George Hammond  wrote:
>  HERETICS (like you for instance and the rest of the rabble on the
>internet) invented the idea that God needs a "definition" so that
>they could establish that God is an "arbitrary construct"... this
>in fact is a LIE, AND A HERESY.  Fact of the matter is that God
>is a REAL PHYSICAL PHENOMENON, and therefore COULD NOT HAVE A
>DEFINITION, but only a PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION.

ROTFL :))

A physical description is a possible part of the definition of the
physical objects. But, not even all physical objects have a physical
description, for instance the subatomic particles like quantums or
quarks. So, if the essence of a thing is material, then material
description will be used to define it. However, there are things that
are real and existent, but which do not have a physical existence;
consciousness, or love, or compassion, or intelligence, all exist, but
they cannot be physically described, because their essential nature is
non-physical. So, any attempt to define a being or a phenomenon must
be appropriate to its essential nature. 
Let's take an example of attempting to define the sunset. It is
obvious that a physical description of a sunset would not be
satisfactory; we could describe a sunset, colors and all, we can even
describe it as "beautiful" or "orange-red" but such a definition would
not be universal and optimal. However, if we define it as a short
period between day and night, in which the Sun is closest to the
horizon in its descent, we will make a definition which is adequate
even if the sunset can't be seen, for the reasons such as clouds or
even an eclipse. The essential nature of the sunset is contained in
the definition, and the rest is accidental.

So, even in the matter of physical phenomena, we can see that the
physical description will often be only a part of a valid definition;
the physical aspect of a thing might be accidental, and thus it should
be omitted from the definition. This will be the case if we attempt to
define something that is essentially non-physical, for instance
"thought", "love", "soul", or "God". 
Also, we must note that it is possible to define something that has no
existence; we can define a unicorn, or an elf, or a hobbit. The fact
that we can define it doesn't mean that it exists. But, if we ever
meet an animal that looks like a horse, but has a horn on its
forehead, we will call it a unicorn, because it meets the definition.
Likewise, the atheists might object that they don't believe that God
exists, but the fact is, they have a certain definition of God, and
they don't believe that there is a being that fits it. Hearing some
very stupid concepts of God in my life, I agree with most of those
atheists; I, too, don't believe in such nonsense. 
However, if we define God as the supreme, sentient, omniscient being,
we made a good beginning. We must also say that if anything can be
exceeded in greatness, that it definitely isn't God. God doesn't have
a peer nor a superior. However, can there be any other thing beside
God, or would that limit him? The conclusion is that we must define
God as the foundation of reality; his existence is the primary
reality, and the reality of everything else is secondary; an illusion,
or a dream within God, whichever we prefer. 
Oh yes, one more thing: there is one thing that is usually attributed
to God, and which causes more confusion than good: it's omnipotence. I
think that this attribute was invented by the people who want to mock
the concept of God, because this term is easily brought into
contradictions, for instance with questions "can God make a stone so
big, that even he himself cannot lift it?" or "can God create another
God?". Also, if we prove that this world isn't the best possible world
- which is in fact easy, because suffering exists - we can rightly ask
whether God could have created a better world, and if he could, why
didn't he?
The answer to this is complex, and it lies partially in the existence
of free will and the existence of alternatives to this world. If you
give a being free will, you cannot guarantee that it'll choose the
thing that's best for it. So, some souls will choose the wrong things
and that will result in suffering. However, this is not as simple as
it sounds; I had serious trouble arguing with a part atheist, part
satanist maths professor, who is an expert in logic (he published a
book and several scientific articles about it), and uses it to make
intentional, extremely complex and difficult to find logical
fallacies. He used the existence of suffering to prove the
imperfection of the world, and from this he deduced the imperfection
of God. Unlike Hammond, who is an idiot, that guy really forced me to
think, because his errors were intentionally inconspicuous, very
difficult to find, always in the exceeded range and false premises. 
So, eventually my answer was that the world is not made to be perfect,
because only God is perfect. This world, and many other worlds, is
made as an alternative to God, so that the beings can choose the
lesser perfection if they want to; this is a land for a prodigal son
to go to, so that he can abandon his father and eat with the
strangers' pigs, if he chooses to, or return, if he chooses to. If
people want to hide from God, they must have a hiding place, and this
seems to be it. So, this isn't God's ideal world, this is our ideal
world, because we chose it. In fact, God's idea would be for us to
choose Him, as the best possible form of existence, but very few of us
dare to do that, and so we end up suffering and blaming God for it.
This is more-less how I defeated him, but since almost nobody ever
admits defeat in a debate, he just ended up repeating his defeated
arguments, like Georgie boy here. Wow, this is a lengthy post, I
better finish.

(This article is quite a mess, because I tried to compress too many
things into it, so I beg the readers forgiveness)

-- 
Homepage: http://www.danijel.org