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]

...Notice we "must accept" that omniscient doesn't mean what it means...we're witnessing a distortion of definitions regarding relatively mundane words or terms...

It appears that you disagree with Goat's prior assertion that my definition (which he and Fuzzy Dunlop deemed needlessly complex) could be boiled down to a much simpler definition, which he then provided.

What I did was accept Goat's wording--which he claimed had the same meaning as my "overly complex" definition--but then I qualified his simple terms with the terminology that I had provided. If that move had been accepted by all, then Goat would and Fuzzy Dunlop would have been correct to say that Goat's more simply worded definition meant the same thing that mine did.

This is one of those rare moments when I agree with you, Joey: Goat's simplified definition wasn't the same definition as mine, it was entirely different. And that is why I deliberately and intentionally worded my definition as I did.

[EduChris]

...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...

The common core of theism defines the essential aspects of God as believed by all of today's major world theisms.

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

I provided a definition. If you want to engage in contemporary discourse about God, as God is understood by today's major world theisms, then you will simply have to catch up with us. We can't remain mired in simplistic understandings and inadequate definitions just because you have trouble learning new concepts. As they say, "If you can't take the heat, then get out of the kitchen."

...being understandable by all...should be one of your main goals if you wish to participate meaningfully on this forum...

This is an Internet forum where people of all intellectual and educational backgrounds collide; we can't expect everyone here to be able to follow even a simple argument, much less a more nuanced argument. I have defined the essential characteristics of God in a way that is acceptable to all of today's major world theisms. I have explained in detail what I meant, and I have demonstrated (with a little help from Joey) why more simplistic definitions don't mean the same thing as the more nuanced definition.

You seem to insist on dumbing down the definition of God to suit your limited abilities; then you seem to insist that I must defend your simplistic definition in a way that you prescribe. But why should I do this? It is of no concern to me if you lack the ability (or more likely, the determination) to engage in contemporary theistic discourse.

[ThatGirlAgain]

...features such as omniscience...should not be part of the basic definition...[one] could be a believer and not hold that God knows the future...

I intentionally omitted the term "omniscient," since it implies (to some people) the notion that God knows the future, and I do not wish to make a claim on that one way or the other. My claim is only that God is not arbitrarily limited in knowledge. Whether the future is really "out there and available to be known" is a matter of speculation, and various theories of time will reach different conclusions on the matter.

Actually I recalled your position on that from a previous conversation. But with the unexpected flurry of replies to this thread my fingers did not do everything that my brain wanted and I failed to put in that qualifier.

[ThatGirlAgain]

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.

Now I understand your comment about instinct. Missed that before. A God who had no influence over at least us would be irrelevant and hardly worth discussing except academically.

[ThatGirlAgain]

...overly complex terminology...

We do not need to dumb-down our theism for the sake of non-theists. If you want to engage in contemporary theistic discourse, you will need to exert sufficient intellectual effort to keep pace with theistic discourse.

Do those who claim atheism need to "keep pace with theistic discourse" before they can not believe? I might see an argument being made for a strong atheist needing to do this before actively denying the existence of a deity. But in general if the idea of God is highly involved it would seem that arguments demonstrating the existence of God should be made in plain terms before a weak atheist could be criticized.

Quantum mechanics was mentioned elsewhere in this thread. For one to have the credentials to actively deny its validity one must learn something about it. But to passively lack belief in QM is acceptable if one knows little about the subject. Of course in the case of QM there are dramatic physical demonstrations of its validity, like most of the computer I am using at this moment. The intricacies of QM can reasonably be taken on faith exactly because the demonstrable consequences are so unexpected.

[ThatGirlAgain]

People do believe in God, or this site would not have been invented. The original issue was that it is not reasonable to say you do not believe in something unless that something has been defined. How do you know you do not believe in zxcvbnm unless I tell you what it means?

One danger of not defining God is that atheism effectively means, “I don’t believe in the thing that those religious people believe in, whatever it is.� And that can easily degenerate into anti-religion. Witness the world of hard core atheism today.

I know people believe in god, I'm saying people don't believe in the god that this thread is seeking a definition for. I don't feel the need to worry about generic definitions of god, because people believe in specific gods. I have yet to encounter a specific god that I believe in. If there is god out there I haven't heard of yet that I do believe in, then I will cross that bridge when I get to it.

I don't really see the problem with being against religion, so long as we're not talking about violence or persecution or anything.

If one is against some particular religion for behavioral reasons or against religion in general because of, say, an anti-superstition stance, that is reasonable. But there is a breed of atheist –not much on this site thankfully – that seems to be against religion in general, especially the one they were brought up in, for personal reasons. They use a barrage of arguments, often without understanding them well or even mutually contradictory ones, as weapons in a vendetta apparently for emotional reasons rooted in personal history. That is what I was referring to.

Theists tell me about their gods. At the moment I have not been convinced to believe in any of these gods, so I am an atheist.

Yes, I understand this position. But it leaves open the possibility that a new religion might come along with a more believable God. Is it possible that you might convert?

Of course.

Interesting. My own position is that a ‘ground of existence’ deity is not necessarily out of the question but I cannot imagine a strong connection to any religion I ever heard of.

As I pointed out, the offered alternative misses what I think is an essential feature.

.
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.

Ideas come first. Language can always be fine tuned but should follow thought and not lead it. Fancy terms do not worry me overmuch if that is kept in mind. Of course the more accessible the language is at the beginning the more likely it is to be understood by a larger audience.

[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?

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.)

You got it!

zxcvbnm is simply the letters on the bottom row of a keyboard. I was not surprised when it turned up on Google. I was wondering if someone else would search for it.

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.

I know a Hindu man who uses the word God a lot, and he means a single monotheistic type deity but definitely NOT BibleGod. Is he an atheist? No. So denial of the existence of BibleGod is not necessarily atheism. And if one limits that to the Christian Bible, then even Jews and Muslims would be atheists by that definition, clearly not the case.

My own viewpoint is summed up in http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 088#409088

God? Possibly not an answerable question. Religion? Of course not.

But the orientation around here is mainly God or no God and thus this thread.

[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?

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 its greatest defenses.

By “god� I meant mythological characters such as in my example Apollo. Denying the existence of Apollo is not very helpful in a discussion of atheism since one would be hard pressed to find someone who actually believes in Apollo these days.

I was not adding “creator of the universe� to the definition. It was intended as an example of an attribute someone might suggest. EduChris took this idea to a more sophisticated level.

I see your point about not defining God. That underscores the “other than intellectual� aspects of religion, namely the emotional and psychological ones that enable ‘belief’ without necessarily ‘knowing’.

[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?

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.

So a essential property of God is to be supernatural and there is no evidence of the supernatural in any form. This allows not believing in God regardless of definition as long as ‘supernatural’ is part of that definition. Do I understand you correctly?

[EduChris]

...Do those who claim atheism need to "keep pace with theistic discourse" before they can not believe? I might see an argument being made for a strong atheist needing to do this before actively denying the existence of a deity. But in general if the idea of God is highly involved it would seem that arguments demonstrating the existence of God should be made in plain terms before a weak atheist could be criticized...

I used terms that are plain enough; I explained my terms; and I showed why more simplistic definitions are inadequate. What I cannot do is supply everyone on the Internet with the requisite smarts and/or inclination to follow even a simple argument, much less a more complex and nuanced argument.

...Quantum mechanics was mentioned elsewhere in this thread. For one to have the credentials to actively deny its validity one must learn something about it. But to passively lack belief in QM is acceptable if one knows little about the subject...

The vast majority of non-theists do not offer their own personal laziness as a reason for their non-theism; rather, they claim to be more reasonable, rational, intelligent, inquisitive, skeptical, thoughtful, logical, intelligent, etc. If someone tells me, "I'm a non-theists because I'm a dummy," I will probably agree with him. But if she tells me, "I'm a non-theist because I'm more rational and learned than theists," then I will expect her to keep pace with contemporary theistic discourse.

...in the case of QM there are dramatic physical demonstrations of its validity, like most of the computer I am using at this moment. The intricacies of QM can reasonably be taken on faith exactly because the demonstrable consequences are so unexpected.

All scientific theories are underdetermined by the data. For every hypothesis given, there are always an infinite number of other hypotheses which explain the same set of data.