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?

[AquinasD]

Freedom, justice, rights, duties .... are philosophical questions, while the existence of a god, like the existence of everything else in the universe, is a scientific question.

What of the existence of life? Or numbers? Does my belief that "Bob Dylan is a horrible singer" have some sort of existence? Do tables exist? Do moral values have existence? Does existence exist?

What about something's "existence" implies that it can be known to exist, or not, through the scientific method?

[SailingCyclops]

What of the existence of life?

Living things exist. The biosphere (all that is alive) exists.

numbers?

Numbers are a tool which represent things. They have no existence in and of themselves. The number one is essentially meaningless, one apple exists. Is this so hard to comprehend?

my belief that "Bob Dylan is a horrible singer" have some sort of existence?

Of course not, that's only your opinion, your belief, your thought. Thoughts are an electro-chemical process which takes place in a brain.

DO tables exist?

Kitchen tables exist, mathematical tables have no inherent existence, the "stuff" they represent may exist.

Do moral values have existence?

Nope. Moral values are philosophical judgements. They have no existence in and of themselves.

Does existence exist?

Surely you realize, existence is a description of a "state". Descriptions do not exist, the things described exists. Ever take a basic English course?

about something's "existence" implies that it can be known to exist, or not, through the scientific method?

Yes, something exists if it can be observed, tested, detected, ....... That's how we know Santa Clause does not exist, but the moon does exist. Pretty simple really.

Bob

[TheJackelantern]

Surely you realize, existence is a description of a "state". Descriptions do not exist, the things described exists. Ever take a basic English course?

The descriptions do exist as descriptions. That's still a pattern of information to describe another. Other than this, I agree with most of your post above

[AquinasD]

Surely you realize, existence is a description of a "state". Descriptions do not exist, the things described exists. Ever take a basic English course?

Whatever happened to your claim that "If you state that something exists, then science is the only discipline capable of proving or disprove it's existence?" You didn't use science to ascertain your claims about numbers, beliefs, and the like. In fact, you were using philosophy to ascertain their existence.

Yes, something exists if it can be observed, tested, detected, ....... That's how we know Santa Clause does not exist, but the moon does exist. Pretty simple really.

Do observations, tests, and detections exist?

[TheJackelantern]

Do observations, tests, and detections exist?

Observation is an action / process. Tests are also actions and processes. And detections are as well. yes they exist in their proper context. In fact, anything you can think of exists at least as an idea, or object of the imagination regardless if it's fallacious, a logical fallacy, or a reflection in relation to an observation of what actually exists beyond the concept, idea, or thought.

Example:

The Abraham GOD exists as an Idea, a character in a book, art work, a pattern of information, and object of the imagination, media, or belief.

And the question is if that concept, or GOD actually exists beyond just being a character in a book, an imagined being, a toss salad of letters in the alphabet, or piece of art work... And that will require to to be a tangible thing beyond this. Hence, we can define real for you:

re·al, real/ˈrē(ə)l/, /r�ˈäl/
Adjective:
Actually existing as a thing or occurring in fact; not imagined or supposed: "Julius Caesar was a real person".

Synonyms:

adjective. actual - true - genuine - veritable - virtual - factual

noun. reality

Note that things of the imagination are not considered real because they don't exist outside that context. Hence they have no real relevance other than just an imagined thing, object, person, or place. But you can say the imagined thing, object, person, or place are real imagined things in the context that it's just an object of the imagination and nothing more unless proven otherwise.

Thus prove to me that a 90 billion eye dirty underwear monster really exists.

Whatever happened to your claim that "If you state that something exists, then science is the only discipline capable of proving or disprove it's existence?" You didn't use science to ascertain your claims about numbers, beliefs, and the like. In fact, you were using philosophy to ascertain their existence.

Science is the only way to prove somethings existence. Do tell us how you established proof of somethings existence without empirical evidence that actually proves it. Hence, how did you substantiate the actual existence of your supposed deity sir?

Sorry, but faith proves nothing... religious Faith is 100 percent pure assumption. The only thing that is unobservable is non-existence since it doesn't exist.. Anything of existence will be subject to observability. This doesn't mean we humans are capable of observing everything since there are obvious limits to our ability to do so. We can't see into a blackhole as see what it's like. However, the only way to truly prove what it's like in the black hole is through scientific discipline and observation.

[otseng]

Tell me why my opponent is intellectually lazy and sees the need to play a game of intentional ignorance.

Moderator Comment

Please avoid describing others as "ntellectually lazy" and playing games of "intentional ignorance".

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster.

[SailingCyclops]

The descriptions do exist as descriptions. That's still a pattern of information to describe another.

Are you implying that descriptions inherit the reality of the "real" thing described?

[TheJackelantern]

The descriptions do exist as descriptions. That's still a pattern of information to describe another.

Are you implying that descriptions inherit the reality of the "real" thing described?

No.. There is a difference between the 3rd party description and the object being described. All I am saying is that the description is a physical pattern of information that described another.. The full description of any object is of course the object itself in it's entirety. This to which includes all the information that makes up the object itself. So there is a difference between an image of a rock, and the rock itself. The picture is still existent as a physical thing. Even the concept of the term "description" is a physically existing pattern of information.. And the best way to understand this for many is understanding how your computer works. It works exactly the same way.

Moderator Comment

Please avoid describing others as "ntellectually lazy" and playing games of "intentional ignorance".

Please review the Rules.

I was demonstrating the fallacious use of dogma he used in his own post to show him how useless such dogma is :/. Whether or not he's intellectually lazy is another thing all together.

[Janx]

...What is the bare minimum of attributes that is required to deserve the label God?...

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.

Given this bare definition, it seems to me that the claims and complaints of the so-called "igtheists" are themselves incoherent.

Prior to accepting these minimal attributes of a God I have two issue to resolve:

a) Contingent God-like beings would not qualify as Gods. If not "God's" what should we call supper or omni-beings that are not a part of necessary reality.

b) The property of having no arbitrary limitations regarding knowledge, time, space and causal efficacy is irrational to me. My understanding of a mind (and the will associated with it) are rooted within our space-time causal material world. A much shorter description of this being would be "magical" because that term holds about as much sense as a will unhinged from everything that we know a it to be.


So I'll give my own definition instead:

God is a magical being with accountability for the human condition.

Thoughts?

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 229:

...
God is a magical being with accountability for the human condition.

I render it down even more; God is a concept.

It is where we place all our 'vexing' questions and answers and totally devoid of any means of confirmation as to existence or properties, beyond those as expressed within the concept. It will always be a concept where all our unconfirmed 'knowledge' resides.