[fasterik]

There are two separate issues here. One is how we choose to define God, and the other is what religious people actually believe.

OP was referring to "billions of people" with certain beliefs. Most of these people believe in God as an entity with a personality who intervenes in events on Earth. That kind of God doesn't have to exist by necessity.

On the other hand, if we define God as base reality, then God exists by definition. In that case why not just call it "reality" or "the universe"? When most people say they believe in God, I don't think they are saying they believe in the universe. I think they are making a stronger claim than that.

I don't get what the Romeo and Juliet example is supposed to show. The base reality for Romeo and Juliet is our physical world rather than the play world, and God is Shakespeare who exists contingently in base reality. Yes, it's impossible for them to prove that God (Shakespeare) doesn't exist. But what reasons could Romeo and Juliet have for believing that Shakespeare exists or that they are living in a play world rather than base reality? Unless Shakespeare explicitly writes evidence of his existence into the play, their claims are on the same footing as Russell's teapot.

[jondeval]

Thanks for the response. Let me take your comments one at a time. Apologies in advance if it seems like I'm jumping around and cherry picking. I'm just trying to focus in on the key issues.

> if we define God as base reality, then God exists by definition.

Right. You are stating the conception of God that is advanced by Judaism and Christianity. Its succinct expression is put forth by Thomas Aquinas and can also be found in the thinking of Aristotle.

To get even more concrete, the Roman Catholic Church teaches that God is ipsum esse subsistens or roughly subsistent being itself.

> In that case why not just call it "reality" or "the universe"?

I think you're touching on a good point. Let me take each case separately because I see them as slightly different:

>> ... why not just call it "reality" ...

You sort of can. As long we acknowledge that reality is made up of things that are more and less contingent. For example I'm looking at my headphones as I type. I can say 'these headphones are reality'. Even though these headphones are real, we both know that they would be a terrible candidate for base reality itself since the headphones can't explain their own existence and are clearly contingent on other things in being. (similar to the teapot)

>> ... why not just call it ..."the universe" ...

Typically when people say "the universe" they are implying the sum total of all material reality as we observe it.

The question is: is this the best or even a good candidate for base-reality. I think the answer is no for a very simple reason. The universe changes. energy changes form, objects change in an emergent phenomena we call time, they move through space, there are stars and not stars, and atoms and not atoms etc.

Everything else that we know of or can conceive of that changes as much as the universe does is coupled to a more fundamental reality that is the cause and explanation of the change.

So the universe is real, like the headphones, it just can't be the best candidate for base-reality itself.

So what is a good candidate for base reality?

* For starters there is only one base-realty. If there were 2 or more then you would need something more fundamental to distinguish them.

* Whatever this base reality is, it's utterly simple. It has no parts since parts would require distinctions and more fundamental explanations to identify them.

* Base reality needs to be outside time and space, because of the whole can't change thing I eluded to earlier.

* Finally, anything that has the potential to actually exist in reality, is in some weird way already present in base-realty. This is just a different way of saying that base-reality is the cause (directly or indirectly) of all things. cause of all possible potential things -> all possible potentials -> all-potentials -> omni-potentials -> omnipotent.

So, by necessity there must be a base-reality that is at a minimum: one, simple, eternal, immaterial, and omnipotent.

We then assign (like a reference pointer :^) ), the english word God to whatever this best candidate for base reality is, being sure to acknowledge that we are really dealing with the best candidate.

const God = (maximally full expression of base reality)

> I don't get what the Romeo and Juliet example shows.

Apologies if this is not helpful. I offered this analogy to get closer the proper definition of God that I outlined above. In the same way Romeo and Juliet can never step outside of the play, we can nonetheless see that Shakespeare is the their creator and is in a sense closer to Romeo and Juliet then they are to themselves. You and I cannot step outside of base reality but it should be obvious that we are held in existence by something that is more fundamental then ourselves.

[fasterik]

Physicists also teach that there is a subsistent being. It's called the physical world :)

> Its succinct expression is put forth by Thomas Aquinas and can also be found in the thinking of Aristotle.

And its succinct refutation was put forth by Hume and Kant!

[jondeval]

Apologies. I mistook you as someone looking to engage with the substance of the argument. Take Care.

[fasterik]

What argument? I see a passing reference to the ontological argument followed by a bunch of metaphysical word salad. Not exactly a lot of substance to engage with there.

Edit: Sorry about the snarky reply. I just don't have the patience for these kinds of semantic games. I'll just stick to physics, which tells us non-trivial things about the world without defining things into existence.