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?

[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?

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'.

Small quibble. Non-contingent is not the same as non-created. Creation carries the implication of a beginning in time. An eternal universe would still require explanation of why it has the specific nature it does. That universe was not created at any point in time but its nature is still contingent since it could have been otherwise and requires explanation of its specificity.

[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?"

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'.

NOt really, no. "No arbitrary limitations" is not the same as 'no limitations,' which is why the adjective is required. "non-contingent' doesn't NECESSARILY mean 'non-created,' it means 'non-contingent.'

[EduChris]

...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.

Should we let anyone and everyone define quarks and gluons? If someone were to claim that quarks are really little green Martians, and gluons were really little red Venusians, should scientists then be required to defend such notions even if there is no one who seriously and thoughtfully wishes to defend such definitions?

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.

[EduChris]

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

It covers the bases for all of today's major world theisms. If you do not wish to discuss contemporary conceptualizations of God, that is your choice. But if you want a place at the contemporary table, then you need to get with the contemporary program.

...Hinduism is naturally excluded...

Says who? Hinduism is monotheistic (all of the so-called "gods" are deemed to be different manifestations of the same divine being).

...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. 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.

...It is an unacceptable and useless definition.

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

[EduChris]

...the exact same thing.

Pretty much everyone here, including Joey, disagrees with you. Your definition is entirely different than mine, and for that reason this theist very deliberately rejects your attempted definition.

[Janx]

...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.

You've got a long way to go until this THING which the universe is contingent upon becomes the same THING which spawned mankind, brought us Christ and sends us miracles and death every now and then.

You might as well call yourself an atheist with a definition like that because there is nothing here to pray too.

[EduChris]

...You've got a long way to go until this THING which the universe is contingent upon becomes the same THING which spawned mankind, brought us Christ and sends us miracles and death every now and then...You might as well call yourself an atheist with a definition like that because there is nothing here to pray too.

Does that mean you're willing to grant the definition, for the sake of argument at least? If the definition is as worthless as you say, why do so many of the non-theists here refuse to adopt it for the sake of argument? What are they afraid of?

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.

[Goat]

Small quibble. Non-contingent is not the same as non-created. Creation carries the implication of a beginning in time. An eternal universe would still require explanation of why it has the specific nature it does. That universe was not created at any point in time but its nature is still contingent since it could have been otherwise and requires explanation of its specificity.

If that is the case, then there is nothing that can possibly be 'non-contingent'. .. because there isn't anything that would not require explanation about why it has the specific nature it does.

I guess that is a total proof that God, as defined by Educhris, does not exist.

[Janx]

...You've got a long way to go until this THING which the universe is contingent upon becomes the same THING which spawned mankind, brought us Christ and sends us miracles and death every now and then...You might as well call yourself an atheist with a definition like that because there is nothing here to pray too.

Does that mean you're willing to grant the definition, for the sake of argument at least? If the definition is as worthless as you say, why do so many of the non-theists here refuse to adopt it for the sake of argument? What are they afraid of?

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.

The universe as I see is a non-contingent THING. It appears we practice the same religion good sir...

[EduChris]

...The universe as I see is a non-contingent THING. It appears we practice the same religion good sir...

Given that the universe appears to have had a beginning, before which time the physical laws as we know them could not have pertained, you'd have to tell us why the universe is non-contingent.

You'd also have to explain how the universe is capable of "intentional and efficacious causal action."

Also, I posited "the simplest possible non-contingent reality," but our universe seems far from simple. If it were simple, then there would be no need for scientists to posit an infinity of unobservable universes for the sole purpose of diminishing the need for a designer.