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]

...What is the bare minimum of attributes that is required to deserve the label God?...

For today's major world theisms, God is viewed as the necessary reality which undergirds the contingent reality of our universe and our selves. This "necessary reality" called God is best conceived as the simplest possible entity, possessing no arbitrary limitations regarding knowledge, spatio-temporality, or causal efficacy.

Given this bare definition, it seems to me that the claims and complaints of the so-called "igtheists" are themselves incoherent.

[ThatGirlAgain]

...What is the bare minimum of attributes that is required to deserve the label God?...

For today's major world theisms, God is viewed as the necessary reality which undergirds the contingent reality of our universe and our selves. This "necessary reality" called God is best conceived as the simplest possible entity, possessing no arbitrary limitations regarding knowledge, spatio-temporality, or causal efficacy.

Given this bare definition, it seems to me that the claims and complaints of the so-called "igtheists" are themselves incoherent.

For clarification, I was not looking to debate the existence of God, just to arrive at a hopefully common definition of the term. This would allow atheists to specify what it is whose existence they deny or at least do not affirm. Theists in general affirm more than a bare definition. In your case, the essential definition might be the necessary reality underneath contingent reality. The other attributes you gave in your second sentence might possibly be debated while accepting the basic definition.

[EduChris]

...I was...looking...just to arrive at a...common definition of the term. This would allow atheists to specify what it is whose existence they deny or at least do not affirm...

Okay, here: "God is the simplest possible non-contingent reality, possessing no arbitrary limitations regarding knowledge, spatio-temporality, or causal efficacy." All major world theism will affirm at least this much, so any form of non-theism will have to deal with this definition--if they want to be part of the contemporary discourse on God as conceived by today's major world theisms. If non-theists want to dredge up Thor and leprechauns and such, they will only demonstrate their inability to engage in rational discourse regarding contemporary major world theisms.

[ThatGirlAgain]

...I was...looking...just to arrive at a...common definition of the term. This would allow atheists to specify what it is whose existence they deny or at least do not affirm...

Okay, here: "God is the simplest possible non-contingent reality, possessing no arbitrary limitations regarding knowledge, spatio-temporality, or causal efficacy." All major world theism will affirm at least this much, so any form of non-theism will have to deal with this definition--if they want to be part of the contemporary discourse on God as conceived by today's major world theisms. If non-theists want to dredge up Thor and leprechauns and such, they will only demonstrate their inability to engage in rational discourse regarding contemporary major world theisms.

Thank you EduChris.

Anyone disagree with this as the minimal definition? And as I proposed in the OP, lower case gods should not be in the mix. They may be important in other religions but this is a Christianity debating site.

[Fuzzy Dunlop]

Anyone disagree with this as the minimal definition? And as I proposed in the OP, lower case gods should not be in the mix. They may be important in other religions but this is a Christianity debating site.

If you're talking about the capital-g Christian God, shouldn't there be something about Jesus in there?

[ThatGirlAgain]

Anyone disagree with this as the minimal definition? And as I proposed in the OP, lower case gods should not be in the mix. They may be important in other religions but this is a Christianity debating site.

If you're talking about the capital-g Christian God, shouldn't there be something about Jesus in there?

I am talking about finding out what it is an atheist does not believe in, a topic raised as a side issue in the thread I referenced in the OP. Not believing in Jesus would still allow room for being Jewish or Muslim, for example. It would allow for being a member of any other religion at all. An atheist does not believe in any God, Christian or otherwise. What exactly does that mean?

[Goat]

...I was...looking...just to arrive at a...common definition of the term. This would allow atheists to specify what it is whose existence they deny or at least do not affirm...

Okay, here: "God is the simplest possible non-contingent reality, possessing no arbitrary limitations regarding knowledge, spatio-temporality, or causal efficacy." All major world theism will affirm at least this much, so any form of non-theism will have to deal with this definition--if they want to be part of the contemporary discourse on God as conceived by today's major world theisms. If non-theists want to dredge up Thor and leprechauns and such, they will only demonstrate their inability to engage in rational discourse regarding contemporary major world theisms.

Thank you EduChris.

Anyone disagree with this as the minimal definition? And as I proposed in the OP, lower case gods should not be in the mix. They may be important in other religions but this is a Christianity debating site.

It seems to me that definition suffers from undue complexity. Why use a complicated definition when a much simpler one can do?

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'.

Why state things simply when you can over complicate the words so it's a barrier to understanding?

[EduChris]

...It seems to me that definition suffers from undue complexity...

It seems to me that theists should be the ones who define what theism is--as opposed to, say, non-theists defining what theism is...

[ThatGirlAgain]

...I was...looking...just to arrive at a...common definition of the term. This would allow atheists to specify what it is whose existence they deny or at least do not affirm...

Okay, here: "God is the simplest possible non-contingent reality, possessing no arbitrary limitations regarding knowledge, spatio-temporality, or causal efficacy." All major world theism will affirm at least this much, so any form of non-theism will have to deal with this definition--if they want to be part of the contemporary discourse on God as conceived by today's major world theisms. If non-theists want to dredge up Thor and leprechauns and such, they will only demonstrate their inability to engage in rational discourse regarding contemporary major world theisms.

Thank you EduChris.

Anyone disagree with this as the minimal definition? And as I proposed in the OP, lower case gods should not be in the mix. They may be important in other religions but this is a Christianity debating site.

It seems to me that definition suffers from undue complexity. Why use a complicated definition when a much simpler one can do?

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'.

Why state things simply when you can over complicate the words so it's a barrier to understanding?

The phrase "simplest possible non-contingent reality" would seem to me at least to be essential. Without it there may be multiple Gods, something that does not follow from the classic proofs of the existence of God. It would also leave out the traditional role of God as the reason for the world existing.