What do you mean? God has a very simple definition: the all powerful, all knowing, perfectly good person who created and/or sustains the universe.
You’ve described a super duper Santa Claus. Who’s to say any of those apply to “god”?
Huh? They do, by definition. That’s what God means.
“All powerful” means he can do anything it is logically possible to do. (E.g., he can’t make a weight so heavy he can’t lift it, since that would imply a contradiction, and hence not be logically possible).
That’s not all powerful then is it, since she’s limited by logic.
Um, no. Logic is no limitation, since it includes everything that is possible. Contradiction is not possible.
“All knowing” means he knows everything it is logically possible to know. (E.g., for every proposition he knows the extent to which it is true or false).
Same as above, plus what’s so special about “knowing”? That’s something us humans do. “Knowing” implies the possibility of not knowing so in a sense maybe the whole idea doesn’t apply to a god.
Same as above. “Knowing” is having correct information about the way things are. There is nothing essentially human in any of that. Indeed, machines can have true information in this sense, and many animals can know.
I don’t understand your last sentence, but anyhow it is misplaced since as I’ve said this idea applies to God by definition.
“Perfectly good” means that he only ever wills what is the best in any given circumstance.
Wills what is best? You mean she can’t choose to do less than best? That’s not all powerful.
She has the power to do what’s less than best but her will to the good makes her choose the best, anyway. I suppose in a sense that’s a limitation on being all powerful, but if so, it’s a limitation that wouldn’t make a difference to many theists.
“Person” means he is a being with beliefs, desires, intentions, will, etc
Huh? Is that supposed to be a knock-down argument of some kind? If there are intelligent aliens out there somewhere, they will be persons just as much as you are.
Point is, the poll only makes sense if we don’t delve too deeply into what’s meant by the words in it. Even the word “exist” is suspect. Perhaps there are things that occur, then vanish, then occur, then vanish, etc.
Uh huh. That’s the sort of objection which, if valid, would be applicable to every sentence ever spoken or written, including itself. It is, so to say, self-refuting.