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]

...Don't define some hypothetical lowest common denominator god, define the god you actually believe in...

I did, but I gave only the essentials that are agreed on by all of today's major world theisms. These essentials provide the common core that stand logically opposed to the common core of non-theism (which offers no details of its own).

...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...

For the sake of moving the discussion along, perhaps we should adopt Goat's "simplified" definition: "God is an eternal non-created being that is omniscient and omnipotent and not bound by time."

This is fine with me so long as we understand "an eternal non-created being" as "the simplest possible non-contingent reality"; and so long as "omniscient" is understood as "not arbitrarily limited in factual knowledge"; and so long as "omnipotent" is understood as "not arbitrarily limited in the ability to cause contingent effects"; and so long as "not bound by time" is understood as "not arbitrarily limited by any dimensions of time and space."

This should be satisfactory to all, right?

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 41:

I did, but I gave only the essentials that are agreed on by all of today's major world theisms.

Notice that these are "agreed upon", while no confirmatory data regarding the veracity of the belief is available.

These essentials provide the common core that stand logically opposed to the common core of non-theism (which offers no details of its own).

"No details of its own" may well equate to "beats me, what you got".

This is fine with me so long as we understand "an eternal non-created being" as "the simplest possible non-contingent reality"; and so long as "omniscient" is understood as "not arbitrarily limited in factual knowledge"...

Notice we "must accept" that omniscient doesn't mean what it means.

...and so long as "omnipotent" is understood as "not arbitrarily limited in the ability to cause contingent effects"

Notice, omniscient can still mean limited. You ever go to an "omni" and find out it wasn't? Did ya cuss upon this realization?

and so long as "not bound by time" is understood as "not arbitrarily limited by any dimensions of time and space."

Notice "not bound by time" becomes 'well about that'.

This should be satisfactory to all, right?

"Should"

It is my contention we're witnessing a distortion of definitions regarding relatively mundane words or terms.

Why? 'Cause folks don't know and they're putting this lack of knowledge into the "god box".

[nejisan]

Why? 'Cause folks don't know and they're putting this lack of knowledge into the "god box".

This is kind of what I tried to say in the original thread. None of this really means anything. We are attempting to define for non-believers what they aren't believing in? For what exactly? So I can not believe in this too? Perhaps we can simply open an entire forum dedicated to defining things that people generally assume don't exist, or simply don't believe in.

[Fuzzy Dunlop]

...Don't define some hypothetical lowest common denominator god, define the god you actually believe in...

I did, but I gave only the essentials that are agreed on by all of today's major world theisms. These essentials provide the common core that stand logically opposed to the common core of non-theism (which offers no details of its own).

For what purpose? "Today's major world theisms" believe in several very different gods. By giving the "common core" you aren't defining a god that anybody believes in, you are defining a hypothetical god that has been created for the sake of argument.

I have no idea what you mean by "the common core of non-theism."

For the sake of moving the discussion along, perhaps we should adopt Goat's "simplified" definition: "God is an eternal non-created being that is omniscient and omnipotent and not bound by time."

This is fine with me so long as we understand "an eternal non-created being" as "the simplest possible non-contingent reality"; and so long as "omniscient" is understood as "not arbitrarily limited in factual knowledge"; and so long as "omnipotent" is understood as "not arbitrarily limited in the ability to cause contingent effects"; and so long as "not bound by time" is understood as "not arbitrarily limited by any dimensions of time and space."

This should be satisfactory to all, right?

I don't know whether it will be satisfactory to all, but that was never what I was talking about. It does seem like it at least has a better chance at being understandable by all, which should be one of your main goals if you wish to participate meaningfully on this forum. The effort is appreciated.

[AquinasD]

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's the relevance? This is a question of philosophy, not sociology. The OP was asking what God should be defined as. A bunch of people who say they know a lot about something does not matter to answering the question. When we try to figure out what is true, for example, we don't start out with a poll of the "average man on the street," because it's completely irrelevant.

But fine, we can change "quantum mechanics" to "economics." You wouldn't believe how largely ignorant the public is about elementary economics (unless you were an economist). Yet just about everyone imagines themselves to have a learned opinion about "how the economy should be run."

Do you want to know the reality, my opinion as a student of economics? Most people are horribly, disastrously wrong about how an economy works. This is why, if someone were to ask me "How would you explain the importance of profit in society?" I would not begin with a summary of the public's opinion about profit. Why? Because most people are just outright wrong. And they go about crusading in the streets, taking over parks and doing parades and campaigning for politicians who share their vision.

The fact that there are a lot of people who have strong beliefs about who God is and what He is like is completely irrelevant to the answering of the question. It simply doesn't matter. It contributes nothing to the discussion. I am not interested in it, nor is the OP (or so I suspect).

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".

Irrelevant. That people disagree doesn't mean there can't be something which is true.

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.

Okay. Not everyone. People who I would consider competent theologians.

I don't understand what you mean by a "god did it all" mindset, either.

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.

Prior to classical economics, there was mercantilism. So what? Is economics wrong because an idea that came before it was wrong?

[Filthy Tugboat]

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?

I don't understand your distinction between "god(s)" and "God(s)". In an attempt to define the term "God" or "god" it seems you have arbitrarily added a definition, "creator of the universe". Why? This seems to defeat the very purpose of this thread.

I have absolutely no idea what constitutes a "God" or a "god", I think the term's inherent vagueness is one of religion's greatest strengths and certainly one of it's greatest defenses.

[TheJackelantern]

simplest possible entity, possessing no arbitrary limitations regarding knowledge, spatio-temporality, or causal efficacy.

Let's examine that..

1) Simplest entity would be empty space, or something without a consciousness. And the other attributes listed already nullify this first one.. But lets really dig into limitations, knowledge ect by looking at what the fount of knowledge states and why it's self-refuting:

St John of Damascus, The Fount of Knowledge:

Abstract 1:

Quote:

"The uncreate, the unoriginate, the immortal, the bound- less, the eternal, the immaterial, the good, the creative, the just, the enlightening, the unchangeable, the passionless, the uncircumscribed, the uncontained, the unlimited, the indefi- nable, the invisible, the inconceivable, the wanting nothing, the having absolute power and authority, the life-giving, the almighty, the infinitely powerful, the sanctifying and com- municating, the containing and sustaining all things, and the providing for all all these and the like He possesses by His nature. They are not received from any other source; on the contrary, it is His nature that communicates all good to His own creatures in accordance with the capacity of each."

Abstract 2:

Quote:

"And yet again, there is His knowing of all things by a simple act of knowing. And there is His distinctly seeing with His divine, all-seeing, and immaterial eye all things at once"

Boundless
Uncontained
Unlimited
Omnipresent
The containing and sustaining of all things
Omniscient
Immaterial

Thus it can be said that such an argument self-collapses in every area of the supposed attributes given when anyone of them is taken out of the equation by another conflicting attribute, or thing (such as ourselves). Especially in the case or state of absolute Omniscience. So here is what it boils down to under information theory:

* I = reference to all the information that gives I an Identity. It's the entire essences of "I am".

So let's see where this entire GOD concept completely falls apart. Especially when concerning "Omniscience".

1) A boundless GOD? Can a boundless GOD be boundless if you are to claim all of us to be separate individuals? What boundaries lie between GOD being me, and not being me?

2) If he is uncontained then what separates him from me?

3) If he's without limits, what limits define GOD apart from who I am?..

4) If he is omnipresent, where do I exist?

5) If he contains and sustains all things, would he not be existence itself? Thus am I, and everyone else here not the conscious representations of god, or GOD himself?

6) If he is Omniscient and knows infinitely everything to which is knowable, would he not know me in every infinitely knowable way to where he himself would literally be I, me, or who I am in every infinitely knowable way?

7) If he is immaterial, would he not be made of nothing? Thus how does nothing exist as a person, place, or thing? How does nothing as a substance be the property value of something? How does nothing contain and sustain informational value?

And we can add A-temporal and A-spacial:

8) If your GOD exists out side of time, does he exist now? How about before he created time? How do you create "time" without existing in a time frame to have existence?

9) A-spacial... How does a deity exist in a place that has no capacity to contain existence? Last time I checked, we all exist in existence to which is our container.. So A-spacial is equal to A-existence.

It's interesting because Theists often like to argue for the "Nothing GOD"... It's made of nothing, has no complexity, requires nothing to exist ect ect.. Well, that's a pretty damn good description of an imaginary non-entity... Especially when proven a logical self-collapsing fallacy.

[AquinasD]

Let's examine that..

1) Simplest entity would be empty space, or something without a consciousness.

To be "simplest" requires only that it is without composition, that is, made of one "part" which is also its whole. Souls are simple; minds are usually taken as simple; empty space could be a simple (let's let physics figure that out); and so on.

If minds are simples, then it doesn't necessarily follow that a simplest entity must be without a mind.

Thus it can be said that such an argument self-collapses in every area of the supposed attributes given when anyone of them is taken out of the equation by another conflicting attribute, or thing (such as ourselves).

This is why it's necessary to understand how we can predicate of God. You are like a bull in china shop. Theological language is delicate. But then I don't see why you should expect it to be easily comprehensible; we're speaking of a being entirely unlike all other beings.

If you want to take a ham fisted approach, you are free to do so, but then you wouldn't really be trying to understand what's going on.

[TheJackelantern]

To be "simplest" requires only that it is without composition, that is, made of one "part" which is also its whole. Souls are simple; minds are usually taken as simple; empty space could be a simple (let's let physics figure that out); and so on

.

Now you are attempting to move the goal post. But yet you failed to tell me the difference between space and a being that is conscious. Hence, complexity of consciousness is far greater than the complexity of something that is not. It requires far more cause to support a consciousness than it would to support empty space, a rock, plant, dog, or anything more primitive. It takes a lot of information and an already existing complex adaptive system with feedback to even support the dynamics of reactionary response systems, much-less what would require to support the dynamics of cognitive function. ..

Physics revolves around a system with feedback, and the same system that is required to even have a fleeting chance at supporting a conscious state.

If minds are simples, then it doesn't necessarily follow that a simplest entity must be without a mind.

Minds are not at all simple.. And this tells me that you have not really thought about it to understand why.. You can get a good read here:

Information: The Material Physical Cause of Causation


Abstract:

Energy =/= information =/= cause

This is unarguable:

A: There can be no choice, or decision made without information
B: There can be no consciousness or awareness without information
C: One can not have knowledge without information
D: One can not do anything without information
E: One can not exist without informational value
F: One can not think without information
G: One can not even know one's self exists without information
H: One can not reply, respond, or react without information
I: One can not convey, send, or express a message without information
J: There can be no morals, ethics, or laws without information
K: One can not have or express emotions, or feelings without information
L: One can not have experiences, or experience anything at all without information
M: One can not have a place to exist in order to be existent without information
N: One can not Create, or Design anything without information
O: One can not have the ability to process things without information
P: Intelligence can not exist without information to apply
Q: No system, or process can exist without information
R: Cause and effect can not exist without information
S: Logic can not exist without information
T: Reason can not exist or things can not have a reason / purpose without information
U: There can be no meaning without information
V: There can be no value without information
W: There can be no capacity without informational value
Y: There can be no complexity without informational structure
Z: There can be no "I" without the information that gives I an Identity.

This is why it's necessary to understand how we can predicate of God. You are like a bull in china shop. Theological language is delicate. But then I don't see why you should expect it to be easily comprehensible; we're speaking of a being entirely unlike all other beings.

That argument is pleading, and it doesn't actually address what you quoted me on. Running off to "incomprehensible" is pretty much self-defeating, and really shows you are unable to actually tackle the argument in proper context, or honestly.. Being entirely unlike other beings is irrelevant in this debate. Yes we can be two unique glasses made from the same pile of sand.. Not really an issue we are debating.

If you want to take a ham fisted approach, you are free to do so, but then you wouldn't really be trying to understand what's going on.

You are talking about supposed attributes of GOD.. So how about posting something that doesn't self-refute, or self-collapse. Hence not prove itself a fallacy..

Maybe something more realistically possible? Perhaps a being, or an entire species of beings capable of inducing a big bang either by intention or by accident? I can believe in higher beings to which have a higher understanding of reality, and ability to manipulate reality. But the context in which Christians describe their GOD puts their GOD in the obvious to not exist since it's so self-refuting.. But let's be honest, if it's not literally impossible to exist, it can't be a GOD according to many Christians. So when I mention Pantheism, or that Existence itself could only ever be applicable to being considered GOD, I get theists trying to suggest their GOD exists outside of existence (beyond existence).. Well, Atheists would agree that their GOD exists outside of existence in a place of non-existence. :/

So really, the whole GOD concept is entirely illogical, and moot.

[Flail]

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?

Just as with the case for the meaning of zxcvbnm,, 'God' can mean whatever supernatural (beyond natural) concept one's imagination can conjure; the sky is the limit. Without at least some verifiable evidence in support, 'God' as a supernatural being provides a meaningless foundation for 'existence' claims or truth claims as to such a being, and should be confined to philosophical considerations only.