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?

[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?

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.

Perhaps someone else has evidence with which to support this claim.

[EduChris]

...Volition as we know it is something that exists within causality, space, time...Thus while you use the word "volition" to me it appears that what you really mean is "magic'...

According to physicists Henry Stapp and Geoffrey Chew of the University of Berkeley, "Everything we [now] know about nature is in accord with the idea that the fundamental process of nature lies outside space-time, but generates events that can be located within space-time" (from Huston Smith's, Why Religion Matters, p. 176).

[Filthy Tugboat]

...Volition as we know it is something that exists within causality, space, time...Thus while you use the word "volition" to me it appears that what you really mean is "magic'...

According to physicists Henry Stapp and Geoffrey Chew of the University of Berkeley, "Everything we [now] know about nature is in accord with the idea that the fundamental process of nature lies outside space-time, but generates events that can be located within space-time" (from Huston Smith's, Why Religion Matters, p. 176).

It may be in accord with the idea, that doesn't mean the idea is true. I'm sure there are many potential theories that could be provided that are in sync with our scientific understanding, that doesn't make them reasonable, they need evidence in support.

[Janx]

...Volition as we know it is something that exists within causality, space, time...Thus while you use the word "volition" to me it appears that what you really mean is "magic'...

According to physicists Henry Stapp and Geoffrey Chew of the University of Berkeley, "Everything we [now] know about nature is in accord with the idea that the fundamental process of nature lies outside space-time, but generates events that can be located within space-time" (from Huston Smith's, Why Religion Matters, p. 176).

Fantastic! Can't argue against that.

What does this have to do with placing the process of volition outside of space-time and causality...?

[Janx]

...Volition as we know it is something that exists within causality, space, time...Thus while you use the word "volition" to me it appears that what you really mean is "magic'...

According to physicists Henry Stapp and Geoffrey Chew of the University of Berkeley, "Everything we [now] know about nature is in accord with the idea that the fundamental process of nature lies outside space-time, but generates events that can be located within space-time" (from Huston Smith's, Why Religion Matters, p. 176).

Fantastic! Can't argue against that.

What does this have to do with placing the process of volition outside of space-time and causality...?

Hi Chris,

...and what I mean by this is that all evidence points to the fact that our minds ARE manifestations within space-time. Stapp's word's don't contradict this nor reveal that volition can function outside of space-time.

On top of this you still have to deal with explaining how volition functions without arbitrary causal limits. I understand this as having no limits on possible contingent outcomes from one's discretion AND having having no limits on one's discretion. Unlimited discretion and capacity to act leaves us with unlimited possibilities from which one must be chosen; but how? Without causality choice is irrational (without reason) this would make it either random or necessary. If random, it's not volition and if necessary, there are arbitrary limits.

Cheers

[EduChris]

...Unlimited discretion and capacity to act leaves us with unlimited possibilities from which one must be chosen; but how?...

Volition entails nothing more than selectivity based on some value--and value might inhere in the object's actualization (as opposed to its mere envisioning) or it might equally be conferred by virtue of the choice to actualize one over another (or some over others).

[TheJackelantern]

Volition entails nothing more than selectivity based on some value--and value might inhere in the object's actualization (as opposed to its mere envisioning) or it might equally be conferred by virtue of the choice to actualize one over another (or some over others).

Volition entails first a conscious state before the possibility of the processing and weighing of information from a source of inquiry to which can allow volition, or the emergence of a choice or decision.... Your argument fails entirely here. Again consciousness can't exist without cause.. Once you figure this out, you might catch on as to why your argument is false. This brings us back to square one..

Please tell me the difference between a rock, and something that has a conscious state.

I love how he continues to ignore this...

[Janx]

...Unlimited discretion and capacity to act leaves us with unlimited possibilities from which one must be chosen; but how?...

Volition entails nothing more than selectivity based on some value--and value might inhere in the object's actualization (as opposed to its mere envisioning) or it might equally be conferred by virtue of the choice to actualize one over another (or some over others).

Agreed Chris but this does nothing to dispel my challenge.

In human beings value is motivated by our feelings. Knowledge and reason alone are not enough to make choices. We require an emotional stimulus to value one thing above another. Emotions are shaped by our genes, circumstance and life experience. As such our choices are never completely arbitrary but anchored in causality.

If God valued his choice to actualize our world there would need to be a reason and motive for such an inclination. I don't know what type of stimuli effects a God but having an inclination would violate freedom from arbitrary causal restrictions would it not?

Further, this God has no arbitrary restriction of time and space which makes actualization impossible for there is no past, present or future in such a state. Value comes from a limit of resources such as time, energy and space. If all is possible and time is not an issue then there can be no choice because all that can be is.

The attributes of your God make volition impossible.

[EduChris]

...If God valued his choice to actualize our world there would need to be a reason and motive for such an inclination...The attributes of your God make volition impossible.

If part of God's nature involves creativity, then it would seem that God would find a way to be creative. Initiating a universe which could take an active role in creating its own future would seem to be a highly creative endeavor.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 259:

If...it would seem...

That doesn't build confidence in the notion you propose.

Initiating a universe which could take an active role in creating its own future would seem to be a highly creative endeavor.

The only creativity I see on display is one's ability to "if" nigh on any scenario into 'existence'.

Why the need to "if" these scenarios? Because the god concept is built on that which we do not know.