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?

[sleepyhead]

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.

[Fuzzy Dunlop]

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?

Gods are specific things that people believe in. I'm not sure I see the purpose in imagining a minimum list of characteristics, since all you end up with is a hypothetical thing that no one actually believes in.

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.

...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...

He was not commenting on your definition so much as your language, which I have to admit strikes me as needlessly overcomplicated.

[Goat]

...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...

On the hand, language is a very important tool. It can be used two ways. One is to enhance communication, the other way is to obscure communication. When such overly complex terminology is used, it is to purposely make things vague, so that points can be deflected or ignored.

Now, I was not saying what the definition should be. but merely translating your definition into language that is not so complicated as to purposely distract from content.

[EduChris]

...I'm not sure I see the purpose in imagining a minimum list of characteristics, since all you end up with is a hypothetical thing that no one actually believes in...

I believe in the God that I defined, which is the essential core of all the major world theisms.

...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...

I have just told you about my God. Why do you think you need to correct my definition?

...your language...strikes me as needlessly overcomplicated.

So what? Why should theists alllow non-theists to dumb-down the terms? If you want to disblieve theism, you should at least have the gumption to disbelieve the theism that pertains to today's major world theisms.

[EduChris]

...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.

[ThatGirlAgain]

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?

Gods are specific things that people believe in. I'm not sure I see the purpose in imagining a minimum list of characteristics, since all you end up with is a hypothetical thing that no one actually believes in.

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.

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?

...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...

He was not commenting on your definition so much as your language, which I have to admit strikes me as needlessly overcomplicated.

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

Opinions on what is meant by God are welcome from anyone. I was looking to come up with a sentence or two that everyone could agree that this is what they believe in / do not believe in. Believers may have all sorts of things to add, but different believers will have different decorations to hang on the tree. What constitutes the tree is my question.

[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.

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.

[JoeyKnothead]

...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.

LOL

Goat, you best step it up now, ya hear.

Goat is among the most respected and capable of this site's debaters. He has a knack for rendering down definitions and arguments and such and should not be taken as anything less than the -ahem- educated man his posts prove him to be.

Pointing out the potential for obfuscation in any definition - regardless of complexity - is a legitimate notion for us all of us to consider.

[Goat]

...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.

If someone want to avoid communication, (I noticed a theist was saying they did not understand your definition either).

If someone wants to use terminology that is more style than substance, that is their choice. In my opinion using 'contemporary theistic discourse', translated is 'the same old arguments with big words to show I am not coming up with anything new, and it is otherwise totally meaningless,but sounds impressive'.

Such terminology is semantically null and void.

[JoeyKnothead]

Minimum attributes of God?

Unproven.