It is clear that I don't mean a man with MD and a nuke. Or an enraged elephant. Perhaps by qualifying it to there is no case in which we can deny the exercising of this entity's will? In the general case, we can resist the will of other human and animals, even if there may be special cases were we are powerless. But for an entity of this scope, we cannot resist the excercising of is will ever.

I understand what you're getting at.  So change this

God is a sentient entity of sufficient scope that it can exert its will upon us without our consent and against which we have no recourse.

to this

God is a sentient entity of sufficient scope that it can exert its will upon humanity  without  consent and the expression of this will cannot be averted by any means.

There are really two key parts. One is that such an entity can do whatever it wants to us individually or in our entirety without our consent. The other is there is no way possible for us to avert the exertion of this entity's will.

By changing from "us" to "humanity", it eliminate anything that cannot act on humanity as a whole. So enraged elephants are out. Even a madman with a nuke cannot act upon the whole of humanity.

Is there still the possibility of a creator entitiy being above this "God" entity?

Possible but not required. There is nothing requiring nor preventing this entity from being the top dog or creator of the universe. 

What is important to me is what is plausible. A giant alien at Jupiter's core is equivalent to a tea pot in orbit. A type III Kardeshev civilization at least fits within the realm of the physically possible. The key question for me is at what point does an entity, ANY entity, become of sufficient capability that is functionally god? And my definition identifies a lower bound on this capability. An upper bound is irrelevant because any entity that exceeds that bound qualifies.

Eviction notice?

While this is an excellent question, it is concerned with how such an entity interacts with humanity. For now I am focussing on what, not how.

Hamby,

I understand what you're saying, I'm just struggling with providinge language that clearly expresses my thoughts. The launguge itself is frought with problems without even realting it to deities. Just the idea of enforcing ones will over another creates questions about just what is "will", is there such a thing as free will, etc. If there is no such thing as free will how does it change the definition?

Having said that, mayabe something more austere might work. A naive set theory description might go like this,

Let X and Y be sentient entities where interaction is possible.

Let X' and Y' be the sets of all actions possible by X and Y.

X is a god to Y if for any action i in X' there exists no action in Y' that can prevent i. 

Meh. 

Right.

Free will is not defined coherently.

The problem that you're running into over and over is that for you to define a thing that could properly be called god, you're going to have to invoke incoherent or infinite concepts, which are always going to bring you right back to where the god concept fails for supernaturalists.

I've been hoping this would dawn on you, but I'll go ahead and tell you.  A natural god is just as incoherent as a supernatural god.  Remember when jmm realized the supernatural doesn't exist, and I told him he wouldn't find himself in any better position with regard to god?  This is why.  In order for anything to be god in a sense that has any relevence, it has to invoke incoherent concepts.  Whether natural or not, "god" is a broken concept.

This is why you can't find the language.  There isn't any because the concepts are not coherently describable.

Dude, look.  You have to set a barrier somewhere.  If you allow for the possibility of a higher entity then "god", then there is the possibility that "god"'s expression of his will can be averted.   

Nevertheless, you have to specify if their are other entities other than "God" that are also capable of effecting humanity or if this is the only entity of its type, as well as types above, that is both able to and does.  So, since you do allow for other entities or more powerful entities, you also allow for these other entities to also interfere with human affairs.  The problem is, now you have no way to determine if the interference with humans is due to this entity or other entities which draws into question if this "god" entity really has the power to enforce his will with no possibility of it being averted unless you specify that "if their are other entities other than "god" that interfere with human affairs, they do act in accordance with the "god" entity".  

Right.  You're proud of yourself for bashing supernaturalists for ignoring the incoherencies of their half-definitions, but you want us to let you get by with a half definition of your natural god.

Methinks thou oughtest remove thine own mote ere thou gettest cranky with the supernaturalists.

Believe me. I've noticed.

No, it's not a dead end. You've just gotten in a weird loop yourself, and you keep turning left.

No, it's not.

No true scotsman is an ad hoc explanation, essentially. When someone presents evidence that something is not true for group A, you go back and change the definition of group A.

What I'm doing is trying to explain to you that if you want to have a natural god, you will have to work within natural limits. Limits. Limits. Limits. DEFINITIONS.

I'm telling you that before you can believe in a natural god, you must define it in such a way that it really is natural. What you're doing is using natural terms and leaving in the vagueries of mysticism. This is before the definition, not after. It would be impossible for me to give you a NTS argument because you haven't given us any coherent definitions yet. You're still doing exactly the same thing that supernaturalists do -- you're creating a definition so hazy that wherever we look for your god, he'll be hiding in a convenient loophole in the definition!

Uh huh. And you haven't answered the simple questions about your god yet. Outer boundaries are the simplest definitions. In fact, most every definition we deal with in our lives is simply a delineation of outer boundaries.

Because you must have the answers to the simple questions before you can ask the complex ones, just like you said a minute ago! You have to know that water evaporates when it boils before you can start asking questions of molecular stability at extremely high temperatures.

Theism can't even answer the simple question: What is a god?

You see the trees, and you're missing the forest.

That's just it, wave. You have an abstract in your brain that seems to make some sense, but it's actually incoherent. This becomes obvious when you try to put it into words. Unfortunately, rather than seeing the obvious answer -- the concept of a natural god is as incoherent as that of a supernatural one -- you continue to try to create a definition fuzzy enough to let a god slip through.

That's what you're not seeing. They all ARE nonsense because the concept itself is incoherent.

It's not me that's allowing it, wave. It's your concept. I'm just pointing out the incoherencies which would exist whether someone happens to be standing in a forest watching the tree fall or not.

I don't know how better to say it. If only you would listen to your own words.

It's coherent.  It's also not god, because there are plenty of sentient beings on this planet that are utterly powerless to prevent any desired action of other sentient beings.

Let me give an example of why I think the defintion works.

First, pick two sentient species. I'll pick a human and a rat. Is a human a god to a rat based on the definition given? No. For there is an action the rat can take that will prevent an action attempted by the human.

THere is a cookie on a table. The human's action is to take the cookie and eat it. The rat's action is to jump up on the table and snatch the cookie before the human can pick it up. Hence, there is an action in the set of the human's possible actions that can be prevented by an action in the rat's set of possible actions.
Thus, the human is not a god to the rat.

Infinities are not part of the definition. Does you have an infintie set of potential actions? And are there any of your potential actions that require infinite power to prevent? 

 Look at the definition for what it is. Stop inserting properties that are not part of it.

Whoops... hit post too quick...

Meant to add that I AM looking at the definition for what it is.  You're the one insisting that I look at it for what you mean, not what it says.

Wave, stop being dense.  The set of real numbers is limited to real numbers.  Numbers are a concept, not matter or energy.  Neither matter nor energy can be infinite, so this is a false analogy anyway.

Uh huh.  And that member would necessarily be infinite in some way.  Otherwise, something less than an infinite amount of power would suffice to prevent it.  See how you keep trapping yourself?

Furthermore, there is not an infinite amount of power, since power is either matter or energy.  So, neither of these members can exist in the real universe. 

Wave, you're being positively batty right now.  Take a step or ten back and try to look at your definition objectively.  It's completely bogus, and I've shown you this over and over.  It implicitly relies on the infinite to have any meaning whatsoever, and the infinite rules out the existence of this being.

When X is god how limited is X'? Remember you don't like the supernatural.

If treating Y as humanity does the ability and extent of X increase as the population increases?

There's around 6.7 billion simultaneous actions taking place to prevent i.

 If this god has mass he will be subject to gravity, causing action. This action will be altered by every movement of every Y. If this god has no mass it travels at speed c and can not experience humanity or anything that happens.

I can't escape the feeling we are talking past each other and not actually communicating.

As I reframed the defintionin the language of sets, perhaps you could offer your objections in the language of sets. It may clarify what we mean as opposed to what we say. 

So if "God" wants a certain group of humans to remain living, and another entity simply decides to destroy those humans with a tornado, things are just hunky dory since humans didn't plead, rather this other entity acted of its own accord?

Hunky dory? I suppose if you're into pain.

It sounds like you are asking if it is possible for humans to become collateral damage in conflicts between deities. Why not? We cause plenty of colatteral damage ourselves. What would make us immune to it?

Mass can't be in the same place at the same time. So god can do no action where there is a possibilty that some bit of humanity occupies point (x,y,z,t) when some bit of god needs to be there.

Imagine trying to walk along a busy a street following the path you desire, where you must remain unaffected by everyone else and any accidental interaction is nonsensical.

- If you do not want this God to possibly exist in reality at least allow the definition to have the modesty of being pretend. I realise you don't want to talk about whether this thing actually exists or not but you do want to think about how it would don't you?

- I don't understand your question. I said your equivocal entity was not humanities ally and said why. The reason I made the ally comment was really to ask you "is this what you want?" (if your definition is correct your god is pointless to humanity if existing) as you made the new definition ad hoc...you are now defending it vehemently?

All I am trying to do you is show you how your definition has holes when put up against the rules of the real world.

What do you want to resolve?

Attributes of your personal natural God? Then forget about humanity for now.

Whether there can be an existing natural God? Then don't ignore others concerns.

A contingent definition of God? Then don't think you can invoke it...and it would really help to know if this would be for fun or to relate to your own experiences.

Your approach is currently a bit scatterbrained, all I know is that you desire there to be some sort of powerful natural god. Try starting simpler...

i.e

The problem with this thread is that nobody has accepted the definition as sufficient for a deity. All the other questions are irrelevant until that is accepted. There is no point discussing if this entity is benevolent, has mass, is infinte, or anything else until the defintion itself is accepted or rejected.

If an entity exists that fits the definition, is it a deity? If not, give your objections in the language of naive sets. Otherwise we will just go endlessly back and forth.

Wave, you freakin' asked us if it was an ok definition. The objective answer is no. Do you want us to placate you and tell you a lie?

Your definition is great, Wave. Have fun with it. Happy?

Dude, how many ways do we have to demonstrate that your definition cannot describe an existing entity?

Only one person is going back and forth. The rest of us realized your error about two seconds after reading the definition. We're just trying really hard to help you understand.

What is astonishing to me how utterly dense and inept all of the responses have been.

Let's posit the existence of a being with the following PRIMARY characteristics.

1) Supernatural

2) Omniscient

3) Omnipotent

4) Omnibenevolent

How do we determine this entity cannot exist? Not by attacking secondary characteristics, but by showing that the primary characteristics themselves are problematic. Theological non-cognitivism destroys the very notion of supernatural. Logic alone is enough to prove non-existence of said entity vis-a-vis the Law of Noncontradiction. It isn't necessary to discuss HOW and entity might know everything, or what force it embodies to be omnipotent. The characteristics themselves created the logical conditions necessary to show the impossibility of existence.

So who is going around in circles? I have yet to hear anything about the primary characteristics of the entity I defined. Lots of blather about secondary charactreristics. This forces me to conclude one of these things:

1) Nobody is capable of dealing with this definition on the level of abstraction at which it was offered.

2) Nobody is willing to deal with this definition at the level of abstraction at which it was offered.

3) Nobody has any objections to the primary characteristics of this entity.

I don't think 1 is even remotely possible. I doubt 3 is true. So I must conclude that endlessly enumerating and attacking possible secondary characteristics is a willfuil choice.

So, class. Let's try this again.

Let X and Y be sentient entities where interaction is possible.

Let X' and Y' be the sets of all actions possible by X and Y.

X is a god to Y if for any action i in X' there exists no action in Y' that can prevent i.

This is a very precise defnition. Let's see if you can offer a precise answer.