Greatest Obtainable Being Test

[DougShrapnel]

I have never really thought of something I felt worthy of acreditation. However, I kinda like this one so If you ever use this please Call it Shrapnel's GOB Test.

The general idea is that if you can think of a more powerful, or more benevolent, or more knowledgeable being you have not disproven god, but you have shown that the god in question isn't in fact god. By analogy
Xtain Theist: 9.999999999856749EE99999999999 = infinity
Atheist: That is false. Athought the GOB test doesn't show that a being labeled as the xtian god doesn't exist, is shows that that being is not in fact God or in this case Gob.

One possible way to examine if the xtian God = GOB might be to look at if his attributed actions are akin to perfect reason or human reason. Human reason is fairly grounded in physical properties. Gob's reason is grounded in meta-pyhsical properties, or spiritual properties. Because human reason is grounded in physical properties a flawed reasonable statement would be that men are better than women. Men would have higher value soley becuase of the physical nature that men are on average larger physically then women. If the image of GOB you use is mysogonistic, even if what you call God exists, he doesn't pass the GOB test, and is therefore unworthty of the title God.

If God can't move souls out of embryos, that are created for the sole purpose of research that requires their destruction God doesn't past the Gob test, since he isn't all-powerful.

" Yahweh God called to the man, and said to him, 'Where are you?'" Genesis 3:9 Not All knowing.

" 'Look, I have two virgin daughters. Please let me bring them out to you. You may do whatever you please to them, just do not do anything to these men, for they have come under the protection of my roof.'"Genesis 19:8 Not benevolent. Uses human reason not Gob reason

The list can go on and on.
PS
Gob is an Omni3, All-3 being. If gob is pleased with youy when you die you will be rewarding with milk and cookies. Gob expects you to dunk the cookies into the milk. However, If Gob is not pleased you will only get cookies. You will enjoy the cookies but wish you had milk to dunk them in. I may in the future give testemony to about Gob. For Gob not only wants us all to have milk and cookies, it's our own fault if we only get cookies.
"If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him, take away his milk and offer him a cookie. But if someone offers you asprin for your cheek give him milk AND cookies, to dunk." Word of Gob 1-12

[Skidoo]

The Flying Spaghetti Monster and his posse are so last year. Next out the chute it's Gob the Cookie Monster.

[CallMeIshmael]

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]


[/ QUOTE ]

DAMN YOU. I was so close to getting this in first.

[FortunaMaximus]

Gob and Allan and Buddyhollay funnin' at the pub, huh?

Even they have mothers, etc. It may be an endless hierarchy and thus incomprehensible to human reason.

We're a dozen billion years into an Universe. Seems an act of mass self-delusion that we are the first.

"Throw boulders at 'em until they learn to bob and weave and find out who's throwin' them. They'll come after us and get the party started."

Assume your definition of Gob exists. Is it morally bound to its own code of laws or should it mold its approach to appease what we expect of the Universe in regards to ethics and morals?

[ QUOTE ]
If God can't move souls out of embryos, that are created for the sole purpose of research that requires their destruction God doesn't past the Gob test, since he isn't all-powerful.

[/ QUOTE ]

Slight paradox there. You don't need to be omnipotent to be able to accomplish such a task. Such a technological capacity is certainly possible with power that is a few orders of magnitude smaller than a hypothetical God's. It's a matter of how you define such power.

It's an old question though. How powerful does he have to be to be defined as God? Are the effects noticeable? Probably not, because such an exhibit of power to a human outlook would be easily replicated by smaller subsets of powerful entities.

So, what is the one catch-all exhibit that would define such an superentity from lesser but still majorly powerful Gobs or Allans?

Once that is reached and agreed upon and the litmus test is devised, then you got yaself a proving ground.

[AWoodside]

It's all pretty much semantics. By many definitions of the term "God" the Christian religion is polytheistic. In the Bible there are angels all over the place messing with peoples lives, bringing messages from God, etc. What are angels? They're immortal entities that have many orders of magnitude more power than human beings and can seem to mess in our affairs at will. A lot of cultures throughout history would call them gods. That's without even getting into the holy trinity or satan. I suppose the trump card monotheistic religions have that seperate them is that God is actually, in fact, omnipotent and could do away with the lesser members of his pantheon if he wanted to.

Anyway, I'm not sure what the point of the OP was exactly and I'm rambling somewhat. Haven't slept all night because I seem to have put myself into a position where I have to learn about sensory transduction in the hairs of bullfrogs.

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not sure what the point of the OP was exactly

[/ QUOTE ] That the god's that people demand we obey, have characters flaws that gob's would not have. And even though they may possibly exist ahould be rejected. Atheists don't reject the xtian god becuase the atheists' heart is cold, out of arogant, too lazy, or anything other character flaw one might one to use when describing atheists. God should be rejected because it's clear that He has character flaws.

Luckily Gob only wants our wonderment at his creation. Jod said "Gee Gob how'd you build all this stuff?" God Replied,"I am all knowing." Jod wondered at the amazingnees that is Gob, "That's amazing." Gob gave Jod milk and cookies. Jod 3:13

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
Is it morally bound to its own code of laws or should it mold its approach to appease what we expect of the Universe in regards to ethics and morals?

[/ QUOTE ] Which ever is fitting of the greatest obtainable being. Gob doesn't tell us, but want us to ponder. I think we have realized that might does not make right. We also believe that any being bound by moral codes make him less that all powerful. But that is where gob all powerfulness actual begins. Have you ever tried to always do the right thing? It is a testiment to Gob' all powerfulness to not be bound by rules of ethics, but always do the right thing anyway.

[ QUOTE ]

So, what is the one catch-all exhibit that would define such an superentity from lesser but still majorly powerful Gobs or Allans?

[/ QUOTE ] That is generally the point of the post. Not that there is a catch-all exhibit, there are many such tests, as testing supremacy should be. It pretty clear that God, and Allah aren't superentities like Gob or Ballah.

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
The Flying Spaghetti Monster and his posse are so last year. Next out the chute it's Gob the Cookie Monster.

[/ QUOTE ] Gob does do a good job of showing the inadequcies of FSM, and Jesus. Thanks for pointing that out skidoo.

[Skidoo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The Flying Spaghetti Monster and his posse are so last year. Next out the chute it's Gob the Cookie Monster.

[/ QUOTE ] Gob does do a good job of showing the inadequcies of FSM, and Jesus. Thanks for pointing that out skidoo.

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't. Your cookie god must have put that in your mind.