I disagree, it depends on what GOD you are talking about. The GOD I addressed can not exist. And regardless, the concept of GOD is pure opinion should some entity actually exist anyways. I don't consider Cows GODS, or even Divine while some might. Burgers with ketchup in my view is no different than a GOD that can't do shit without existence, or information, much less exist at all.
In a world of opinions, an opinion is only relevant to those whom share, or have the opinion. Otherwise they are entirely irrelevant when it comes to a subject such as this.
Well, if you want to add things to 'there is no god', that's a whole different argument. There is no god in my life/mind/heart/left ear is not the same as 'there is no god'. And, perhaps I should take a philosophy class or two...
I can prove non-existence doesn't exist literally and universally. It's because the definition states that itself can not exist. And thus I can prove a negative. It's no different than proving one cat to be impossible to be in a Box if the cat could never fit in the box. However, this doesn't mean there aren't higher beings that some fool might choose to bow to and worship as a god. :P
Under the definition of the Christian GOD or even Allah the cat could never fit in the box because the definition would be arguing that the Cat is the box, and is anything and everything in the box. :)
They have defined it, but most Christians seem to have no freaking clue that it had been. It's why I pointed to Chapter 14 in the Fount Of Knowledge, as posted a few posts above. Sure it's a bit ambiguous, but it's their definition none-the-less.
"The uncreate, the unoriginate, the immortal, the bound- less, the eternal, the immaterial, the good, the creative, the just, the enlightening, the unchangeable, the passionless, the uncircumscribed, the uncontained, the unlimited, the indefi- nable, the invisible, the inconceivable, the wanting nothing, the having absolute power and authority, the life-giving, the almighty, the infinitely powerful, the sanctifying and com- municating, the containing and sustaining all things, and the providing for all all these and the like He possesses by His nature. They are not received from any other source; on the contrary, it is His nature that communicates all good to His own creatures in accordance with the capacity of each."
"And yet again, there is His knowing of all things by a simple act of knowing. And there is His distinctly seeing with His divine, all-seeing, and immaterial eye all things at once"
It's pretty much the Cat is not just in the box, it's the box entirely. They made this description because they know that arguing these attributes separately (cherry picking), they could circumvent logic and reason.. Never will you see a theist (a smart one anyways), attempt to use all these together and actually attempt to address them together... It's also why they like to stick to just using "omnipotence", and "omniscience" while sweeping the rest under the carpet. It's so easy to prey on peoples vulnerabilities this way, or play a GOD of the Gaps mind game...
But when you slap them all together and then apply information theory to them, they all collapse entirely.
Actually it is what information theory is about.Information theory however has advanced to include physical, and digitized information. And you will find that many fields consider energy =/= information. In fact if you have read my article on information theory you would have realized that this is true. And I did give the definition of that particular god. And when I give an abstract, it's a quote from the source material.. I'm telling you this because I was christian and that is the definition used.. Especially in Orthodox Christianity.
Yes it remains ambiguous to a point, but that's essentially the definition of god. At least the most complete definition you will get in regards to the Christian GOD.
If you were looking for a definition that could be applied to all GODs, you won't find one.