Define God Thread

[Speakpigeon]

Obviously but your last question does show one limit of your imagination.

As somebody said, the only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible. You could try it. That won't make a perfect being out of you but it could make you a better man.

So, how could a less than perfect being like we all are possibly know that there is such a thing as a perfect being?

This is not such a really terribly difficult question. Should I tell you or do you want to think about it some more? Remember, it could really make you a better man.
EB

Please, do tell. I'm pretty sure you're going to say something stupid now. But go for it. I might be amazed

It's really very simple: A perfect God could give us the knowledge that he is a perfect being.

So, yes, we may not be able to obtain this knowledge on our own since we're not perfect but Gog could do it for us. And that's about all we need.

Now, I want to insist that this kind of reasoning is not so terribly difficult to do and that you'd be a better man for it, although maybe it's not for me to judge.
EB

 

[DrZoidberg]

Please, do tell. I'm pretty sure you're going to say something stupid now. But go for it. I might be amazed

It's really very simple: A perfect God could give us the knowledge that he is a perfect being.

They could tell us. But we'd never be able to judge if that was true or not. A being, a little bit better than us could tell us they're perfect, and we'd be unable to judge whether they it was true or not.

At best it would be a baseless assumption.

We can also go the logical route. Perfection is something that changes depending on the needs of the person doing the judging. People's needs are different. That means that the perfect being needs to be at least two different types of perfection at once. Most likely a near infinite amount of perfections. Therefore it's a paradox. A perfect being cannot exist. So we know for a fact that God cannot be perfect.

Now, I want to insist that this kind of reasoning is not so terribly difficult to do and that you'd be a better man for it, although maybe it's not for me to judge.
EB

Based on what you've written so far it seems above your abilities. Perhaps not difficult for a perfect being. But certainly too difficult for you.

You just think this is simple because you haven't thought it through.

 

[Speakpigeon]

That's legitimate. You yourself aren't perfect as we all know so I can cut you some slack.

You're joking, right?

Perfection here means God lacks no quality and that he didn't have to be created to exist, unlike anything that isn't God himself.

It also means he cannot be made to cease to exist and cannot be corrupted, i.e. he cannot loose any quality.

So God knows the length of the boundary of the Mandelbrot set at 10^33 iterations before God calculates the boundary length of the Mandelbrot set at 10^33 iterations? That's weird, unless God was created in a previous iteration of the universe, and all knowledge already exists.

[. tangent .]

Show

Side note, which might be semi pertinent. I had a brain fart the other day in regards to SR/GR (relativity of both varieties). I realized that the zero point was such, in the equations I was using, that actual spacetime distance (not just space- space distance had discrepancies) was remaining exactly equal for all particles in existence (according to the math I was using).

So basically, multidimensional spacetime would have particles that remained equally spaced within it forever- an unchanging distance ratio between all particles.

No matter which particle you choose, it is equally spaced from all other particles in spacetime, and its mass/energy/momentum would be the same as all other particles like it, although it would have a unique space trajectory (total spacetime traveled would be exactly the same for all particles).

This leaves out the effects of consciousness having an effect upon spacetime trajectory...

You don't really seem to have any logical argument in here but sometimes the kind of lateral thinking provided by tangents proves just as effective.


Clearly, mathematics give us a handle on what we mean by "perfect". An actual circle would be a perfect circle, i.e. one that's really perfectly round. And, sadly, we have to admit we can't draw perfect circles, even on the proverbial blackboard (sorry for people who don't get this reference to a past long gone, I won't explain). This sort of confirms we're not perfect and so we're not God. Yet, mathematicians certainly will insist they get on top of things when it comes to circles. They've invented the transcendental number called "pi", which is almost like the essence of what a circle is. Yet, again, even they have to admit they can't and won't ever calculate all the decimals of pi. Yes, but, mathematicians can write a series whose limit is pi. Sure, but we can write the series but the series isn't the limit. Fractals are interesting too in this respect because we can make beautiful pictures based on fractal formulae but we can't actually do the little twiddle bit which is the actual boundary of the fractal. We're stuck within our finite, imperfect capabilities, even though maths among other things give us a sense of the infinite.

So we sort of know of perfection without actually being able to achieve it. A perfect being would know pi and therefore all decimals of pi. Unlike us, he would know the exact circumference of a circle.

He would still not know the length of the boundary of the Mandelbrot set because this boundary is infinite and there is therefore no length to know. But he would trivially know the length of the boundary of the theoretical graph given any finite number of iterations of the algorithm producing the graph. Whether he would have to calculate anything seems beside the point.

Perhaps answering your question is to say that although God could not logically know the length of the boundary of the Mandelbrot set, he would know the boundary itself. Another way to say it would be to say that if the length of this boundary is commensurate to anything else, God would know that as well. But maybe mathematicians already know that as well, I don't know.

K., are you at all satisfied with this answer?
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

It's really very simple: A perfect God could give us the knowledge that he is a perfect being.

They could tell us. But we'd never be able to judge if that was true or not.

Sure, were not perfect, I already admitted to that. We're not God.

I thought we were discussing my definition but clearly you prefer the route of the derail.

Can you or can you not fault this idea that a perfect God could provide us with the knowledge that he is the one and only perfect being?

You haven't denied that so I take it you concede the point.

A being, a little bit better than us could tell us they're perfect, and we'd be unable to judge whether they it was true or not.

Yes, we're not perfect, we already know that. Can we move on?

At best it would be a baseless assumption.

Apparently, you are still missing the point. And I have to say I suspected precisely that.

It's all about the difference between knowledge and belief, which you seem to prefer to ignore. I said, if there is a perfect God, he could impart us with the knowledge that he is a perfect being. I didn't say he could impart us with the belief he is a perfect being. Knowledge is knowledge. It's not belief. If God provides us with knowledge then we have it. Or do we have now to go the route of the dictionary? So, not only your logic is lacking but your vocabulary is deficient.

We can also go the logical route. Perfection is something that changes depending on the needs of the person doing the judging. People's needs are different. That means that the perfect being needs to be at least two different types of perfection at once. Most likely a near infinite amount of perfections. Therefore it's a paradox. A perfect being cannot exist. So we know for a fact that God cannot be perfect.

What is not logical in your so-called logical route here is your assertion that perfection changes depending on people. You're free to believe this but, please, don't pretend it's somehow logical to assume so. And I certainly don't.

Ok, I guess it's clear to me you're not prepared to have anything like a logical argument about my definition.
EB
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

OK, let's remind posters here of the OP. Derails can sometimes be fun but it's best not to overdo it.
EB

There:

Each person gets to create their own, personal definition of God.

Did it create the universe? Was it a primordial consciousness that arose out of various conscious experiences and interactions to guide other consciousnesses towards greater experience of unity (like an "intelligent" human)?


Logically inconsistent or contradictory definitions are not acceptable.

God cannot both be the sole creator of the universe and not be the sole creator of the universe. One or the other.


Introduce characteristics in list form, so that specific characteristics can be addressed:

1) God is X.
a,b,c... evidence that supports this claim
2) God does Y.
a,b,c... evidence that supports this claim
3) God likes pie.
a,b,c... evidence that supports this claim


If characteristics 1 and 3 are contradictory (1) God hates pie in all cases, 3) God likes pie), pick only one of them to make your full definition logically consistent.



If you claim something like "God created a multiverse, in which all possible things happen happen, and we happen to be in one of the branches", what you've said is logically consistent, but vague, as this God might or might not matter in our lives, depending on whether the God reacts to and interacts with the multiverse it created. So you'd need to extend the definition.

Anyway you take it from here...

 

[DrZoidberg]

They could tell us. But we'd never be able to judge if that was true or not.

Sure, were not perfect, I already admitted to that. We're not God.

I thought we were discussing my definition but clearly you prefer the route of the derail.

Can you or can you not fault this idea that a perfect God could provide us with the knowledge that he is the one and only perfect being?

You haven't denied that so I take it you concede the point.

It's a meaningless definition. You might as well say that God is the most flargiest of beings. It's gafloon is the sptoptfibliest in the galaxy. Just because you can find the word "perfect" in the dictionary doesn't mean it's applicable in this context.

Not, only is it meaningless, but self-contradictory. Which I showed.

The point of definitions is to help clarify what words mean. Saying that God is perfect adds no clarification.

A being, a little bit better than us could tell us they're perfect, and we'd be unable to judge whether they it was true or not.

Yes, we're not perfect, we already know that. Can we move on?

That's not what I said. I said that we have no way of knowing or evaluating if God is perfect. So why say that God is perfect? Why believe that God is perfect? Why describe something with a property nobody can know it has? Isn't that the definition of just talking shit?

Or to put it another way. Why do you describe God as perfect, even if you know that you could impossibly know this?

At best it would be a baseless assumption.

Apparently, you are still missing the point. And I have to say I suspected precisely that.
's all about the difference between knowledge and belief, which you seem to prefer to ignore. I said, if there is a perfect God, he could impart us with the knowledge that he is a perfect being. I didn't say he could impart us with the belief he is a perfect being. Knowledge is knowledge. It's not belief. If God provides us with knowledge then we have it. Or do we have now to go the route of the dictionary? So, not only your logic is lacking but your vocabulary is deficient.

Why believe something that is unknowable? A person who is able to believe things nobody can know is untrustworthy. We can ignore every thing that person says because we know that their criteria for belief is worthless.

We can also go the logical route. Perfection is something that changes depending on the needs of the person doing the judging. People's needs are different. That means that the perfect being needs to be at least two different types of perfection at once. Most likely a near infinite amount of perfections. Therefore it's a paradox. A perfect being cannot exist. So we know for a fact that God cannot be perfect.

What is not logical in your so-called logical route here is your assertion that perfection changes depending on people. You're free to believe this but, please, don't pretend it's somehow logical to assume so. And I certainly don't.

Ok, I guess it's clear to me you're not prepared to have anything like a logical argument about my definition.
EB
EB

Yes, perfection changes depending who is assessing... obviously. It's a subjective quality. What is your argument for that it doesn't?

As to your "answer". It's just smoke and mirrors. The problem is that theists have been doing this for thousands of years. They're old arguments and we've had plenty of time to give them thought. Theists keep repeating them. Doesn't make it smart answers.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Matthew 5;38
Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

The idea that God is perfect comes from such verses of the Bible, supposedly, divine revelation. Which leads to Perfect Being Theology, which tries to reason what a perfect being (God) would have as it's attributes. The problem now is how to explain away the obvious imperfections of God. Both the imperfections of this God of revelation, and the logical problems where the state of the Universe argues against there being an all powerful, perfect God.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

What is "perfect' or are you just using the words 'god" and "perfect" interchangeably?

How is god unique? Are there any other beings exactly the same as yourself or are you also unique and therefore perfect as yourself in this same sense?

How is the universe not unique and perfect as it is, along with everything in it?

I don't know if I could be unique.

I suppose I am but I don't know. Maybe there are bilions of exact copies of our universe running in parallel but there can be just one God.

Also, even if there are other things that are unique although they are not God, these things are not perfect. They will have defects. They may have qualities but not all qualities and not all the time. And any quality they have they can loose it and they will loose it.

Totally unlike God that.
EB

Do you agree that from our present perspective god is also a spaceman?

And you are insistent that you understand what perfection consists of. So how would I be wrong to state that in today's parlance god is the name we apply to the perfect spaceman?

 

[Kharakov]

Clearly, mathematics give us a handle on what we mean by "perfect". An actual circle would be a perfect circle, i.e. one that's really perfectly round.

There are lots of possible perfections. The idea of a perfect line segment, that is exactly 1/2 the length of another line segment is another possible example of a mathematical/geometric perfection.

So we sort of know of perfection without actually being able to achieve it. A perfect being would know pi and therefore all decimals of pi. Unlike us, he would know the exact circumference of a circle.

Circumference in reference to what length measurement?

K., are you at all satisfied with this answer?

It was fun to read, but no. It seems to equate the existence of a perfect being with a multi-dimensional. self aware, block universe.

I tend to have a much simpler view of a perfect being: a being that is satisfied in and of itself without resorting to the companionship of other beings, which is stupid. If you are that awesome, you're going to want an audience, unless your perfection doesn't include knowledge of what it is to have an audience, to care for another, etc.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

There are lots of possible perfections. The idea of a perfect line segment, that is exactly 1/2 the length of another line segment is another possible example of a mathematical/geometric perfection.

So we sort of know of perfection without actually being able to achieve it. A perfect being would know pi and therefore all decimals of pi. Unlike us, he would know the exact circumference of a circle.

Circumference in reference to what length measurement?

K., are you at all satisfied with this answer?

It was fun to read, but no. It seems to equate the existence of a perfect being with a multi-dimensional. self aware, block universe.

I tend to have a much simpler view of a perfect being: a being that is satisfied in and of itself without resorting to the companionship of other beings, which is stupid. If you are that awesome, you're going to want an audience, unless your perfection doesn't include knowledge of what it is to have an audience, to care for another, etc.

If there is imperfection there is no perfection. How does the perfect spaceman separate itself from the imperfection that is allegedly its creation? Is it axiomatic that perfection and imperfection are once and always separate. Even Satan was created in heaven. Is heaven imperfect? Was Satan created imperfectly in an imperfect heaven? How is it that a perfect being can create and maintain imperfection. If it does so it is imperfect, whatever imperfect is to something that thinks it is something real?

 

[Speakpigeon]

I don't know if I could be unique.

I suppose I am but I don't know. Maybe there are bilions of exact copies of our universe running in parallel but there can be just one God.

Also, even if there are other things that are unique although they are not God, these things are not perfect. They will have defects. They may have qualities but not all qualities and not all the time. And any quality they have they can loose it and they will loose it.

Totally unlike God that.
EB

Do you agree that from our present perspective god is also a spaceman?

And you are insistent that you understand what perfection consists of. So how would I be wrong to state that in today's parlance god is the name we apply to the perfect spaceman?

That's certainly something we should all ponder before venturing too quick an answer.

Soooooo, let me think about it.

O-kay, what I would say is that, no, it doesn't work.

If it did, we would be obligated to say that God is the perfect idiot, but being a perfect idiot surely is not a quality. So, no, it doesn't work.

Be careful not to be confused by how we use words. Remember, we're not God, so we're not perfect, so we have to be suspicious of just about everything we say for fear that it might be corrupted by our silliness. God is not the kind of thing that could be said to be the perfect idiot. People are.
EB

 

[DrZoidberg]

Matthew 5;38
Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

The idea that God is perfect comes from such verses of the Bible, supposedly, divine revelation. Which leads to Perfect Being Theology, which tries to reason what a perfect being (God) would have as it's attributes. The problem now is how to explain away the obvious imperfections of God. Both the imperfections of this God of revelation, and the logical problems where the state of the Universe argues against there being an all powerful, perfect God.

It doesn't matter if it's in the Bible. It's still nonsense. The fact that a statement is in a holy text isn't a free pass to turn off your brain. A holy book is still just a text and has to stand on it's own merits.

Here's an example. What's the perfect car? Different cars are perfect depending on your needs.

 

[abaddon]

A good use for medieval arguments for God would be to show how logic is a great pile of shit when it names indemonstrable things in the premises and yet still draws a conclusion. But I guess they seem impressive to certain sorts of mind -- the kind that will confuse language as a correlate of reality such that, if you're precise enough with it, it will work similarly to mathematics and so you may conjure up conceptions or "models" of shit that does not exist.

The reason mathematics gets pulled in, to draw analogies from, is to appear falsely to have cleared some of the obscurity because math gives people a superficial sense of definiteness. But whatever definiteness it has does not cross over from the "perfect [conceptual] realm" of mathematics to the word-based arguments for God. No one can conceive either a perfect being or a perfect circle. Even if anyone could (or if we allowed human limits are irrelevant), that doesn't make the named Nothing exist except as a mere conception. So the talk of "perfect" and "maximally great" is just noises.

 

[DrZoidberg]

The Greek Pagans thought round was the perfect shape. Millions of toddlers trying to get the round peg into the square hole has disagreed.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Matthew 5;38
Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

The idea that God is perfect comes from such verses of the Bible, supposedly, divine revelation. Which leads to Perfect Being Theology, which tries to reason what a perfect being (God) would have as it's attributes. The problem now is how to explain away the obvious imperfections of God. Both the imperfections of this God of revelation, and the logical problems where the state of the Universe argues against there being an all powerful, perfect God.

It doesn't matter if it's in the Bible. It's still nonsense. The fact that a statement is in a holy text isn't a free pass to turn off your brain. A holy book is still just a text and has to stand on it's own merits.

Here's an example. What's the perfect car? Different cars are perfect depending on your needs.

I am only the messenger. The perfection of God has been Christian dogma for many centuries, as I pointed out, because of supposed revelation. So for theology, that has been a constant and primary proposition. Of course I do not believe it. Because if you take that proposition to it's logical conclusion, it turns out as I pointed out, incoherent and problematic. But it is a dogmatic proposition of Christian theology, and that theology is stuck with it. To abandon the claim God is perfect can be done, for example Process theology does so.

But for orthodox Christians of all stripes, it is something that needs explaining. It soon becomes a game of sophistry and appearance saving. Of defences and not theodicies.

I find Descartes' claim God creates the logic of the Universe, it's laws and it metaphysical necessities a very strong argument against a perfect, all powerful, morally perfect God. Such a God could have any state of affairs in the Universe that God desires. There can be no hidden problems or reasons to not have a more perfect Universe. Nothing could thwart the desires of such a God. The Universe shows no evidence of such a morally perfect, all powerful God.

So something has to give. If God does not create the laws and logic of the Universe, where does that all come from? Or if so, then God does not care about us and does not intervene in our affairs. "God so loved the world...." Or God does not exist.

Decartes' ideas don't get much careful examination. Unfortunate because it demonstrates God is not in the end, coherent, logically consistant hypothesis.

The idea God can create the laws and logic of the Universe has been called universal possibilism by Alvin Plantinga, and I-omnipotence by Process theologian David Ray Griffith. Neither believes God has that ability. Both dodge the question, where do the laws and logic of the Universe come from, and do we need God for anything if we admit to the logical conclusion God does not have that level of power?

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

A good use for medieval arguments for God would be to show how logic is a great pile of shit when it names indemonstrable things in the premises and yet still draws a conclusion. But I guess they seem impressive to certain sorts of mind -- the kind that will confuse language as a correlate of reality such that, if you're precise enough with it, it will work similarly to mathematics and so you may conjure up conceptions or "models" of shit that does not exist.

The reason mathematics gets pulled in, to draw analogies from, is to appear falsely to have cleared some of the obscurity because math gives people a superficial sense of definiteness. But whatever definiteness it has does not cross over from the "perfect [conceptual] realm" of mathematics to the word-based arguments for God. No one can conceive either a perfect being or a perfect circle. Even if anyone could (or if we allowed human limits are irrelevant), that doesn't make the named Nothing exist except as a mere conception. So the talk of "perfect" and "maximally great" is just noises.

Al Ghazali, the Arabic theologian wrote that mathematicians with their ideas of proofs were dangerous.

Because their ideas about God could be mistaken as on the level of mathematical proofs. Therefore when mathematicians meddled in theology, they were essentially dangerous heretics.

 

[bilby]

A good use for medieval arguments for God would be to show how logic is a great pile of shit when it names indemonstrable things in the premises and yet still draws a conclusion. But I guess they seem impressive to certain sorts of mind -- the kind that will confuse language as a correlate of reality such that, if you're precise enough with it, it will work similarly to mathematics and so you may conjure up conceptions or "models" of shit that does not exist.

The reason mathematics gets pulled in, to draw analogies from, is to appear falsely to have cleared some of the obscurity because math gives people a superficial sense of definiteness. But whatever definiteness it has does not cross over from the "perfect [conceptual] realm" of mathematics to the word-based arguments for God. No one can conceive either a perfect being or a perfect circle. Even if anyone could (or if we allowed human limits are irrelevant), that doesn't make the named Nothing exist except as a mere conception. So the talk of "perfect" and "maximally great" is just noises.

Perfect is an adjective - it modifies an object signified by a noun, and is meaningless without a noun to modify.

Being is a noun - but it's not an object; It's a metasyntactic variable, a placeholder for a noun. Indeed, when we say 'God is a perfect being', the variable 'being' is initialized by the noun 'God'. Any attempt to use logic to define 'God' solely in terms of what kind of 'being' a 'God' is is therefore at high risk of being circular.

As 'being' is a variable, it can take on whatever meaning the speaker requires. I feel this in the very core of my being as a human being, that 'being' (when used as a noun) is synonymous with 'thingy' and 'doodad'.

'That which is most perfect' is a meaningless phrase without an object for 'perfect' to modify; A perfect circle can at least in principle (if not in detail) be conceived, as can the perfect cup of tea (although the latter is a matter of subjective opinion, rather than of objective fact); But a perfect being is not a description of anything; It's the antithesis of a definition. A placeholder for a definition, where none is forthcoming.

As my compiler keeps telling me, "'Null' is null, or not an object". If you don't initialize a variable, then no calculations can be performed using that variable, because to do so is meaningless. You can use 'perfect being' as a description of a God, in just the same way as you can use zero as the denominator of a fraction; and if you do, your results will equally be meaningless nonsense.

 

[Learner]

Perfect from the theist perspective, is more to do with the highest degree of "righteousness". Man has the potential but there are temptations which are difficult to overcome... unless ... for the truly dedicated, he or she is following the way of Jesus.

(Not there myself )

 

[DrZoidberg]

Perfect from the theist perspective, is more to do with the highest degree of "righteousness". Man has the potential but there are temptations which are difficult to overcome... unless ... for the truly dedicated, he or she is following the way of Jesus.

(Not there myself )

In every war all sides consider themselves the righteous and the enemies as wicked. Righteousness is completely subjective. So therefore nothing can be the most righteous or always the most righteous

 

[DrZoidberg]

Bilby picked apart your statement and showed what was wrong with it.

Pedantic grammar nazi doesn't phase me.
I've never seen a philosopher whine about the term maximally greatest being.
I didn't even coin the term.
But hey at least bilby's niece gets it.

When I studied logic, my logic professor thought it was fun to analyse political speeches, to figure out what the politician was actually saying. The speeches were very eloquent and pretty. But were always too vague to be applicable to anything. The politicians we studied, without fail, said nothing. Christian/religious statements tend to be the same. They're designed to create a warm fuzzy feeling, but without actually having said anything.

Theists don't tend to coin, nor understand terms they use. They usually just parrot empty phrases that superficially sound profound, but which are completely devoid of any meaning. "Maximally greatest being" being one such statement. It doesn't mean anything. It's not applicable to anything in the real world and doesn't help us understand anything.

It's not a philosophers job to tell us right from wrong. They're more lawyers of thinking. They take statements people make and then reformulate them to make the meaning and intent more clear. That's why they fuss about the details. It's not being a grammar Nazi. It's paying attention to what people are actually saying.

And that' the best you can come up with?

Not the maximally best no. Just the best I can muster from my casual apathy towards folks who quibble about banal off topic stuff like whethur peepul iz tawk good enuf.

BTW, the Christian philosopher Thomas Aquinas made the same argument. But with the rigour of a philosopher. He's still considered the greatest Christian philosopher by the Catholic church. The problem of course it's that it's just nonsense. As the critique of Thomas Aquinas has shown.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Aquinas#Criticism_of_Aquinas_as_philosopher

Where in that wiki was Aquinas' ontological argument shown as nonsense?

You missed the Russel quote? Aquinas wasn't even trying to do philosophy. It's just propaganda/brain washing. Fundamentally Aquinas is argument from ignorance. "We can't know anything about God so therefore God is... "

If you're interested in the Ontological argument I recommend reading the article on that topic in particular.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontological_argument

Let's just say that as soon as the churches ability to control public discussion this was broken, smart people said the obvious... that it's an incoherent totally shit argument.

I think Hume's is the strongest:

We can't argue from necessity about the unknowable. Argument from necessity requires stuff to make deductions from. In this case we've got nothing.

If there are two contenders for the title of greatest being, we are entitled to consider which of them is the maximally greatest of the two.

Sure. But only for specific and narrow domains. What's the greatest car? It depends on your needs, doesn't it?

The Ontological argument argues backwards. It simply assumes that there must be a singular thing that is greater in every dimension. And then calls this God. But it's not. If we would make a graphic of this. The Christian notion looks like a pyramid, where the available options gets less and less as we rise through the tree, until God. The problem is that the correct graphic is more like a tree. An ever expanding crown of branches and leaves. As we rise in the hierarchy God becomes infinitely fractured. It's both the best thing and the worst thing at the same time. The logic of the argument is fundamentally broken.