Minimum Attributes of God

[ThatGirlAgain]

Definitions aside, to me you have developed a supposition that there are no supernatural entities due to the fact that we have no evidence of any such beings; and because all that have been proposed so far by man are nonsensical; which is a much more reasonable position than adopting a superstition like Christianity. I am merely taking these ideas one step further to contend that since we really have no idea what a 'God' would entail, we have no basis upon which to claim 'God(s)' doesn't exist. Can you define this entity that you claim does not exist?

Does zxcvbnm exist? Since we have “no idea� what zxcvbnm means we cannot make a claim either way. Do we really have NO idea what God(s) means? If that is the case then there is no more reason to talk about God(s) than there is to talk about zxcvbnm. Conversation over.

But if there is some idea of what is meant by God(s), then we have a basis for conversation. Is there in fact anything we can say about God(s)?

I imagine there is something to be said. Many people throw the term around and seem to think it means something. Is there a bare minimum of meaning that is needed to merit the label God? Is it perhaps necessary to have several different meanings? For example, the Christian God is generally given the attribute of ‘Creator of the Universe’ but Apollo is not. Perhaps we should disregard gods, with a small ‘g’, like Apollo?

Debate question: What is the bare minimum of attributes that is required to deserve the label God?

[Filthy Tugboat]

...How does making a definition that is inclusive of the definition you supplied but more general (less specific) going to make it more susceptible to argue against. If anything, adding traits would provide this effect, not taking them away...

Where has anyone on this thread proposed a definition that was inclusive of my definition, while at the same time being more general and less susceptible to the standard atheist talking points? Can you provide an example of such definition?

This is the definition you supplied;

For today's major world theisms, God is viewed as the necessary reality which undergirds the contingent reality of our universe and our selves. This "necessary reality" called God is best conceived as the simplest possible entity, possessing no arbitrary limitations regarding knowledge, spatio-temporality, or causal efficacy.

As is obvious and even noted by yourself, it only applies to popular modern concepts of Gods, it does not apply to other concepts of God that are either less popular or not modern but are none the less still Gods. Therefore your definition is too specific to be taken as a general definition that applies to all Gods.

An alternate definition could be just the second part of your definition, the first part is the only one that makes it incompatible with all God concepts. "God is best conceived as the simplest possible entity, possessing no arbitrary limitations regarding knowledge, spatio-temporality, or causal efficacy." Except, "simplest possible entity" I think is inaccurate and even against the notions of all major world theisms, if anything all major world theisms consider God to be more complex than anything/everything else. So, perhaps this is the most accurate definition one can give;

"God is best conceived as an entity, possessing no arbitrary limitations regarding knowledge, spatio-temporality, or causal efficacy."

I think that definition is the only one that can cover all bases. Unsurprisingly in it's barest form, no God is actually portrayed in this way alone and this definition does not carry much meaning or weight behind it but it is the only definition that can be applied universally to all God concepts.

[AquinasD]

The problem is that consciousness can't exist without cause.

Please demonstrate this. You have said it several times, but I'm not convinced of its truth.

Hence, you can't move the goal post any further back.

I know what it means to move the goal posts, but I don't see what you mean in this context.

[Goat]

The problem is that consciousness can't exist without cause.

Please demonstrate this. You have said it several times, but I'm not convinced of its truth.

In every case of consciousness we have studies, there is a brain. We have over 6 billion examples to examine today, and not one consciousness we can study is disassociated from a physical brain. We do have the potential of making consciousness from a computer, but that will still be associated with physical connections.

We have zero evidence of any consciousness not associated with a CPU or a physical brain. Therefore, until such time as this can be demonstrated false, it is a reasonable conclusion that consciousness is associated with a physical brain and has a cause.

Do you have a methodology to show a consciousness not associated with a physical object?

[TheJackelantern]

I know what it means to move the goal posts, but I don't see what you mean in this context.

Pantheism ought to be a big clue.. Or this article:

Information: The material physical Cause of causation

And as stated before.. It's pretty tough to top out existence itself... Hence, you can't move the goal post any further back. This means the Christians are out of room to argue without trying to claim their GOD exists outside of existence. And well, we Atheists wouldn't likely disagree with that

Please demonstrate this. You have said it several times, but I'm not convinced of its truth.

Please demonstrate from a position of non-existence, nothing, no informational value. And again I ask you the what the difference is between you (a conscious being), and a rock (a non-conscious object).. Both informational value, complexity, and information to offer. So why is the rock not conscious sir? Do you understand why this is a problem for you?... Do you even understand your computer screen displays an image and the rock doesn't?

Well, you need the ability to take in information and process it. And those processes are un-conscious processes to which lead to emergence of a conscious state. A conscious awareness can't happen untill the processing of information produces the moment of realization. No different to why your computer screen can't display an image until information processes to produce the emergent property of the image being displayed. Consciousness is the same, it's an emergent property that can not exist without cause. No processing of information, no consciousness possible. It's that simple...

It's highly complex and the likely hood of a conscious being coming into existence is far less likely than a Universe from a Big Bang. Plants have a better chance of developing than something with a brain (mind). And this is the fundamental base of your problem in this discussion.

[TheJackelantern]

Edited for due to double post..

And I am curious AquinasD, how do you know things? How do you come to know things? Do you require to know that you exist in order to know you exist? And how do you process that and come to a realization that you actually exist?. How do you have a state of awareness? . Can you do so without any sensory organs / systems? ..Though I think the big question is if you think you can have a conscious state without information, or a system of information to which has feedback. Can you even be convinced without information? Funny, because many Christians are convinced of their GOD's existence without any actual information that proves it's existence. You know, the Carl Sagan dragon?

How can you have laws without information to makes laws with, to base laws on? How does one create information without information? How does one create the laws of existence to which all things are governed by? .. Well, you CAN'T! And that is the point! GODS ARE LOGICAL FALLACIES!... Unless you are a Pantheist.

[AquinasD]

[Hence, you can't move the goal post any further back. This means the Christians are out of room to argue without trying to claim their GOD exists outside of existence. And well, we Atheists wouldn't likely disagree with that

Exists outside of existence? I already replied to this. I pointed out that a theist is simply one who believes that God is included in existence.

Maybe you should clarify what you mean by "existence?" I bet you're equivocating.

Please demonstrate from a position of non-existence, nothing, no informational value.

I don't even know what you mean. Perhaps you should define what you mean by "information."

And again I ask you the what the difference is between you (a conscious being), and a rock (a non-conscious object)

Well, I know things, and the rock doesn't know things. That's a difference.

[TheJackelantern]

Exists outside of existence? I already replied to this. I pointed out that a theist is simply one who believes that God is included in existence.

Maybe you should clarify what you mean by "existence?" I bet you're equivocating.

Existence is literal the sum total of everything. It's not about just being in existence. It's about being of existence.. Everything follows the rules of existence. Entities, especially conscious ones, can never be considered the source origin to all there is. Much less the creator to. So unless you can tell me how one creates existence and the rules to existence, there is no such thing as a GOD. Unless you want to go with Pantheism.

I don't even know what you mean. Perhaps you should define what you mean by "information."

It means you require causation to exist. And I have defined what I meant by information. Feel free to go back a few pages because I shouldn't have to sit here and repeat it a 100 times over... If you want the simple answer.. Information is the substance value of existence. Energy =/= information = force = causation.. Not hard to grasp.

So how about you stop avoiding my questions and answer them...

[EduChris]

..."simplest possible entity" I think is inaccurate and even against the notions of all major world theisms, if anything all major world theisms consider God to be more complex than anything/everything else...

Today's major world theisms do believe that God is the simplest possible entity in that God possesses no arbitrary constraints or limitations.

...perhaps this is the most accurate definition one can give:

"God is best conceived as an entity, possessing no arbitrary limitations regarding knowledge, spatio-temporality, or causal efficacy."

I think that definition is the only one that can cover all bases...it is the only definition that can be applied universally to all God concepts.

You have gutted the strengths of my definition, and failed to capture any viability for the limited gods of obsolete polytheisms. Therefore, your definition fails in every possible respect. Since your definition fails to meet its own standards, it must be rejected. My definition remains the most viable way forward. Yes, it ignores the contingent gods of yesterday's theisms, but it doesn't need to address them, since those obsolete theisms cannot withstand the standard "talking points" of even a retrograde non-theism.

[Filthy Tugboat]

..."simplest possible entity" I think is inaccurate and even against the notions of all major world theisms, if anything all major world theisms consider God to be more complex than anything/everything else...

Today's major world theisms do believe that God is the simplest possible entity in that God possesses no arbitrary constraints or limitations.

What definition of "simplest" are you using? How does possessing no arbitrary constraints or limitations make something the "simplest possible entity"?

...perhaps this is the most accurate definition one can give:

"God is best conceived as an entity, possessing no arbitrary limitations regarding knowledge, spatio-temporality, or causal efficacy."

I think that definition is the only one that can cover all bases...it is the only definition that can be applied universally to all God concepts.

You have gutted the strengths of my definition,

Strengths of your definition? How were there any strengths to your definition? How can a definition or a description of any kind be considered strong?

and failed to capture any viability for the limited gods of obsolete polytheisms.

Why would the definition for the term "God" have to capture viability for the Gods of obsolete polytheisms?

Therefore, your definition fails in every possible respect. Since your definition fails to meet its own standards, it must be rejected. My definition remains the most viable way forward.

I don't see how it failed in any way, you put forward standards I don't think exist for a definition.

Yes, it ignores the contingent gods of yesterday's theisms, but it doesn't need to address them, since those obsolete theisms cannot withstand the standard "talking points" of even a retrograde non-theism.

Of course it needs to address them because like it or not they are still Gods, why would create a specific definition in a thread dedicated to sourcing or creating a general definition?

[EduChris]

...What definition of "simplest" are you using?...

Fewest arbitrary contraints, limitations, or specifications.

...How does possessing no arbitrary constraints or limitations make something the "simplest possible entity"?...

Arbitrary constraints, limitations, or specifications require explanation. All else equal, an entity possessing fewer arbitrary constraints will be epistemically preferred over an entity posessing more arbitrary constraints.

...Strengths of your definition? How were there any strengths to your definition? How can a definition or a description of any kind be considered strong?...

A definition is strong if it covers the bases for the actual item in questions. What we have in this case is a disagreement about the "item in question." I claim we need only discuss the minimum attributes common to all of today's major world theisms. You claim that we need to include the contingent and limited gods of obsolete theisms. My claim best corresponds to the intent of the OP. Contingent gods cannot survive the criticisms of even retrograde forms of non-theism; therefore, they can safely be excluded from further consideration (in the same way that science no longer needs to defend obsolete theories such as phlogiston).

...Why would the definition for the term "God" have to capture viability for the Gods of obsolete polytheisms?...

It doesn't. But you keep on insisting (against the stated intention of the OP) that such "gods" need to be included in the definition, and your definition does not succeed in this respect. Contingent "gods" of obsolete theisms are not described at all by your definition: "possessing no arbitrary limitations regarding knowledge, spatio-temporality, or causal efficacy," since such gods are quite limited in all of these respects.

...it needs to address them because like it or not they are still Gods, why would create a specific definition in a thread dedicated to sourcing or creating a general definition?

The OP specifically rules out any consideration of limited, contingent "gods."