Minimum Attributes of God

Argue for and against Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
ThatGirlAgain
Prodigy
Posts: 2961
Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2011 1:09 pm
Location: New York City
Been thanked: 1 time

Minimum Attributes of God

Post #1

Post by ThatGirlAgain »

Flail wrote: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?
Dogmatism and skepticism are both, in a sense, absolute philosophies; one is certain of knowing, the other of not knowing. What philosophy should dissipate is certainty, whether of knowledge or ignorance.
- Bertrand Russell

User avatar
ThatGirlAgain
Prodigy
Posts: 2961
Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2011 1:09 pm
Location: New York City
Been thanked: 1 time

Post #201

Post by ThatGirlAgain »

EduChris wrote:
ThatGirlAgain wrote:...A definition of what it is that atheists do not believe in is what this thread is all about. What is that definition? If we are going settle on 'supernatural beings', i.e., beings not accounted for by the laws of the natural world, then fine. I like that idea...
By definition, anything beyond our universe (e.g., your "omniverse generating system") would not be accounted for by the laws of our universe. Do you regard your "omniverse generating system" as "supernatural"?
As I have said many times, the omniverse generating system is logic itself. That which can be, is. Everything else follows from that simple and likely sounding assumption. Everything is natural. There is no supernatural.
Dogmatism and skepticism are both, in a sense, absolute philosophies; one is certain of knowing, the other of not knowing. What philosophy should dissipate is certainty, whether of knowledge or ignorance.
- Bertrand Russell

Flail

Post #202

Post by Flail »

EduChris wrote:
Flail wrote:...What definition of 'God'...
At minimum, if non-theists wish to engage in contemporary discourse about God, non-theists will need to understand how contemporary theists define God. It makes no sense for non-theists to say, "I don't believe in contingent gods," since contemporary theists also do not believe in such gods. In order for there to be some distinction between contemporary theists and contemporary non-theists, the non-theists will have to agree to reject the non-contingent God of today's major world theisms; otherwise, the non-theists will just be talking amongst themselves about a subject that no one else cares about anymore.

Flail wrote:...are there any coherent ones?...
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.

It seems incoherent to suggest that this definition is somehow less coherent than numerous other things that are regularly discussed: freedom, justice, rights, duties, the square root of -1, etc.
Understood and agreed....a philosophical God...defined as a 'supernatural something' in such an unencumbered manner that it almost has no definable qualities at all....works for me so long as I don't have to worship it or pray to it.

Flail

Post #203

Post by Flail »

ThatGirlAgain wrote:
Flail wrote:ThatGirlAgain wrote:
When the debate wants to discard all forms of God by debunking obsolete forms of god and avoiding modern concepts, it is suspect. Is modern science debunked because astrology and alchemy have gone by the wayside? In theology, rejecting contingent deities is easy. What are the grounds for rejecting non-contingent deities? That is what a definition of God is trying to get at.
What definition of 'God'; are there any coherent ones? Are there verifiable grounds for accepting non-contingent beings as 'supernatural somethings'? Aren't all conditional beings non-falsifiable and thus pointless to debate as existent of non-existent?
A definition of what it is that atheists do not believe in is what this thread is all about. What is that definition? If we are going settle on 'supernatural beings', i.e., beings not accounted for by the laws of the natural world, then fine. I like that idea. But we need to decide what it is that verifiable grounds are needed to support.

Is the thing that atheists do not believe in supernatural beings in general? That would certainly simplify the debate.
Well as a skeptical Ignostic I don't 'not believe' in 'God'; I don't know what a God consists of or if there are any of the things. How do human beings define something that is beyond nature? It's beyond me...guess away.

User avatar
Filthy Tugboat
Guru
Posts: 1726
Joined: Sat Nov 06, 2010 12:55 pm
Location: Australia
Been thanked: 1 time

Post #204

Post by Filthy Tugboat »

ThatGirlAgain wrote:
Filthy Tugboat wrote:
ThatGirlAgain wrote:
EduChris wrote:
Filthy Tugboat wrote:...I can't say I've seen that definition of the term "simplest"... Ever...All constraints, limitations and specifications require explanation, what does their being arbitrary have to do with it?...
I'll let TGA respond to this, if she cares to.
I have used that same meaning of ‘simplest’ in my posts on related subjects. Something is simpler if it requires less specification to uniquely identify it.
OK, on that note, should, "simplest possible entity" apply to the definition of God, I think not. If anything Gods are ridiculously hard to identify, the amount of variations major and minor are beyond count, I would find it difficult to identify just about anyone's individual God concept and if I restrict it to just the major world theisms, as EduChris would have us do then I would have much less success as deism and pantheism do not fall into those categories and they are by far the easiest to identify.
I agree that the God that one arrives at via the “simplest possible entity� route does not tie in to any religion. In fact I started a usergroup based on that idea. Not only that but the end point that I arrive at (but EduChris does not) in pursuing the “simplest possible entity� route is not God at all. But that is a different thread that has run its course.

Atheism is an absence of belief in any gods. But considering the fundamentally different type of God that one might reach by logical “necessary being� arguments, it seems gratuitous to lump all of the deities ever dreamed up by mankind into that same bushel basket.
Isn't that what you've just done though? You labelled them all deities and gods. They are all deities and gods, no individual type deserves the title anymore than the others.
ThatGirlAgain wrote:If one wishes to dismiss the supernatural entirely that is one thing, an idea already discussed in this thread. But to single out ‘gods’ from the vast supernatural landscape of the imagination and then to include a very different kind of God seems very arbitrary. There is of course a common factor that is perhaps the rationale for doing so. And that is religion. It seems to me that the term ‘atheist’ is a misnomer and that what is really intended is ‘areligious’, questioning the validity of religions. Again see my usergroup definition.
I maintain that an atheist is someone who has rejected every God concept they have encountered. Some atheists believe in ghosts, a distinctly supernatural thing. Same atheists follow Scientology, a religion.
ThatGirlAgain wrote:
Filthy Tugboat wrote:
ThatGirlAgain wrote:
EduChris wrote:
Filthy Tugboat wrote:...Brahman, is naturally far more complex than the entire universe as the universe is apart of Brahman or depending on beliefs, comes from Brahman. So Hinduism is excluded from your list. I personally think the Abrahamic religions propose that the Abrahamic God is complex but I think Hinduism was enough to make my point...
The set of all integers is simpler than any specific finite set of integers.
The set of all integers is specified by the definition of ‘integer’. Specifying a specific subset of integers first requires the definition of ‘integer’, then the definition or labels of the specific subset. E.g., [all even integers] or [1 2 7 10 12].
So basically, what's being said is that Brahman is simpler than the universe in the sense that it is more easily identifiable, it only has to be defined by 'Brahman,' but similarly the universe is still identified as "the universe" so which one is simpler? Should we perhaps appeal to a different definition of 'simplest' as this one does not provide an answer? But if we look at it from a contemporary standard, Brahman is infinitely more complex than the universe and everything within it. That's my problem with this use of the term 'simple' it is not really consistent with any other definition of 'simple' when used as the description of a thing.
In Hinduism, Brahman is not more complex than the universe. The complexity of the universe is Maya, illusion. In the end there is only the simple unity of Brahman.
Even if the universe is only an illusion that does not mean that it cannot be complex. Even if everything is the unity of Brahman, that doesn't mean we cannot individually look at the parts of Brahman.
ThatGirlAgain wrote:What is this “contemporary standard� you refer to? Can you define it and give supporting citations?
Simple; (easy and not involved or complicated) "an elementary problem in statistics"; "elementary, my dear Watson"; "a simple game"; "found an uncomplicated solution to the problem"

Simple; (apart from anything else; without additions or modifications) "only the bare facts"; "shocked by the mere idea"; "the simple passage of time was enough"; "the simple truth" [ref]

Either of these definitions are far more common than the one proposed by EduChris earlier.
ThatGirlAgain wrote:
Filthy Tugboat wrote:...I disagree, many things have been labelled "God", you definition does not include all of them...They are still Gods are they not? It doesn't matter if people do or don't believe in them. It doesn't matter how many believe in them or whether they are rational, they are still Gods...
They are all supernatural. Again why single out gods? As I said atheism is the wrong term. A-religious or perhaps a-supernatural seem closer to the true intent.
But there are religious atheists, and atheists who believe in the supernatural.
ThatGirlAgain wrote:
Filthy Tugboat wrote:
ThatGirlAgain wrote:
EduChris wrote: Definitions can have multiple entries for the same word. Perhaps you would like to add a second entry to describe the limited and contingent gods of obsolete theisms. Contingent gods are so utterly and completely different than any non-contingent God that they simply cannot be described by the same definition--unless you want to define "God" so generically (e.g., an object of veneration or ultimate concern) that it would cover, say, science or money or power or popularity or pleasure (the common idols of our age).
Earlier on in this thread there was some discussion of not trying to define God/god but having atheism be essentially the denial of supernatural entities, of which God/gods are examples regardless of how they are defined. But I do feel that some atheists want to make the theological God into a non-supreme being, like maybe Apollo, thereby bypassing the issue of debating theology.
Some may want to do this. It doesn't really accomplish that goal though, it merely moves the debate to something with a more specific label. If God were defined in a way that includes all Gods, including contingent and non-contingent, the debate would still continue, people would just have to be more specific. Keeping the definition general and non-specific prevents confusion and limits assumptions.
Either make it more general – not religious and/or not supernatural – or more pertinent – the God of the theologians who claim to be supporting their religion.
Perhaps we leave it to mean several different things. Maybe there is no consensus as to what "God" actual means. When one calls themselves an atheist they may be rejecting many different concepts and "types" of Gods.
ThatGirlAgain wrote:Debunking Apollo or any of the other gods of history does not do a thing to debunk the Gods of contemporary western religions.
I never suggested that it did? Do you think the debate and discussion of Gods should be restricted to the notion of "Debunking"?
ThatGirlAgain wrote:Insisting on including Apollo smells a lot like wanting to make the atheist argument easier by avoiding addressing the theist counter-arguments.
Do you think that I am trying to do this? I don't recall acting in this way on this forum before, I don't see why someone would think I am trying to do that now. I simply thought this thread was dedicated to defining the term God while simultaneously removing any arbitrary attributes, defining the most basic and general God concept. If an attribute is applied that excludes some God concepts then this definition has not been reached as per the intention of the thread. Perhaps I missed the whole point though.
ThatGirlAgain wrote:
Filthy Tugboat wrote:
EduChris wrote:
Filthy Tugboat wrote:...It wasn't your point when you stated, "and failed to capture any viability for the limited gods of obsolete polytheisms." Your point here was to demonstrate that the definition I supplied did not fill this criteria, to which I ask, why should this criteria be fulfilled? This criteria was never something I proposed nor agreed to...
You keep on insisting (against the stated intention of the OP) that such "gods" need to be included in the definition, and yet 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
Are the limits arbitrary though? The Lesser Gods portrayed in Hinduism are limited in many capacities but their limitations aren't necessarily arbitrary, no more-so than our own.
The lesser gods in Hinduism are not independent. Ultimately they are all Brahman, as is everything.
Indeed but they are still different to us. We can say that they are all Brahman in the same sense we can say that we are all Brahman but that's just an out that removes any discussion of divine purpose and meaning that is reflected within the Hindu scriptures. They are most definitely viewed as divine while humans are not. They are still considered Gods separate to each other and to Brahman in the same sense that humans are separate to each other and separate to Brahman. I don't think falling back on, "everything is Brahman" is a reason to exclude them from the definition of "Gods".
ThatGirlAgain wrote:
Within Hinduism a large number of personal gods (Ishvaras) are worshipped as murtis. These beings are either aspects of the supreme Brahman, Avatars of the supreme being, or significantly powerful entities known as devas. The exact nature of belief in regards to each deity varies between differing Hindu denominations and philosophies. Often these beings are depicted in humanoid or partially humanoid forms, complete with a set of unique and complex iconography in each case. These deities may be different but they are generally all considered forms of the one god (Brahman). These deities and their Pujas (religious rituals) provide one of the ways to communicate with this one divinity.
The devas are expansions of Brahman into various forms, each with a certain quality. In the Rig Veda 33 devas are described, which are personifications of phenomena in nature.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindu_deities

In Hinduism, a murti (Devanagari: मूर�ति), or murthi, or vigraha or pratima typically refers to an image which expresses a Divine Spirit (murta). Meaning literally "embodiment", a murti is a representation of a divinity, made usually of stone, wood, or metal, which serves as a means through which a divinity may be worshiped. Hindus consider a murti worthy of serving as a focus of divine worship only after the divine is invoked in it for the purpose of offering worship. The depiction of the divinity must reflect the gestures and proportions outlined in religious tradition. It is a means of communication with the god or Brahman in Hinduism. Murti is a Sanskrit term which is meant to point to the transcendent "otherness" of the divine and when substituted with statue or idol - its inherent meaning is lost since neither is a correct translation of the word murti.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murti
What of Devas? In the first link it expressly separates Devas from Aspects of Brahman and Avatars of Brahman.
ThatGirlAgain wrote:
Filthy Tugboat wrote:
ThatGirlAgain wrote:
EduChris wrote:
Filthy Tugboat wrote:
EduChris wrote:...The OP specifically rules out any consideration of limited, contingent "gods."
No it doesn't, it asks a question as to whether it should be ruled out...
I'll leave this to TGA, since this is her thread.
Whether or not there is a God – and I mean the God of e.g., Thomas Aquinas – is essential to the idea of religion having divine authority, at least in modern Western religions.
Indeed, should modern Western religions be the focus of the definition of God though? What of those that view Jesus as a demi-God rather than God himself? Should their views be excluded from the definition?
Those that view Jesus as a demi-God nonetheless have a non-contingent God above him without which their religion would be pointless. Rejecting Jesus in any form is not necessarily atheism.
I wasn't saying it was atheism, I was saying that to some people Jesus is a God figure separate to that of "God the father". Jesus under this view would be a contingent God and subsequently excluded from the definition, why? This seems arbitrary and pointless, maybe even counter-productive.
ThatGirlAgain wrote:As I said above, focusing on God is missing the point. But if you are going to focus on God you have to deal with the prevalent modern concepts of God.
There are many different modern God concepts and not all of them fit EduChris' definition.
ThatGirlAgain wrote:
EduChris wrote:Messing around with Apollo is pointless. If there are any Apollo believers around here this is not the sub-forum for them.
Why does that mean that [discussing] or [debating] Apollo is pointless? Does debate become pointless when the topic is of Gods that are no longer believed in or popular?
When the debate wants to discard all forms of God by debunking obsolete forms of god and avoiding modern concepts, it is suspect.
Would that be warranted even under the definition of God that allows for all God concepts? I think the conclusion you are reaching from what some people will do would be a logical fallacy anyway.
ThatGirlAgain wrote:Is modern science debunked because astrology and alchemy have gone by the wayside?
No, arguing such would be committing a logical fallacy even if astrology and alchemy were considered science it would still be a logical fallacy. This is exactly my point, allowing all God concepts into the definition does not make it easier to debunk and it does not mean all God concepts fall if one does.
ThatGirlAgain wrote:In theology, rejecting contingent deities is easy. What are the grounds for rejecting non-contingent deities? That is what a definition of God is trying to get at.
Are there any non-contingent deities? EduChris' proposed deity is easy to reject on the grounds of it not really meaningful, it's a vague concept and I neither gain nor lose anything by accepting or rejecting it. On top of that it hasn't been shown that any proposed God is logically necessary, only claims as to it's logical necessity.
Religion feels to me a little like a Nigerian Prince scam. The "offer" is illegitimate, the "request" is unreasonable and the source is dubious, in fact, Nigeria doesn't even have a royal family.

User avatar
AquinasD
Guru
Posts: 1802
Joined: Thu May 26, 2011 1:20 am
Contact:

Post #205

Post by AquinasD »

TheJackelantern wrote:It's the fact that everything is of existence, as in made of existence and follows the rules of existence....
You're equivocating at either one of two points.

What is existence? According to you, it is either "the set of everything which exists" or alternately "that entity which grounds the possibility of everything else's existence." (Assuming I have interpreted you correctly, which considering your strange and sometimes plain incorrect use of words, is a hefty assumption.)

First, you state that everything is "of" existence, i.e. everything is grounded in that thing which is existence. You also state that everything in existence follows the "rules of existence," which I would postulate that you mean that existence is this entity by which these rules are propagated.

But you also turn around and say everything is "made of existence," so here it is apparent that you want to identify that this existence entity is the same as the set of everything which exists; in other words, a monistic whole and simple. This is, as you would be right to infer, a more or less pantheistic conception.

The problem is that you have not demonstrated any line of reasoning that gets you from "There is an entity, existence, that grounds everything else in existence" to "This entity, existence, is everything else in existence."

You need to be a lot more careful in the construction of your own argument, and be much less apt to assume that the problem lies in your opponent's, aka me, lack of background knowledge. I have a decent amount of background knowledge, and I have no idea where you are coming from. It is apparent that you haven't gotten your ideas from any other philosophers or that you've even attempted to understand how your ideas relate to others'. Perhaps there is some Ayn Rand ("Existence exists" and all), which is what you would expect an otherwise unread person's extent of philosophical background to consist in.
consciousness can't exist without causation
A tendentious claim that, I am noting for the purposes of keeping this discussion in focus, you haven't begun to demonstrate, aside from throwing a lot more of the same hooplah which you also refuse to explain in terms that others would understand.
yes, everything has informational value and complexity
It appears you don't think that by "information" you mean "contingent." So, what again do you mean by "information?" Give me a definition and several examples of information in things.

The way you are using the word, it seems to be a catch-all argumentative MacGuffin that can be applied at any point in any argument to derive whatever conclusion you would like.
Ok, explain biochemistry, how your computer works, how snowflakes form, or how you managed to post that argument... You think it's magic? How much do you know about electromagnetism? Apparently not a whole lot.


This is, in the strictest sense, hooplah.

Do you understand what the words "necessary" and "contingent" mean?
Energy in science is equal to information..
It is? I haven't heard a single scientist propose such a thing.
energy =/= information = force = causation
Considering the way you use words in ways that no one else does, I reckon its nigh impossible I could understand what you mean here.
If you don't understand information science and information theory, I suggest you go back and read my posts on the subject.
Reading those again won't help, since I am seeking clarification about the concepts you brought up in those.
You can't answer them because doing so actually proves my point. Hence, you can't do anything without actually proving the point being made. That includes your ability to sit there and contemplate it all.
This seems to me how your argumentative strategy runs;

1) Use a bunch of nifty scientific sounding words in ways that no one else does
2) Refuse to give working definitions of those words or at least conform to the way everyone else speaks about the concepts being spoken of
3) Tell my opponent he has lost the debate because I won't clarify

I am trying much harder to understand your position in this than I need to. Unless you are actually interested in attempting to communicate your ideas in a manner conciliatory to the mode of discussion, there's really no reason for me to keep trying.

TheJackelantern
Under Probation
Posts: 772
Joined: Mon Jan 02, 2012 2:48 am

Post #206

Post by TheJackelantern »

What is existence? According to you, it is either "the set of everything which exists" or alternately "that entity which grounds the possibility of everything else's existence." (Assuming I have interpreted you correctly, which considering your strange and sometimes plain incorrect use of words, is a hefty assumption.)
It's literally everything. It's the totality of all there is.. You can also look up reality..
You're equivocating at either one of two points.
Prove it.. post without existence, being in or of existence. Try posting without needing information, or informational value.. If you can do that, you might win a cookie here.
which considering your strange and sometimes plain incorrect use of words, is a hefty assumption.)
Then you should have no problem replying without information or existence
First, you state that everything is "of" existence, i.e. everything is grounded in that thing which is existence.
Yep, even a 5 year old can understand that anything existence is in and of existence.
which I would postulate that you mean that existence is this entity by which these rules are propagated.
If you are existent, that would make sense my friend. It's not rocket science.
But you also turn around and say everything is "made of existence,"
Makes sense..
The problem is that you have not demonstrated any line of reasoning that gets you from "There is an entity, existence, that grounds everything else in existence" to "This entity, existence, is everything else in existence."
Yep, existence is literally the totality of everything to which include you kiddo. Not hard to comprehend.
A tendentious claim that, I am noting for the purposes of keeping this discussion in focus, you haven't begun to demonstrate, aside from throwing a lot more of the same hooplah which you also refuse to explain in terms that others would understand.
The terms I am using are terms a 5 year old can understand. IF you can't understand the terms being used, they do make dictionaries... Here, let me help you:

Existence is synonymous with reality:
re·al·i·ty (r-l-t)
n. pl. re·al·i·ties
1. The quality or state of being actual or true.
2. One, such as a person, an entity, or an event, that is actual: "the weight of history and political realities" (Benno C. Schmidt, Jr.)
3. The totality of all things possessing actuality, existence, and essence.
4. That which exists objectively and in fact:

ex·is·tence (g-zstns)
n.
1. The fact or state of existing; being.
2. The fact or state of continued being; life: our brief existence on Earth.
3.
a. The totality of all that exists:
b. A thing that exists; an entity.

Wiki:
Existence has been variously defined by sources. In common usage, it is the world we are aware of through our senses, and that persists independently without them. Others define it as every thing that is. Ontology is the philosophical study of the nature of being, existence or reality in general, as well as of the basic categories of being and their relation
If you exist, you are an entity of existence (reality). This that which also makes up the entirety of the essence of your being.
It appears you don't think that by "information" you mean "contingent." So, what again do you mean by "information?" Give me a definition and several examples of information in things.
I've outlined it several times already.. You can feel free to attempt to make that argument from a position of no-information, or informational value.
Do you understand what the words "necessary" and "contingent" mean?
Do you understand what information is? Quite necessary be conscious.. Do you understand what reality is? It's quite necessary for you to be apart of reality if you are to be existent at all.
It is? I haven't heard a single scientist propose such a thing.
They have.. It's called information science, information theory, digital physics.. Information literally deals with every aspect of our existence.. In science son, energy is information as both substance and value. They are two sides of the same coin. Energy is not only the capacity of information and force to causation.
Considering the way you use words in ways that no one else does, I reckon its nigh impossible I could understand what you mean here.
Intentional ignorance is always a good trolling tool. I'm surprised you are conscious at all.
Reading those again won't help, since I am seeking clarification about the concepts you brought up in those.
Intellectual laziness is not impressive either.
1) Use a bunch of nifty scientific sounding words in ways that no one else does

Yep..., Nifty.. !
2) Refuse to give working definitions of those words or at least conform to the way everyone else speaks about the concepts being spoken of
There is this thing called a dictionary. Usually smart people know basic common words like "existence", but sometimes we need to help out the slower folks by having to post the definitions for them.
3) Tell my opponent he has lost the debate because I won't clarify
Tell me why my opponent is intellectually lazy and sees the need to play a game of intentional ignorance... Nothing like baiting for circular arguments and dishonest discourse! Maybe my opponent can try from a position of non-existence ??

Flail

Post #207

Post by Flail »

ThatGirlAgain wrote:
EduChris wrote:
ThatGirlAgain wrote:...A definition of what it is that atheists do not believe in is what this thread is all about. What is that definition? If we are going settle on 'supernatural beings', i.e., beings not accounted for by the laws of the natural world, then fine. I like that idea...
By definition, anything beyond our universe (e.g., your "omniverse generating system") would not be accounted for by the laws of our universe. Do you regard your "omniverse generating system" as "supernatural"?
As I have said many times, the omniverse generating system is logic itself. That which can be, is. Everything else follows from that simple and likely sounding assumption. Everything is natural. There is no supernatural.
Who was Jesus do you think? How was He born and did he ascend?

User avatar
SailingCyclops
Site Supporter
Posts: 1453
Joined: Fri Jul 09, 2010 5:02 pm
Location: New York City
Been thanked: 1 time

Re: Minimum Attributes of God

Post #208

Post by SailingCyclops »

EduChris wrote:God is the simplest possible non-contingent reality, possessing no arbitrary limitations regarding knowledge, spatio-temporality, or causal efficacy."
Your definition is meaningless word salad, nonsense, and attempts to redefine the English language, as well as defy logic. Let be explain:

1) "non-contingent reality":

reality |rēˈalətē|
noun
1 -- the world or the state of things as they actually exist


Reality, by definition, is contingent on “actual existence�. “non-contingent reality� is meaningless word salad.

2) "arbitrary limitations regarding knowledge":

arbitrary |ˈärbiˌtrerē|
adjective
1 -- based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system


knowledge |ˈnälij|
noun
1 -- facts, information, and skills acquired by a person through experience or education

“arbitrary limitations regarding knowledge� is more meaningless word salad. There are no “arbitrary limitations�, by definition, knowledge is limited to information we have acquired.

3) "arbitrary limitations regarding spatio-temporality".

There are no arbitrary limitations regarding space and time. More meaningless word salad. We understand space/time, the way space/time functions/exists is not arbitrarily limited, they are limited (defined) by the laws of physics.

4) "arbitrary limitations regarding causal efficacy":

causal |ˈkôzəl|
adjective
of, relating to, or acting as a cause

efficacy |ˈefikəsē|
noun
the ability to produce a desired or intended result


More meaningless word salad. Cause and effect are not arbitrarily limited. Effect depends on (is limited by) the cause.

In reality, your very definition defines something which is impossible to exist.

Bob

Religion flies you into buildings, Science flies you to the moon.
If we believe absurdities, we shall commit atrocities -- Voltaire
Bless us and save us, said Mrs. O'Davis

User avatar
SailingCyclops
Site Supporter
Posts: 1453
Joined: Fri Jul 09, 2010 5:02 pm
Location: New York City
Been thanked: 1 time

Re: Minimum Attributes of God

Post #209

Post by SailingCyclops »

ThatGirlAgain wrote:Anyone disagree with this as the minimal definition?
Yes, see my post above as to why that particular god, defined that way, can not exist.

Bob

Religion flies you into buildings, Science flies you to the moon.
If we believe absurdities, we shall commit atrocities -- Voltaire
Bless us and save us, said Mrs. O'Davis

User avatar
EduChris
Prodigy
Posts: 4615
Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2010 4:34 pm
Location: U.S.A.
Contact:

Post #210

Post by EduChris »

ThatGirlAgain wrote:...the omniverse generating system is logic itself. That which can be, is. Everything else follows from that simple and likely sounding assumption. Everything is natural. There is no supernatural.
Are you saying that logic is a causal mechanism? If so, how do you support this claim? If not, what is your causal mechanism?

Post Reply