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?

[EduChris]

...When you boil that definition down, you get 'God is an eternal non-created being that is omniscient and omnipotent and not bound by time'...

"God is the simplest possible non-contingent reality, not arbitrarily limited in factual knowledge, not arbitrarily limited in the ability to cause contingent effects, and not arbitrarily limited by any dimensions of time and space."

That's about as simple as any minimalist definition can be--which is not to suggest that all theists and non-theists will be able to understand it.

[sleepyhead]

[Are you saying that all theists are smart enough to understand the nuances of scholarly theistic discourse? Or are you saying that you don't want to have to deal with a definition unless it is so simple that any and every theist, of whatever intellectual or educational background, can grasp it? And besides, who says that Sleepyhead is a theist? He doesn't subscribe to any theistic user groups.

fixed. I am now an absolote monotheist.

[Crazee]

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

I don't think anything should have the label of god. But that's not because I disapprove of the idea, it's because I would never want to say to someone "I believe in God".

To say so will create an infinite amount of assumptions about the sort of beliefs I hold. They might think I expect all gay people to burn in hell, or they might think that I take the bible literally (although "literally" is still just an interpretation).

When I asked earlier in one of my threads "what is god, what is not god" the consistent reply was "something supernatural". The atheists would argue that something supernatural is impossible and that's why they don't believe in god. The theists would argue that supernatural occurrences have happened and are evidence for god.

If anyone thinks I have misrepresented the atheist/theist view on the supernatural then please correct me.

So, when asked what the minimum qualities of god are, I would start by saying that I don't believe in supernatural occurrences.
Instead, I believe in an infinite amount of natural phenomena that we don't yet understand.

"Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited to all we know and understand, while imagination embraces the entire world, and all there ever will be to know and understand." -Einstein

How many times have our technological and societal advancements broken barriers that we thought were impossible. Have we not put people on the moon? Built ocean liners miles long?

I propose that nothing is impossible, it is only a matter of time+imagination that will let us figure out how to do anything. This "ability to do anything" that I refer to is what I think most people who believe in god would think of as god.

So, given these 3 points...
1) The universe will always exist
2) We will always exist
3) We have the ability to think of new ideas

I would say that we are god, or gods but still learning to use our abilities on an individual and cooperative level.

Another saying I like to use to sum it up: god is in our minds, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Obviously, point 2 is not supported by enough scientific evidence (yet) for it to be accepted by heavily science-minded people. But, there is a lot of (in my opinion) credible anecdotal evidence that our existence doesn't end at physical death. This comes not just from online research and in books, but from friends of mine.

In regards to point 1: it has been recently discovered by the top astronomers in the world that the expansion of the universe is accelerating. the implication of a (physical) universe that's expansion outwards is accelerating would imply that, at the very least, our universe will not cease to be any time soon. Either that, or it will continue on forever in time.

Hope that makes sense.

[JoeyKnothead]

Minimum attributes of God?

Unproven.

Definitions do not have to be proven. They just are. What is the definition of God you are using when you say you do not believe in God? Do you believe in zxcvbnm? How do you know unless I tell you what the word means?

I wasn't tryin' to just spam the thread with one-liners - even if danged if I didn't just sit there and do it. I hope folks take this one word response as the succinct, accurate conclusion I meant it to be - as it relates to the part of the OP in question.

I apply my above response to any god concept that can't be shown to be true. I consider it the minimum attribute of any god concept I'm aware of, if only in my opinion. (Which is kinda what I meant back there when I said consider )

That said, as this particular section of the site kinda centers on Christianity, I felt comfortable in not having to define a given god - though I fully understand the need to define such, that that's pretty much what the OP's getting at, before we can get to the understanding about the god in question there.

I wasn't just trying to be (overtly?) flippant about a serious OP, but merely wished to respond to a part of the OP I felt needed some responding to.

But about that whole notion of, "What does the god referred to in the god concept even mean", I'm with all of ya. I propose what it means is that some folks find themselves stumped regarding a given question or notion, and place such within the god concept. "God" or "god" or any spelling that refers to the god within the god concept is where so many of us put all the stuff for which we have no confirmable knowledge.

[Fuzzy Dunlop]

...those are a handful of the many characteristics of the god you believe in...

They are the minimally necessary characteristics, from which other characteristics may or may not derive. I am free to describe my wife as "a beautiful Ukrainian woman," and everyone who knows her will instantly agree with that definition. I do not need to go on to list the number of hairs on her head in order to be understood well enough.

Comparing an insignificant detail like that with the things you believe about your god is absurd. You believe in a Christian god. Don't define some hypothetical lowest common denominator god, define the god you actually believe in.

...You have a theist in this very thread stating that they could not understand your definition...

Are you saying that all theists are smart enough to understand the nuances of scholarly theistic discourse? Or are you saying that you don't want to have to deal with a definition unless it is so simple that any and every theist, of whatever intellectual or educational background, can grasp it? And besides, who says that Sleepyhead is a theist? He doesn't subscribe to any theistic user groups.

I am correcting your attempt to paint this as yet another deficiency of atheists. I am saying that you should try to be understandable and avoid needless obfuscation. I get the impression that you wish to be understood by as few people as possible and I think you could quite easily make yourself more clear, coherent, accessible and approachable. Perhaps you wouldn't be so constantly disappointed with the inadequacies of we atheists if you "dumbed things down" a bit more for out benefit.

...people believe in specific gods...

If you can eliminate the common core of today's major world theisms, then all the specifics will be instantly eliminated along with the common core. But if you cannot eliminate the common core, then you will have to allow for that common core whenever the various specifics become the focus of attention.

I prefer to take the specific claims as they come and see whether they are supported by evidence. I'll leave the unproven theological musings to the philosophers.

Am I to understand that "today's major world theisms" is your code phrase for something like "the unpopular ideas of a some modern theologians that are unknown to 99% of theists"?

...I cannot see the purpose to using words like "spatio-temporality" and "causal efficacy" when there are much more common ones that will do just as well...

If those "common" words would "do just as well," then I would be happy to use them. I reject them for the reason that they have become jargon--susceptible to multiple interpretations and mischief. My definition is more precise and less susceptible to mischief and misinterpretation.

Mischief? Throwing the "principle of charity" out the window, I see. I do not see how using a greater quantity of bigger words makes your definitions any less susceptible to misinterpretation. They serve as a barrier to any interpretation at all.

Do you know what "jargon" is? Because everyday words are not "jargon." "Spatio-temporality" and "causal efficacy," along with many of your other favourite phrases are jargon. Your posts are riddled with philosophical jargon, and this is a serious barrier to communication that you should want to take steps to address.

[catalyst]

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?

zxcvbnm appears to be a username on wiki. It also states that said user is male and said user resides in NYC.

Whether said user exists now as of today, it's unknown. What is known is said user existed up to and including: 13 November 2011 at 08:39. (last time the user zxcvbnm edited the wiki page.)

Also, as to the whole God thing, as far as I understand, there is supposedly only ONE god with the G capitalised. As such, anything "known" or attributed to that capital G model can be found in the christian bible and then it would only be relating to the Germanic (so I suppose, post Luther) bible editions....and it is a play on the word Gott. Obviously it roots further back, to a GOThic word gheu..).

Interestingly though the word God (capitalised G) itself is NOT based on any translation from Hebrew or Aramaic, even those using the God (Gott) thing, tends to claim it does. May have a lot to do with them trying to grab a back story from elsewhere to make their "bibleGod" (jesus) appear viable, if to no one but themselves.

Catalyst.

[AquinasD]

Just because the public in general has a poor grasp of quantum mechanics and probably couldn't define quantum phenomena they happen to know something about, it doesn't thereby follow that there couldn't be a better definition and explanation of quantum mechanics than the public in general could give.

That said, a studied theologian should tell you that a "definition" of God is notoriously hard to pin down. However, just about everyone has a general idea about what should and shouldn't be considered God. I think this is because our idea of God is accessed by certain principles. So, for example, everyone understands that the "grounds of being" will be God. Or else, God is that which everything is founded on.

The "minimum attributes" will be whatever follows from one of those principles, though there could be more principles to our knowledge about God.

[catalyst]

Just because the public in general has a poor grasp of quantum mechanics and probably couldn't define quantum phenomena they happen to know something about, it doesn't thereby follow that there couldn't be a better definition and explanation of quantum mechanics than the public in general could give.

That said, a studied theologian should tell you that a "definition" of God is notoriously hard to pin down. However, just about everyone has a general idea about what should and shouldn't be considered God. I think this is because our idea of God is accessed by certain principles. So, for example, everyone understands that the "grounds of being" will be God. Or else, God is that which everything is founded on.

The "minimum attributes" will be whatever follows from one of those principles, though there could be more principles to our knowledge about God.

AquinasD

Interesting reply and one I quite enjoyed reading.

BUT, your example of bringing the topic of quantum (anything) into the equation, doesn't really help. There aren't millions of people (physics missionaries..perhaps??) running around to far flung places in the world with a physics book in hand, claiming that it is essential for EVERYONE they cross paths with MUST KNOW physics. Even in highschools, physics is an elective, rather than a MUST.

On the other hand, there ARE millions of christian missionaries running around far flung places, with bible in hand, claiming that it is essential for EVERYONE they cross paths with, MUST KNOW GOD - and worse; the ones doing the missionary work more often than not are NOT studied theologians, so therefore make claims in their "sell" they they DO personally KNOW GOD and palm off onto others, probable misconceptions even utter lies of what capital G god, (supposedly)"is".



What is further interesting to note, is even multiple people on here, with their self-professed christianity badge stuck to them, don't seem to agree on what their God is or isn't.. so much so many an interaction has resulted in verbal/written "fisty-cuffs".

to this:

So, for example, everyone understands that the "grounds of being" will be God. Or else, God is that which everything is founded on.

I don't understand nor agree with either of your assumed "principles" there, AquinasD, but I am not going with a "god did it all" mindset as you are. Please stop with the blanket statements: ie: don't use the term EVERYONE.

AFAIC the "god" (capitalised or not) concept is grounded on what people long ago thought about, that they knew they personally had no part in, happening. (thunder, lightning, rain, sunshine..etc). That is why other god models existed in inquisitive minds LONG prior to the capital G god model, you personally believe in. The god concept in that case is grounded on THOUGHT only, rather than any actual reality.

Catalyst.

[nejisan]

Thank you goat,

I didn't understand educhris's definition.

>>>When you boil that definition down, you get 'God is an eternal non-created being that is omniscient and omnipotent and not bound by time'. <<<

I think the basic definition would be God is eternal. How this God came to be would merely be speculation. I see no reason to claim omniscient, omnipotent, and no bound by time. To claim he's omniscient would contradict the concept of free will. omnipotent means that he can create a rock that he couldn't move. We don't know that it's possible for anyone including God to go back in time.

To the basic definition I would be willing to include that he exerts an influence (instinct) over all living creatures.

It does not seem sufficient for any atheist to say “I don’t believe anything eternal�. One speculative school of physics is that this universe came about as a sort of bubble in an infinite sea of universe stuff. A scientist who is also an atheist may like that idea very much.

I do agree that various features such as omniscience etc. should not be part of the basic definition. They may or may not follow from consideration of the necessary nature of God, but on could be a believer and not hold that God knows the future. But I still like the first part of the original definition given by EduChris.

…the necessary reality which undergirds the contingent reality of our universe and our selves.

Many atheists DO hold this position. Scientists, like Dawkins, have said such things as the "universe does not owe you hope" while referring to the eventual "heat death" of the universe. For you to say this position is inferior or insufficient is to define atheism. On what grounds or authority can you possibly make such a statement?

I'm starting a new thread. I'd like to see evidence of something eternal.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 38:

BUT, your example of bringing the topic of quantum (anything) into the equation, doesn't really help. There aren't millions of people (physics missionaries..perhaps??) running around to far flung places in the world with a physics book in hand, claiming that it is essential for EVERYONE they cross paths with MUST KNOW physics. Even in highschools, physics is an elective, rather than a MUST.

On the other hand, there ARE millions of christian missionaries running around far flung places, with bible in hand, claiming that it is essential for EVERYONE they cross paths with, MUST KNOW GOD - and worse; the ones doing the missionary work more often than not are NOT studied theologians, so therefore make claims in their "sell" they they DO personally KNOW GOD and palm off onto others, probable misconceptions even utter lies of what capital G god, (supposedly)"is".

This really hits at the heart of the matter for me. Of course some scientific notions are presented as rather "do or die", even enforced by various governments. Can we really know if these scientists are correct? Typically they'll present data that we can at least examine - even if conclusions are wrong.

But what of theistic notions, and theistic "dangit ya do thises"? Typically we have no real data, no real means of confirmation of conclusions beyond our "heartfelt and honest 'gut feelings'" - devoid of any real data with which to study. Such data is typically of the form I believe.

What is further interesting to note, is even multiple people on here, with their self-professed christianity badge stuck to them, don't seem to agree on what their God is or isn't.. so much so many an interaction has resulted in verbal/written "fisty-cuffs".

This is why I contend the god concept is there for every bit of that which we either don't know, or can't confirm.

So, for example, everyone understands that the "grounds of being" will be God. Or else, God is that which everything is founded on.

I don't understand nor agree with either of your assumed "principles" there, AquinasD, but I am not going with a "god did it all" mindset.

Notice there's rather a bald assertion that "god is that which everything is founded on". As a mere definition I don't see it being too problematic. But just you wait till folk start telling you what this god prefers us to be a-doin'.

AFAIC the "god" (capitalised or not) concept is grounded on what people long ago thought about, that they knew they personally had no part in, happening. (thunder, lightning, rain, sunshine..etc). That is why other god models existed in inquisitive minds LONG prior to the capital G god model, you personally believe in. The god concept in that case is grounded on THOUGHT only, rather than any actual reality.

I've long since abandonded any effort at showing the lady to be in error on just about anything.

Can any of us show her wrong on this'n?


(yeah, I used abandonded 'cause I figure it adds a bit of extra oomf on the deal there and yeah, i did it with oomf )