My point is you cannot successfully define a tautology as something else. Totality IS totality. It's own definition is tautological. It is a logical statement that is necessarily true. The definition as described by Optional777 / ( the ..'the' fetish guy ) is of totality . The definition of God he describes is of totality , not God. Then he attributes God to mean totality. But the root definition is always of totality. It has to be. Trying to replace totality by replacing the word with another, or having a premise that starts with a conclusion does not change a logical statement that is necessarily true. Both are faulty. If your "Omniverse", does not have anything including your "consciousness above the existence of consciousness in it's separate parts." then it is not the definition of totality given by the 'the' man. Shows how ducking and weaving and wordplay in renaming totality as God ,still cannot overcome the logical statement that is necessarily true ie: totality is what totality is... totality.
I define it so... wicked as in "awsome" Of course valid. When ones thoughts don't just keep going " duh, ugh - therefore God" like Optional- 'the' - man's clearly do, valid is the reasoned sensible ground.
"Q: How many legs does a dog have, if you call its tail a leg? A: Four- Because calling the tail a leg doesn't make it one." ~Abraham Lincoln
Q: How many Wall Street Bankers are Capitalist if they take bailout money, either directly or indirectly (AIG) from the government?
How many Wall Street Bankers were capitalists before this whole blowup happened if they gave half of their profits to the gov't.