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?

[Filthy Tugboat]

...I maintain that I have absolutely no clue what an accurate definition of "god" or "God" is or could be...

Well, why not accept the definition that all of today's major world theisms accept? Let's talk about the God of today's major world theisms, rather than some obscure deity that no one today seriously defends.

Specifying the definition to what is popular today is too specific though. Why should the definition change based on pop culture? Why should the definition not include the Gods or gods outside of today's major world theisms? They are still referred to as Gods(gods).

[Filthy Tugboat]

...It does not cover all bases like a general term should...

It covers the bases for all of today's major world theisms.

It might do exactly that but that isn't enough. There are a lot of Gods(gods) that do not fit the description but are still none the less recognized as Gods(gods)

If you do not wish to discuss contemporary conceptualizations of God, that is your choice.

I don't recall suggesting that I do not want to discuss contemporary conceptualizations of God. I just might want to discuss other things as well.

But if you want a place at the contemporary table, then you need to get with the contemporary program.

Why would the contemporary program control definitions of words in order to become the only program?

It isn't monotheism that out rules Hinduism, it's the birth of Brahman that excludes him from your definition that includes "logically necessity" .

...as well as paganism and many forms of polytheism and even some forms of monotheism...

Few if any serious, educated persons today defend such gods.[/quote]

That's not the point, they should still be included in the definition of God(god).

They are most often put forward by non-theists who suppose they can thereby derail contemporary discussions. But such is blatent obfuscation; it is no different than suggesting that modern science is obliged to defend the notion of phlogiston even though that theory was abandoned centuries ago.

Can we please just drop the cheap shots? It isn't necessary. Am I personally doing this now or have I even done it in the past? If not, why do you keep trying to talk to me about it?

...It is an unacceptable and useless definition.

It is unacceptable only if you intend to discuss something other than today's major world theisms.

And if I do?

You are free to discuss whatever concepts you wish, but if you want to engage in contemporary theistic discourse, you will need to understand the definitions put forward and defended by contemporary theists.

I think I have engaged in contemporary theistic discourse a few times, at no point was this definition used. The traits were simply described in order to specify because it is a specific definition, more specific than should be used for a general term like God(god).

[Fuzzy Dunlop]

...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.

No it doesn't. It leaves out aspects of the gods that are essential to each of these theisms. Or is Jesus not an essential part of the Christian god?

...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."

Who is "us"? I am asking you to define your terminology. If you are going to rely so heavily on idiosyncratic phrases like "the common core of non-theism", "today's major world theisms", "contemporary, modern, global Christianity" etc. you cannot expect to be understood by people. If you spent half as much time discussing and explaining as you did complaining about how everyone else was too stupid or lazy or culpably negligent or uncivil or unreasonable or afraid or uneducated (etc.) to understand you, I am sure many of us would have a much better grasp of your positions. If you're going to invent phrases like this, you should be willing to explain them - don't complain when you aren't immediately understood. A link to a previously provided definition would be fine.

...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.

Yes, I understand that you are much smarter than me. You can defend whatever definition you like, I am insisting on no such thing. I would just like to understand what you're talking about.

...Been there, done that. Remember?...

I was referring to Fuzzy Dunlop, who seems to think a good argument consists of, "I can't possibly understand what is meant by the terms contingent, or causal, or arbitrary, or efficacious."

I really cannot fathom how you have interpreted me asking you to explain your terminology to be an "argument" on my part.

I maintain that theists are the only ones who have the right to define the concepts that they believe and wish to defend. This constant attempt by non-theists to put forward strawman "definitions" is nothing more than obfuscation and an attempt to derail serious discussion.

I have noticed that you deny this right to atheists, given how often I see descriptions of atheism from you that bear no resemblance to my own position.

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.

Yeah, no one likes those guys.

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.

I also find it hard to imagine, but I can't rule out the possibility.

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.

I think accessible language should be a top priority. EduChris participates on this forum with the position, as best I can grasp it, of "I have discovered the secret to eternal life, too bad everyone here is too dumb to understand me." I really cannot understand why clearly communicating these rock-solid proofs of god would not be a top priority of his.

[TheJackelantern]

"the simplest possible non-contingent reality, possessing no arbitrary limitations regarding knowledge, spatio-temporality, or causal efficacy."

The only thing that can even remotely be affiliated with that is Pantheism, or existence itself. .. And posting no limits really falls apart when you are trying to suggest individualism and a deity that is it's own entity.

Spatio-temporality:

Spatial-temporal reasoning is the ability to visualize spatial patterns and mentally manipulate them over a time-ordered sequence of spatial transformations.

This ability is important for generating and conceptualizing solutions to multi-step problems that arise in areas such as architecture, engineering, science, mathematics, art, games, and everyday life.

Well, we humans do that all the time.. In fact, were are able to create light from a vacuum. Does that make us GOD? I could agree that there could be beings out there that could be far better at this than we are, but I don't consider that as an attribute to being worthy of consideration for a "GOD" title. And I do believe existence itself and it's rules will limit gambit of what can or can not be done in that regard. Hence you can not do what is literally impossible to do. But I will grant you the possibility of higher beings being far more capable that ourselves in that regard.

Casual Efficiency:

the power to make something happen.

Basically stating omnipotence in the context of without limits.. This to which is easily debunked. But you could argue for an entity that has a higher level of Casual efficiency. However that would require more causation to support and thus nullifying your argument. Why? Because the GOD concept is supposed to solve infinite regress.. It's supposed to be what is without cause, and what is the cause of all there is.. And that definitely can not be solved, or even remotely represented by anything with a conscious mind. A conscious mind can not solve infinite regress, or represent a Universal Set of all sets. It takes way to much to support the state of consciousness. You're essentially talking about what is arguably the most complex thing we know of. So there is a rule to complexity and power and origins you need to understand. And that is this:

Complexity and power begin at the lowest possible level. hence the most important levels are the ground states!

Higher levels of complexity or power can not exist without the lowest levels... And consciousness is highly complex! So the ability or the power to do anything at all requires more than you realize to be possible. To have cognitive ability requires far more cause than things that do not have cognitive ability. A rock or even most of life for that matter requires less causation to exist than an entity or living thing that has consciousness. And this really is the downfall of the concept of a Creator GOD in which most Christians seem to believe in.

So here is why Pantheists or Atheists win this debate:

GOD:

1) Requires no cause to exist : Existence itself
2) Is the source origin and essence of everything: Existence itself
3) Is the entire gambit of power and complexity from the ground up: Existence itself
4) Is the sum entire total, origin, and essence of all information: Existence itself
5) Is the essence of everything, the container and sustainer of all there is: Existence itself
6) Is literally every existing person, place, object, substance, entity or thing: Existence itself
7) Is the governor, and the rules to everything: Existence itself
8) Is the most powerful of all things: Existence itself
9) Is the one thing that all things must require in order to exist: Existence itself

So when I asked many Christians how they reconcile Pantheism in relation to their religion, I often get told I am going to hell ect. And that is because the reality is that the GOD concept is moot. It's a logical fallacy, and the highest you can go in such a concept is existence itself, or the Pantheist GOD. So where does that leave this debate?

[EduChris]

...I don't recall suggesting that I do not want to discuss contemporary conceptualizations of God. I just might want to discuss other things as well...

Fair enough. When you want to engage in contemporary theistic discoure, then we will use a contemporary definition. Similarly, when you want to engage in obsolete theistic discourse, then you can use whatever obsolete definition you wish.

[EduChris]

...posting no limits really falls apart...

Which is why I did not posit "no limits" but rather "no arbitrary limits."

...when I asked many Christians how they reconcile Pantheism in relation to their religion, I often get told I am going to hell...

Maybe they should have just asked you if pantheism entails a logically necessary center of intentional and efficacious causal action.

[TheJackelantern]

Which is why I did not posit "no limits" but rather "no arbitrary limits."

Saying it can at will be omnipotent ect is a logical fallacy. And again easily debunked. Arbitrary is really not relevant. Using arbitrary is really just backing down and realizing such concepts are logical fallacies. Hence, they aren't possible to begin with as they are self-refuting.. Hence, arbitrarily there will still be limits, and those limits will not allow you to do or be the impossible. Anything that exists will be limited by the rules of existence. But yes there could be beings out there far more capable than the human species, those that are able to better manipulate the rules within what's actually possible. God's at that point become matters of pure opinion, and title of opinion.

Maybe they should have just asked you if pantheism entails a logically necessary center of intentional and efficacious causal action.

Yes it would. You can't have cause without existence and its rules. Existence is the entirety of force, cause and effect, and every rule, thing, object, or substance that does exist... For example, and this will make you think, we are literally existence arguing with itself.

[Wakefield]

Remember: my definition describes a God with no arbitrary limitations with regard to causal efficacy, and that in turn entails volition. What we have then is a logically necessary center of intentional and efficacious causal action, not arbitrarily limited in terms of factual knowledge, and not arbitrarily bounded by time and space. This "God of the philosophers" sounds very much like the "I AM WHO I AM" of Exodus and the "Logos" (the rational basis of reality) of John.

This version of the definition seems more fleshed out to me than the earlier one offered since it includes volition or intention. The primary difference between theism and atheism concerns the issue of intention. Atheists, when examined closely, disregard intention as a primary attribute of the universe while theists consider it primary.

Defining God as the eternal necessary ground of being sans arbitrary limitations fits with definitions of pantheism and also with a general view of materialist monism as far as I can tell (with the latter denying God and simply positing a self-creating universe).

Including intention seems a necessary part of the definition for what we normally call God, and from my understanding is an integral part of modern theistic conceptions.

Is there a logical argument linking necessary ground of being with intention?

[EduChris]

...Saying it can at will be omnipotent ect is a logical fallacy...

And of course I said no such thing.

...arbitrarily there will still be limits, and those limits will not allow you to do or be the impossible...

I don't attempt "to do or be the impossible." However, I fail to see how it follows that the absence of arbitrary limits leads inexorably to the presence of arbitrary limits. You'd have to present an argument for that, as opposed to merely asserting it.

...Anything that exists will be limited by the rules of existence...

Good thing we have that tautology out of the way now.

...But yes there could be beings out there far more capable than the human species, those that are able to better manipulate the rules within what's actually possible. God's at that point become matters of pure opinion, and title of opinion...

Are those "beings" the simplest possible non-contingent reality, not subject to arbitrary limitations? If so, they are God; if not, they are not God. This isn't a matter of opinion so much as a matter of definition.

Maybe they should have just asked you if pantheism entails a logically necessary center of intentional and efficacious causal action.

Yes it would...

Okay, if you are granting that the simplest possible non-contingent reality, which is unhindered by arbitrary limitations, does indeed exist, then you are a theist by definition.

[AquinasD]

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. ..

That consciousness in humans requires a complex physical system does not demonstrate that a mind necessarily requires a complex physical system. You are more or less assuming that the only kind of consciousness which can exist is something that must be like a human consciousness.

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:

If minds are not simple, tell me of the parts.

Running off to "incomprehensible" is pretty much self-defeating

I didn't run off to "incomprehensible." I only said "not easily comprehensible."