He doesn't have to be. The argument stands on its own: you can define "God" to be whatever you want, but the definition that you advance approaches tautology.
And who stands outside time and space to define the tautology? Dawkins is substituting one definition for all definitions. Problem is, his definition is neither necessary nor sufficient. Furthermore, the traditional problem with organized religion is the same: specific, and sometimes powerful, people failing to see that outcome with their own definitions.
Sure, "God" could be whatever you want it to be. But that's exactly the point. It's a personal relationship (or lack thereof) defined by you. And no amount of science can take that away. If anything, the failures of modern physics (and soon neuroscience too) deepens my appreciation for the religious perspective.
And who stands outside time and space to define the tautology?
That statement has no meaning.
There is no fundamental understanding regarding the concept of "outside time and space", because our knowledge of them both derives from experience. To have some understanding of 'outside', you would have to have received that information a priori. That would mean that everyone had received that information, however.
Since, we can readily determine that the difference between believers and non-believers is a matter of experience. The difference between the two has nothing to do with "outside" either time and space, because that "outside" is not experiencable (at this point in time).
You missed my point. The problem with a definition for God is that it would take God to check that proof. That's where dfranke said it "approaches tautology" and I agree. We just can't ever be sure that what we come up with is correct or circular. That's faith and humility rolled into one. And it's where I most disagree with Dawkins. His definition doesn't speak for me, and his training gives him no special insight into the problem.
"To have some understanding of 'outside', you would have to have received that information a priori. That would mean that everyone had received that information, however."
No it wouldn't. Perhaps I'm just special.
a priori knowledge is knowledge gained without experience. There is no reason it has to be universal.
Perhaps not. How would you presume that a "mundane" person tell the difference between genuine a priori knowledge held by a "special" person, and the rantings of a supposed prophet?
edit:
This should not be taken that I'm implying that believers are ranting prophets. Just a query as to how you propose to tell the difference.
I wouldn't. If is knowledge is truly a priori, and you truly didn't have it, there would be no way that you could know.
My advice would be to look at the person. If the man seems rational and honest, then maybe there is something to it. Then again, maybe not. It's really up to you.
What seems rational and honest is based more on your prejudices than anything else. Ultimately, who and what you choose to believe is up to you. If you choose to restrict yourself to only what can verified without assumptions, you will end up with solipsism. If you choose to believe everything that comes your way, you will end up very confused. If you find some arbitrary 'halfway' heuristic, then you'll probably be better off. Just never forget that it is a heuristic that you are using as a criterion, or else your belief will be just as arbitrary as those who wait for alien spaceships to take them to bliss.
I'd say we are already there but the pretty pictures are still very alluring. One example: Consciousness appears to be within grasp with the massive datasets already collected. The problem comes down to explaining, or reducing, consciousness in terms of that data. We might be able to show you what happens in the brain when you see beauty or feel pain, but that explains the experience of neither. The questions remain even as the science is the best it's ever been. I think this reality is much more glaring in modern physics.
Yes, I thought that might be what you had in mind. It always struck me as a silly non sequitur to observe biochemical or neurological changes in the brain of a person experiencing X (the classic example being mourning the loss of a loved one) and conclude that X has biochemical or neurological causes or can be reduced into those terms. Of course, that's the way the pendulum has swung in psychiatry for 40 years now too.
It's not obvious to me that consciousness can explain itself.
He doesn't have to be. The argument stands on its own: you can define "God" to be whatever you want, but the definition that you advance approaches tautology.