Re: Are you sure there is no God ?
False. These are logical contradictions.
Omnipotence deserves its own discussion imo. Some argue its inherently contradictory, others disagree. I may have muddled the conversation more than necessary by bringing it up. Suffice to say omnipotence is not a requirement for godhood. I'm defining the term "god" somewhat loosely, accounting for Ganesha, Zeus, Odin, the intolerant one from the old testament, and the cosmic grandfather from the new testament. These have all been worshiped as gods. Not all were considered omnipotent by their followers.
What is to prevent a human being from obtaining equal power over time? What would be the difference between an alien life form such as "Q" from Star Trek and a God? At what point do you have to stop considering it a "god" and consider it just another life form?
You seek to define something that has never really been defined well outside of referencing whatever religions god(s). Where do you draw the line between exceptional human / god / alien? The common theme seems to be some greater being that can affect the world in ways humans are unable to, which is a terribly vague definition, but honestly, it doesn't matter in regards to this discussion unless you're trying to manipulate definitions to reach your desired conclusion.
Better question.. what is the difference between an un-perceivable thing and a non-existent thing. If it's "existence" has no registerable impact on any other thing in our reality can you even consider it to be real? Even if you thought you could would it be enough to justify calling it a god?
I'm not necessarily arguing that everything is perceivable, I'm arguing that everything which could reasonably be construed as a god is perceivable. If it is not perceivable then it registers no impact on our reality. If it registers no impact on reality then it really shouldn't be considered real in the first place. Being real is a pretty low bar. If it is debatable whether something can even pass that test then it would seem ridiculous to give it a status such as god.
Essentially I believe that given a reasonable definition of god that I would agree with there can be no being imagined that is not a logical contradiction of itself or of the very definition of a god. My definition of a god would be as follows....
"An intelligence of supernatural power that regularly influences our universe and judges the actions of those beings within it."
Certainly a being that regularly influences our world would have to be perceivable in some way. Particular if it's doing so based on the actions of the people living in it.
non-existent = does not exist (and thus can not be perceived)
imperceptible = exists, but can not be perceived
Just because something is imperceptible does not mean it has no affect on reality. And it's somewhat relative, imperceptible to humans (and their technology) is different than outright imperceptible. But just because you can't perceive something does not mean that the concept of its existence can never occur to someone. The Greeks had pretty decent atomic theory long before anyone could actually perceive an individual atom. But yes, atoms still affect the world in perceivable ways, and can be seen with the naked eye (even if they're unrecognizable as atoms) if they are in a large enough group. You are trying to equate imperceptible with "does not affect reality in any way", which is wrong. We know of matter and energy, and the link between the 2. Everything we perceive is made of one or the other, or both. To simply exist as either or both affects reality. Movement, taking up space, etc. But who's to say there isn't some 3rd category of "stuff" that we know nothing about? Or a 4th?
Why would a god have to regularly influence our universe and judge the actions of those beings within it? If something created everything and went to sleep, not caring what happened afterwards, it can't be a god? You seem to have a very Christian concept of god that doesn't universally cover all possibilities. And why would it's influence be perceivable? If a god created a hurricane, we could certainly perceive the hurricane. But why would we even suspect the hand of the divine in it? To us, it would be a normal hurricane. That would not be perceiving a god, even if we were staring at it's work.
If something were to meet the definition of "A God", there's a very good chance it could easily hide itself from us flawlessly while still affecting the universe. As Lawrence Fishburn told us, electrical impulses interpreted by the brain. This is perception. It's not so far fetched a god could interfere with those very electrical impulses.
TBC next post due to length