verb
1 State or describe exactly the nature, scope, or meaning of:
the contract will seek to define the client's obligations
1.1 Give the meaning of (a word or phrase), especially in a dictionary:
the dictionary defines it as a type of pasture
1.2 Make up or establish the character or essence of:
for some, the football club defines their identity
2 Mark out the boundary or limits of:
clearly defined boundaries
2.1 Make clear the outline of; delineate:
What happens now? Oh, I know! Let's do that over-thinking thing again
Where one realised that an exact meaning could mean more information, not less. A distinct outline can take in a border unexpected. Something can be defined just as much by adding a characteristic as much as taking something away. "I define my hand as an appendage having five fingers!" "But it can also be found at the end of my arm". Now, I can see your point, and a definition can just as well be a reduction in qualities as much as also noting more, but it would be a stretch to claim that a definition is always a reduction - even by arguing, say, that one starts from 'something' potentially being indistinguishable from 'everything'. For one thing. we may not have anything else in mind to detract from, i.e. we build up a definition from nothing by adding characteristics. So bottom line: saying something is less is not the only way of defining it.
However having said that, I do distinctly remember being told that "to define God is to restrict it" by the faithful in the past, presumably indifferent to ascribing 'necessary characteristics'. A view which gets sites like Bible.org, for instance sounding quite confused in their apologetics lol:
Can we really define God? Yes and no! To adequately and completely define God who is infinite spirit is impossible. How can the finite define the infinite? There is no way man can set forth a statement which totally sets forth all that God is. Such a statement, were it possible, would confine God; it would restrict Him and He would no longer be God. For that very reason we must say God cannot be completely defined.
https://bible.org/seriespage/2-what-god
This however ignores the obvious fact that God often defines Himself in the Bible, and also it is done by scripture. Or that it is widely believed that even God cannot change His nature or do the logically impossible. (It is also hard to fully identify anything that is not fully defined. But I guess the internecine disputes and religious wars between competing ideologies down the generations has sort of shown that.)
http://www.freebiblestudyguides.org/bible-teachings/God-identify-himself-in-the-bible.htm
Are we then to assume that God and scripture's words are not 'complete' and 'adequate' to the task? Ultimately it appears all we must be happy with God just "a bit defined". But not enough to limit Him. Except when He speaks about Himself of course, since His knowledge of all things is limitless. Or whatever.
Good times!
I hope that helps.
One down, two to go!

I love it when you say my name
Whatever make you happy. But perhaps you need to get out more.
Saying it must be less would be defining it.
Really? Let's check the OED, shall we?
def¦in|ition.
1.a statement of the exact meaning of a word, especially in a dictionary.
2.the degree of distinctness in outline of an object, image, or sound.
Where one realised that an exact meaning could mean
more
information, not less. A distinct outline can take in a border unexpected. Something can be defined just as much by adding a characteristic as much as taking something away. "I define my hand as an appendage having five fingers!" "But it can also be found at the end of my arm". Now, I can see your point, and a definition can just as well be a reduction in qualities as much as also noting more, but it would be a stretch to claim that a definition is
always
a reduction - even by arguing, say, that one starts from 'something' potentially being indistinguishable from 'everything'. For one thing. we may not have anything else in mind to detract from, i.e. we build up a definition from nothing by adding characteristics. So bottom line: saying something is less is not the only way of defining it.
However having said that, I do distinctly remember being told that "to define God is to restrict it" by the faithful in the past, presumably indifferent to ascribing 'necessary characteristics'. A view which gets sites like Bible.org, for instance sounding quite confused in their apologetics lol:
Can we really define God? Yes and no!
To adequately and completely define God who is infinite spirit is impossible.
How can the finite define the infinite? There is no way man can set forth a statement which totally sets forth all that God is. Such a statement, were it possible, would confine God; it would restrict Him and He would no longer be God. For that very reason we must say God cannot be completely defined.
https://bible.org/seriespage/2-what-god
This however ignores the obvious fact that God often defines Himself in the Bible, and also it is done by scripture. Or that it is widely believed that even God cannot change His nature or do the logically impossible. (It is also hard to fully identify anything that is not fully defined. But I guess the internecine disputes and religious wars between competing ideologies down the generations has sort of shown that.)
http://www.freebiblestudyguides.org/bible-teachings/God-identify-himself-in-the-bible.htm
Are we then to assume that God and scripture's words are not 'complete' and 'adequate' to the task? Ultimately it appears all we must be happy with God just "a bit defined". But not enough to limit Him. Except when He speaks about Himself of course, since His knowledge of all things is limitless. Or whatever. I hope that helps.
I'm well aware that railing does no good
kurt2000

Saying that it must be more than a simple First Cause necessarily works to define it, Miscella.
I love it when you say my name.
But you got that backwards. Saying it must be less would be defining it. It's right there in the word itself: de-fine.

Saying that it must be more than simply the 'first cause' isn't restrictive. However, by definition, defining something is restrictive
Saying that it must be more than a simple First Cause necessarily works to define it, Miscella. All you can hope for is to show that any add-ons are not arbitrary.
I'm well aware that railing does no good
kurt2000

You answered my statement that you have an opinion by stating your opinion. Irony!
Is it not an
opinion
that nothing can't do anything, ya goofball.
It restricts the definition of god arbitrarily.
Saying that it must be more than simply the 'first cause' isn't restrictive. However, by definition, defining something
is
restrictive
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/us/define
So how do you expect anyone to
define
anything without being restrictive? Is this one of those 'heads I win, tails you lose' things?

No, really. Nothing can't do anything. It if could, it wouldn't be nothing.
You answered my statement that you have an opinion by stating your opinion. Irony!
How is "more" strict?
It restricts the definition of god arbitrarily.
If I could stop a rapist from raping a child I would. That's the difference between me and god.

We've been through this before. You like to make this claim, but you have nothing whatsoever to back it up beyond your intuition that it must be so.
No, really. Nothing can't do anything. It if could, it wouldn't be nothing.
For somebody who likes to say you're not talking about "your" god, you have an awfully strict interpretation of how it must be defined.
How is "more" strict?

You like to make this claim, but you have nothing whatsoever to back it up beyond your intuition that it must be so.
Well, in this case intuition is the only thing that one has. Sense perception and experience is useless. To say that something can come from nothing is another way of saying that being can arise from non-being in the most generic sense of the terms, which is just saying that being can arise without a cause/explanation. Thus, there can be no "reason", because cause/explanation is presupposed in the definition of the term. It is metaphysically impossible to prove that something can arise without a cause, because it presupposes that one can distinguish between a cause and a non-cause, which itself is impossible. Nothing is the absence of everything, which means it is a void and therefore can't contain anything, even first principles or causes, initial activity, or the like, so it can't
do
anything.
I want a unicorn.

Don't be silly. Nothing can't do anything.
We've been through this before. You like to make this claim, but you have nothing whatsoever to back it up beyond your intuition that it must be so.
You missed something:
"for it to be "God", it would need to be more than simply the 'first cause.'"
For somebody who likes to say you're not talking about "your" god, you have an awfully strict interpretation of how it must be defined.
If I could stop a rapist from raping a child I would. That's the difference between me and god.

At the very least, Google.

I wish I had an answer to that because I'm tired of answering that question.
Who said that?

For every argument about omni-whatever I tackle, two more pop up in its place.
I wish I had an answer to that because I'm tired of answering that question.

This just seems to be you deciding what 'god' has to be
No, this is what
we
decided when
you
said it must be deliberate.
But you haven't said what other things you think characterises 'god'.
I suppose sentience might be one of those things.
Suppose a there is a First Cause which is just responsible for the start of everything as it is, and can be, and has since done no more.
Are you a deist, then? Isn't that what Antony Flew decided after he rejected atheism?
Why is that impossible when a god presumably can do everything (including choosing to do nothing)?
For every argument about omni-whatever I tackle, two more pop up in its place.

It has to be something more than simply the 'first cause'
This just seems to be you deciding what 'god' has to be, and especially what it has to be responsible for. It is not even certain, as this board shows that the (traditional) god 'has to' exist at all. It hardly needs to be said that other views are available and you know this. Given our discussions in the past I am sure, yes, you ought.
But you haven't said what other things you think characterises 'god'. Does it have to be deliberate, sane, efficient or singular for instance? Indeed can a uniquely great Cause be separate from that it causes if by imagining something more than the Cause we therefore must be able to think of a combined something greater than it? Suppose a there is a First Cause which is just responsible for the start of everything as it is, and can be, and has since done no more. Why is that impossible when a god presumably can do everything (including choosing to do nothing)?
I'm well aware that railing does no good
kurt2000

So no true god is simply the first cause? Does it need a back story, too? Or is it that it has to be deliberate?
It has to be something more than simply the 'first cause'. But you knew that already, didn't you? Given our discussions about this in the past, I'd say yes, I think you did.

You missed something:
"for it to be "God", it would need to be more than simply the 'first cause.'"
So no true god is simply the first cause? Does it need a back story, too? Or is it that it has to be deliberate?
I'm well aware that railing does no good
kurt2000

Wow. Well ok then. You're not as bright as I thought you were. My bad.