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?

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 238:

...to propose one has found a "true" god is as goofy as me claiming I'm it...Further, calling anothers' gods "superstitious idols" is the very epitome of the pot calling the kettle black.

The Jewish tradition was the first to posit the notion of a non-contingent God.

So you say, from your Christian perspective.

Being first doesn't necessarily prove that one is correct in all other respects, but this idea of one non-contingent deity did eventually win the day, as non-contingent gods have subsequently proven unable to retain the allegiance of any significant number of thoughtful, educated people.

Notice EduChris is otherwise quite capable of debating whether another religion considers their god contingent or not.

What's missing from his response though?

I'll go on and tell ya - any reference whatsoever of showing the god in question is anything beyond a concept.

Thus we see, the theist can full well debate within the concept, but are utterly incapable of showing that concept to point to anything real - contingent or not.

"Thoughtful, educated people" indicates to me EduChris will reject any and all notions regarding this concept that do not line up with his self-professed "educated Christian" stance. IOW, his guess as to the properties of this god - which can't be shown to exist - are as good as any 'uneducated' person who comes along.

Beyond the argumentum ad populum, there is no way we can confirm this god being contingent or not contingent, we are bound to the premise/s set forth by each individual interpretation of the god, the holy text ascribed to this god and perhaps the level of "education" one is willing to accept of those who study that which can't be shown to even exist, much less to possess various claimed properties.

Thus we see the god concept in action - a complete and utter failure to offer any means of confirmation beyond one's own incredulity. It is one huge empty warehouse which contains our lack of confirmable knowledge. It always has been, it always will be.

[Flail]

...Assuming a single, necessary, non-contingent, first cause being...how do you get from that assumption to BibleGod?....;or is BibleGod just the first best guess?

There is no way to demonstrate conclusively that the God of the Bible provides the end-all-be-all-absolutely-correct account of the "logically necessary volitional ultimate reality." We are not talking about proof here, but about options, about explanatory scope, internal coherence, general congruence with other scholarly disciplines.

What we do is examine all of the available options, under the assumption that VUR (volitional ultimate reality) has communicated something of itself to us. I believe that Islam can be eliminated from the mix fairly quickly, since it is obviously derivative and based on oral developments of Judaism and Christianity (which is inconsistent with the Qur'an's claims about itself). After that, the others (Hinduism, some forms of Buddhism, Judaism, and Christianity) all offer something of value, but Christianity's doctrine of the Trinity best explains the intrinsic relationality that would seem necessary in order for VUR to be anything more than a perfectly solitary solipcist. And the incarnation, life, death, and resurrection of God in Jesus provides the best hope for a God who understands us, cares about us, and provides for us the example and the hope of life overcoming death.

Fine if you want to live a 'settled for' idea about God. Is it not just as likely that the non-contingent VUR has not yet communicated anything of itself to us? Why jump to un-evidenced conclusions? Why add the BibleGod specifics to your worldview? Do you find it necessary to be 'saved'?

[TheJackelantern]

The Jewish tradition was the first to posit the notion of a non-contingent God.

That can only be a Pantheist GOD.. Sorry, but existence requires nothing but itself, and definitely doesn't need your idea of a GOD..

Since we have no good evidence for their existence, and since they "are not a part of necessary reality," we may simply refer to them as superstitions.

See above... Your GOD concept is nothing other than a superstition. Do tell us how existence itself needs your GOD to exist when it would be exactly the opposite.. I tell ya what, when you can explain to all of us how your GOD concept can design and create existence itself and it's rules from a position of non-existence, and so itself can exist..You let me know.. Sorry kiddo, but the only contingent deity proven is the Pantheist GOD, and are you saying the Pantheist's GOD is a myth?

I think you actually need to concede and stop ignoring everyone's points and arguments while continuously, and mindlessly rehashing your belief that your deity is magically contingent when it's not.. You lost this debate a long time ago, especially in the face of Pantheism, and why a consciousness can't exist without cause.. You are dismissed, and so is your proven to be mythical deity.

There is no way to demonstrate conclusively that the God of the Bible provides the end-all-be-all-absolutely-correct account of the "logically necessary volitional ultimate reality." We are not talking about proof here, but about options, about explanatory scope, internal coherence, general congruence with other scholarly disciplines.

Volition can't exist without cause.. Please try again... Please try again without existence and see where that gets you. You are severely debunked here son, and seeing you repeat something already debunked 100's of times is getting pretty sad. Yous seriously think that repeating your logical fallacy will magically make it true.. I think you need to repeat it in order to ignore the reality that it's a proven fallacy. Your argument rests with this word:

Pratt:

A point refuted a thousand times, commonly abbreviated as PRATT, is a common phrase on internet forums where debates have a tendency to go in circles. Once people have refuted a point the first thousand times, it's hard for them to muster the motivation to do it again. Once someone has labeled an argument a PRATT, that usually means they have no interest in discussing it.

The website talk.origins acts as a repository of PRATTs commonly used by creationists, and presents (usually in great detail) their refutations and science behind them. The site is a good starting point when facing a PRATT.

Hence, this discussion is over because it was already won several times over.

[Janx]

...If not "God's" what should we call supper or omni-beings that are not a part of necessary reality...

Since we have no good evidence for their existence, and since they "are not a part of necessary reality," we may simply refer to them as superstitions.

...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...

Whatever exists beyond our universe will necessarily seem foreign to us in some respects. The question is, what is more reasonable to accept as a working hypothesis: 1) a tautological argument that assumes the consequent, relies on arbitrary assumptions, faces insuperable prima facie obstacles, and offers no epistemically justified explanation; or 2) a volitional, mind-like necessary reality which offers an epistemically justified explanation for our universe and our selves?

Either option involves a stretch, but as rational people we have an obligation to pursue the only possible epistemically justified explanation, which is theism.

Chris,

Volition as we know it is something that exists within causality, space, time and a limited resource of knowledge. I don't see volition working as the "first cause" because that would make the whole concept irrational. Thus while you use the word "volition" to me it appears that what you really mean is "magic'.

You claim that volition gives us a entomological grounding for this universe, but I fail to see this. You've yet to show me a logical reason for God to exist (unless I missed this, in which case I apologize).

Cheers sir

[EduChris]

...Fine if you want to live a 'settled for' idea about God...

"Settled" ideas of God would entail that humans can have "settled" ideas about anything. This we cannot do, since our plausibility structures change with every passing generation. The ideas of past generations ever and always must be interpreted and revised to fit the plausibility structures our present culture provides.

...Is it not just as likely that the non-contingent VUR has not yet communicated anything of itself to us?...

That is always a possibility, but mere possibilities should not suffice to choke off ongoing investigations--and besides, once theism is realized as the only rational metaphysical option, the possibility or likelihood of divine communication becomes a part of our plausibility structures.

...Why jump to un-evidenced conclusions? Why add the BibleGod specifics to your worldview?...

What appears to be a lack of evidence (given non-theistic metaphysical presuppositions) becomes an abundance of evidence given theistic metaphysical presuppositions. But most of this evidence tends to be on the subjective end of the spectrum.

...Do you find it necessary to be 'saved'?

Depends on what you mean by "saved." If you are using in the fundamentalist sense that mere assent to mental propositions provides a ticket out of an otherwise inevitable eternal torment, then no--neither I nor the majority of Christians believe any such thing. But do I believe that it is possible to throw one's life away by wrong attitudes, wrong presuppositions, and wrong behaviors; we all need to be saved from that sort of waste. To the extent that any faith tradition can move us away from waste and toward a fuller sense of life and love and service, that faith tradition plays a role in God's creative purpose.

[EduChris]

...a complete and utter failure to offer any means of confirmation beyond one's own incredulity. It is one huge empty warehouse which contains our lack of confirmable knowledge. It always has been, it always will be.

Joey, as soon as you provide some compelling empirical evidence for TGA's tautological non-theistic non-explanation, that will be the day that anyone will have good reason to pay attention to your arbitrarily selective brand of "truth-nazism."

[micatala]

...a complete and utter failure to offer any means of confirmation beyond one's own incredulity. It is one huge empty warehouse which contains our lack of confirmable knowledge. It always has been, it always will be.

Joey, as soon as you provide some compelling empirical evidence for TGA's tautological non-theistic non-explanation, that will be the day that anyone will have good reason to pay attention to your arbitrarily selective brand of "truth-nazism."

Moderator Warning


It is hard to see such a comparison to nazis as anything but inflammatory and uncivil. It is certainly quite unnecessary.


Please review our Rules.

______________

Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[Fuzzy Dunlop]

The Jewish tradition was the first to posit the notion of a non-contingent God.

Do you have evidence with which to support this claim?

[EduChris]

The Jewish tradition was the first to posit the notion of a non-contingent God.

Do you have evidence with which to support this claim?

Yes, but none that you would be willing to accept.

For others, one good source would be Nahum Sarna's, Understanding Genesis, pp. xxviii - xxx.

[SailingCyclops]

It is where we place all our 'vexing' questions ...

Right! The definition of god is "Ignorance Bucket". Where we, as a backwards, superstitious species, say "we don't know the answer to that, so some goddidit!

Bob