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]

...I didn't understand educhris's definition...

Non-contingent means "logically necessary." The point is that for anything at all to exist, something must necessarily exist. That "something" which "necessarily exists" is what theists mean by "God."

Given that, the next step is to determine what if anything we can say about this non-contingent reality. From the standpoint of epistemology, we want to assume as little as possible, and so we assume the simplest possible sort of reality--a reality that is subject to no arbitrary limitations. The idea here is that the set of all integers is simpler than any particular, specific subset of integers. Or, as an analogy, the general instruction to "go and buy everthing in the store" contains less information than the specific command to "go and buy some chocolate ice cream at the store." Even simpler is the command, "Go and buy whatever you want from the store," since this leaves completely open what will or will not be purchased--it could be everything, or nothing, or just some things. The more specific the instruction, the more information, and the more information, the greater the assumptions. For these reasons, the simplest, easiest, most privative postulate will necessarily involve no arbitrary limitations in terms of knowledge, spatial dimensions, time, or the ability to cause contingent (logically non-necessary) effects.

[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.

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.

Hello that girl,

Just curious. Would the part of educhris's defintion that you like "contingent reality" be the same as instinct?

[ThatGirlAgain]

Minimum attributes of God?

Unproven.

Definitions do not have to be proven. They just are. What is the definition of God you are using when you say you do not believe in God? Do you believe in zxcvbnm? How do you know unless I tell you what the word means?

[EduChris]

...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.

[Goat]

Minimum attributes of God?

Unproven.

I wouldn't call it unproven, since it is looking for a definition... not evidence of.

[Fuzzy Dunlop]

...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.

I don't think you do. You believe in a version of the Christian god, do you not? That isn't the definition of the god you believe in, those are a handful of the many characteristics of the god you believe 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...

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

I am not sure what you mean by "correcting your definition." You have told me a little bit about your god, sure.

...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.

I am not sure why you feel the need to denigrate atheists in nearly every post you make. You have a theist in this very thread stating that they could not understand your definition. I am suggesting that you could be better understood by more people (theist and atheist) if you made an effort to communicate in plain English.

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.

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.

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.

[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.

Hello that girl,

Just curious. Would the part of educhris's defintion that you like "contingent reality" be the same as instinct?

By contingent reality EduChris means everyting that is not self-causing. You, me, instinct, codfish, Neptune ... the entire universe and whatever might be outside the physical universe that needs to have its existence explained. Things that depend on something else - that is what contingent means.

[Goat]

By contingent reality EduChris means everyting that is not self-causing. You, me, instinct, codfish, Neptune ... the entire universe and whatever might be outside the physical universe that needs to have its existence explained. Things that depend on something else - that is what contingent means.

Although, I would love to see actual evidence to show that the universe is not self causing. .. that doesn't rely on philosophical word games and speculation.

[EduChris]

...those are a handful of the many characteristics of the god you believe in...

They are the minimally necessary characteristics, from which other characteristics may or may not derive. I am free to describe my wife as "a beautiful Ukrainian woman," and everyone who knows her will instantly agree with that definition. I do not need to go on to list the number of hairs on her head in order to be understood well enough.

...You have a theist in this very thread stating that they could not understand your definition...

Are you saying that all theists are smart enough to understand the nuances of scholarly theistic discourse? Or are you saying that you don't want to have to deal with a definition unless it is so simple that any and every theist, of whatever intellectual or educational background, can grasp it? And besides, who says that Sleepyhead is a theist? He doesn't subscribe to any theistic user groups.

...people believe in specific gods...

If you can eliminate the common core of today's major world theisms, then all the specifics will be instantly eliminated along with the common core. But if you cannot eliminate the common core, then you will have to allow for that common core whenever the various specifics become the focus of attention.

...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...

If those "common" words would "do just as well," then I would be happy to use them. I reject them for the reason that they have become jargon--susceptible to multiple interpretations and mischief. My definition is more precise and less susceptible to mischief and misinterpretation.

[ThatGirlAgain]

By contingent reality EduChris means everyting that is not self-causing. You, me, instinct, codfish, Neptune ... the entire universe and whatever might be outside the physical universe that needs to have its existence explained. Things that depend on something else - that is what contingent means.

Although, I would love to see actual evidence to show that the universe is not self causing. .. that doesn't rely on philosophical word games and speculation.

As I said near the beginning, this is not about whether or not God exists, but about what is meant when one says I believe / do not believe in God.