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]

Let's examine that..

1) Simplest entity would be empty space, or something without a consciousness.

To be "simplest" requires only that it is without composition, that is, made of one "part" which is also its whole. Souls are simple; minds are usually taken as simple; empty space could be a simple (let's let physics figure that out); and so on.

What is a soul? How is it simple? What is a mind? I have a relative grasp on what a "mind" is usually perceived as but I certainly don't see a mind as simple. Why do you think it is usually taken as simple?

If minds are simples, then it doesn't necessarily follow that a simplest entity must be without a mind.

A big "if" imo.

Thus it can be said that such an argument self-collapses in every area of the supposed attributes given when anyone of them is taken out of the equation by another conflicting attribute, or thing (such as ourselves).

This is why it's necessary to understand how we can predicate of God. You are like a bull in china shop. Theological language is delicate. But then I don't see why you should expect it to be easily comprehensible; we're speaking of a being entirely unlike all other beings.

A potential being. Why would "God" be so hard to comprehend? I suppose first we would have to define God, something that this thread is dedicated to, yet after 7 pages has been unable to establish. But if you were to listen to some God talk people would even tell you that this "God" was not only similar to humans but that humans were a model of this "God" fellow, that we were made by this "God" in the image of this "God". If they have it right, your theory of "a being unlike all other beings" is blown right out of the water.

[EduChris]

...Exactly what attributes are you including...

Earlier I defined the God of today's major world theisms as: "the simplest possible non-contingent reality, possessing no arbitrary limitations regarding knowledge, spatio-temporality, or causal efficacy."

[EduChris]

...first we would have to define God, something that this thread is dedicated to...

See my post above, where I define the God of today's major world theisms.

If someone wants to put forward a definition of some other god(s), and defend that definition, they are free to do so. But today's major world theisms need not define or defend god(s) that virtually no serious person today accepts--and in the case of contingent god(s), I grant that the non-theists well-worn, old-fashioned arguments succeed quite well. Indeed, almost always it is the non-theists who put forward old-fashioned god-concepts for no other purpose than to deflect the argument away from more contemporary conceptualizations of God which cannot be so easily dismissed.

[Filthy Tugboat]

...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.

I personally see your definitions as being inadequate as they are too specific and largely false concerning many proposed gods.

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.

I don't think anyone expected you to behave in the manner you propose. Nor do I think anyone considers it necessary.

...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.

I do not recall claiming so much for myself, granted you did not say "all" non-theists, I would still prefer you stop stereotyping so much and using your arguments more directly. If non-theists are as bad as you depict them to be, than readers are capable of detecting such elitist behavior themselves, they do not need you to point it out and your attempts at doing so as frequently as you do are largely unnecessary and, in my opinion, a cry for attention. Stop behaving like a child and instead debate like the learned adult you are.

If someone tells me, "I'm a non-theists because I'm a dummy," I will probably agree with him.

Are you trying to say that, "non-theists are dummies"? Seriously, are you that desperate for attention? Can you debate in a civilized manner? Do you have to denigrate and insult your opponent this often? Grow up, you are a learned adult, one of the smartest people I've encountered on this forum yet you have bouts of ridiculous and stupid behavior? Can you not behave in a civilized manner? Is it that bloody difficult?

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.

And if they do keep pace with contemporary theistic discourse, then what? I am not saying I am a non-theist because I'm more rational and learned than theists, I would never claim as much, especially because I am largely self taught and unlearned in almost every field there is. But either way, if they can keep pace with contemporary theistic discourse, what does that mean for defining "god" or "God"? Are they more capable of providing this definition? Are they better suited for understanding "god" or God"?

[Filthy Tugboat]

...first we would have to define God, something that this thread is dedicated to...

See my post above, where I define the God of today's major world theisms.

I have seen it and I disregard it as an adequate definition for the term god or God. It does not cover all bases like a general term should. Hinduism is naturally excluded as well as paganism and many forms of polytheism and even some forms of monotheism. It is an unacceptable and useless definition.

[dianaiad]

...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?

Perhaps...because the definition as proposed does not necessarily include "eternal,' 'non-created,' 'omniscient,' or 'omnipotent?"

[Goat]

...we can conclude such a concept of an Omniscient entity to be likely nothing more than a logical fallacy...

Which is why I deliberately omitted "omniscience" from my definition, even in the face of certain non-theist's insisting that I include it.

Non-theists here seem to want to define God for theists; then they want to dictate how theists should defend the non-theist's God; and then non-theists want to imagine that they have accomplished something by defeating the God which theists did not define, did not argue for, and do not accept in the first place.

Strawman, anyone?

No, you didn't use that word. You merely changed the traits 'omniscient and omnipotent' with the phrase "possessing no arbitrary limitations regarding knowledge, spatio-temporality, or causal efficacy. ", which is the exact same thing.

[ThatGirlAgain]

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 actually disagree, those that do not believe in the Greek God Apollo make a great example of atheism, it is a demonstration that is understandable for almost every single person that exists.

I must be misunderstanding you. Anyone who does not believe in Apollo is an atheist? An atheist believes in no gods. Does this require a theist to believe in all gods? Please explain what you really meant.

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.

He may have taken the idea to a "sophisticated level" but only so far as Christian or monotheistic thought can go. I find taking the debate this far defeats the purpose of the discussion at hand and focuses too much on monotheism and even Christianity. The definition of God(s) or god(s) should not be reduced to monotheistic views with monotheistic assumptions. The definition that is being focused on here is faulty for many religious perspectives.

Do you have a better definition? Flail already put forward the idea that God is an example of a supernatural entity and there is no evidence for any supernatural entities. As a consequence it is not necessary to define God any further. (I am paraphrasing.)

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’.

I don't see why views that do not follow the definition given by Educhris should be considered, "other than intellectual aspects of religion". Perhaps you could elaborate why you consider them as such and why others should consider them the same way.

There are certainly non-intellectual aspects to belief in a deity. For most religious people, emotional and psychological elements probably predominate. Arguments about requiring proof of God will not touch them because their belief is not founded on arguments but on ‘faith’. They do not need definitions. They ‘know’ what God is but not necessarily in any way that could be described as intellectual. That is what I was talking about.

And I thought it was what you were talking about when you said “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.�

[Filthy Tugboat]

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 actually disagree, those that do not believe in the Greek God Apollo make a great example of atheism, it is a demonstration that is understandable for almost every single person that exists.

I must be misunderstanding you. Anyone who does not believe in Apollo is an atheist? An atheist believes in no gods. Does this require a theist to believe in all gods? Please explain what you really meant.

Sorry, I may have expressed myself poorly, what I meant was, disbelief in Apollo is a great example of disbelief in God's. It is an example that almost everyone can relate to and understand. Disbelieving in Apollo does not make one an atheist but all atheists disbelieve in Apollo, as do most theists. it is a position that is easy to relate to and easily understood from almost every perspective.

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.

He may have taken the idea to a "sophisticated level" but only so far as Christian or monotheistic thought can go. I find taking the debate this far defeats the purpose of the discussion at hand and focuses too much on monotheism and even Christianity. The definition of God(s) or god(s) should not be reduced to monotheistic views with monotheistic assumptions. The definition that is being focused on here is faulty for many religious perspectives.

Do you have a better definition? Flail already put forward the idea that God is an example of a supernatural entity and there is no evidence for any supernatural entities. As a consequence it is not necessary to define God any further. (I am paraphrasing.)

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

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’.

I don't see why views that do not follow the definition given by Educhris should be considered, "other than intellectual aspects of religion". Perhaps you could elaborate why you consider them as such and why others should consider them the same way.

There are certainly non-intellectual aspects to belief in a deity. For most religious people, emotional and psychological elements probably predominate. Arguments about requiring proof of God will not touch them because their belief is not founded on arguments but on ‘faith’. They do not need definitions. They ‘know’ what God is but not necessarily in any way that could be described as intellectual. That is what I was talking about.

That's OK then, it looked to me as if you'd said that god belief was dependent on the definition given by Educhris and that views that were inconsistent with the given definition were unintellectual. Sorry for my misinterpretation.

And I thought it was what you were talking about when you said “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.�

Nope, my own shortcomings in understanding the term are not meant to outline what it is or should be for others. They are simply, my own shortcomings.

[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?

Perhaps...because the definition as proposed does not necessarily include "eternal,' 'non-created,' 'omniscient,' or 'omnipotent?"

It just uses wordism to make things more complicated to use the same thing. It uses 'non-contingent', and 'no arbitrary limitations to spatio-temporality'
instead. 'No arbitrary limitations to spatio-temporarality' means 'eternal and 'not bound by time'. ', and 'non-contingent' means 'non-created'.