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]

...What definition of "simplest" are you using?...

Fewest arbitrary contraints, limitations, or specifications.

I can't say I've seen that definition of the term "simplest"... Ever.

...How does possessing no arbitrary constraints or limitations make something the "simplest possible entity"?...

Arbitrary constraints, limitations, or specifications require explanation.

All constraints, limitations and specifications require explanation, what does their being arbitrary have to do with it?

All else equal, an entity possessing fewer arbitrary constraints will be epistemically preferred over an entity possessing more arbitrary constraints.

Indeed but this isn't about epistemic preference, this is about the being being "simple". Brahman, is naturally far more complex than the entire universe as the universe is apart of Brahman or depending on beliefs, comes from Brahman. So Hinduism is excluded from your list. I personally think the Abrahamic religions propose that the Abrahamic God is complex but I think Hinduism was enough to make my point.

...Strengths of your definition? How were there any strengths to your definition? How can a definition or a description of any kind be considered strong?...

A definition is strong if it covers the bases for the actual item in questions. What we have in this case is a disagreement about the "item in question." I claim we need only discuss the minimum attributes common to all of today's major world theisms. You claim that we need to include the contingent and limited gods of obsolete theisms. My claim best corresponds to the intent of the OP.

I disagree, many things have been labelled "God", you definition does not include all of them, as per the debate question, your definition should be thrown out.

Contingent gods cannot survive the criticisms of even retrograde forms of non-theism; therefore, they can safely be excluded from further consideration (in the same way that science no longer needs to defend obsolete theories such as phlogiston).

How is this relevant? They are still Gods are they not? It doesn't matter if people do or don't believe in them. It doesn't matter how many believe in them or whether they are rational, they are still Gods.

...Why would the definition for the term "God" have to capture viability for the Gods of obsolete polytheisms?...

It doesn't. That's my point.

It wasn't your point when you stated, "and failed to capture any viability for the limited gods of obsolete polytheisms." Your point here was to demonstrate that the definition I supplied did not fill this criteria, to which I ask, why should this criteria be fulfilled? This criteria was never something I proposed nor agreed to.

...it needs to address them because like it or not they are still Gods, why would create a specific definition in a thread dedicated to sourcing or creating a general definition?

The OP specifically rules out any consideration of limited, contingent "gods."

No it doesn't, it asks a question as to whether it should be ruled out. I don't think it should given it seems as per the rest of the OP that doing so would eliminate the purpose of the thread. The purpose of the thread being to reach a bare minimum of attributes that would constitute a God. Something your definition did not achieve.

[Goat]

...What definition of "simplest" are you using?...

Fewest arbitrary contraints, limitations, or specifications.

...How does possessing no arbitrary constraints or limitations make something the "simplest possible entity"?...

Arbitrary constraints, limitations, or specifications require explanation. All else equal, an entity possessing fewer arbitrary constraints will be epistemically preferred over an entity posessing more arbitrary constraints.
"

You mean. like the arbitrary constraint of needing volition? That seems to be an arbitrary constraint to me.

[EduChris]

...I can't say I've seen that definition of the term "simplest"... Ever...All constraints, limitations and specifications require explanation, what does their being arbitrary have to do with it?...

I'll let TGA respond to this, if she cares to.

...Brahman, is naturally far more complex than the entire universe as the universe is apart of Brahman or depending on beliefs, comes from Brahman. So Hinduism is excluded from your list. I personally think the Abrahamic religions propose that the Abrahamic God is complex but I think Hinduism was enough to make my point...

The set of all integers is simpler than any specific finite set of integers.

...I disagree, many things have been labelled "God", you definition does not include all of them...They are still Gods are they not? It doesn't matter if people do or don't believe in them. It doesn't matter how many believe in them or whether they are rational, they are still Gods...

Definitions can have multiple entries for the same word. Perhaps you would like to add a second entry to describe the limited and contingent gods of obsolete theisms. Contingent gods are so utterly and completely different than any non-contingent God that they simply cannot be described by the same definition--unless you want to define "God" so generically (e.g., an object of veneration or ultimate concern) that it would cover, say, science or money or power or popularity or pleasure (the common idols of our age).

...It wasn't your point when you stated, "and failed to capture any viability for the limited gods of obsolete polytheisms." Your point here was to demonstrate that the definition I supplied did not fill this criteria, to which I ask, why should this criteria be fulfilled? This criteria was never something I proposed nor agreed to...

You keep on insisting (against the stated intention of the OP) that such "gods" need to be included in the definition, and yet your definition does not succeed in this respect. Contingent "gods" of obsolete theisms are not described at all by your definition: "possessing no arbitrary limitations regarding knowledge, spatio-temporality, or causal efficacy," since such gods are quite limited in all of these respects

...The OP specifically rules out any consideration of limited, contingent "gods."

No it doesn't, it asks a question as to whether it should be ruled out...

I'll leave this to TGA, since this is her thread.

[EduChris]

...the arbitrary constraint of needing volition? That seems to be an arbitrary constraint to me.

The full set of "all X" is less arbitrary than any limited "subset of X." Thus, if volition is a causal mechanism--as it seems to be, given our direct and unmediated experience of it as a causal mechanism--then it belongs in the full set of causal mechanisms. Strong arguments against volition would be needed to overcome the arbitrariness of any attempt to eliminate it from the full set.

[TheJackelantern]

The full set of "all X" is less arbitrary than any limited "subset of X." Thus, if volition is a causal mechanism--as it seems to be, given our direct and unmediated experience of it as a causal mechanism--then it belongs in the full set of causal mechanisms. Strong arguments against volition would be needed to overcome the arbitrariness of any attempt to eliminate it from the full set.

Someone doesn't comprehend set theory.. And worst yet, tries to use it as circular argument to claim a Universal set doesn't negate the supposed to exist GOD set. Basically you are trying to argue existence doesn't exclude conscious beings. No really!, that's basically your lame argument. Well duh!, we are here aren't we? .. But what's really bad about your circular pleading argument is that a conscious mind can not represent a universal set of all sets simply because itself REQUIRES CAUSATION!

You theist will do anything to avoid addressing the issue without having to try and circumvent logic and reason with self-collapsing circular arguments that literally plead for peoples ignorance. I have a little clue for you sir, applying infinite regress means breaking all sets apart until you find the point where you can no-longer regress. Hence to find the universal set X, you need to apply infinite regress. And you are unwilling to apply that to consciousness.. You ignore it like the plague.

Today's major world theisms do believe that God is the simplest possible entity in that God possesses no arbitrary constraints or limitations.

Are you saying a rock, yourself and I, empty space is more complex than your GOD? You do realize the utter fail of this argument right? Clearly you do not understand what complexity is, or what simplicity is... You clearly do not comprehend why a rock is more simple than anything with a conscious mind. A flea is more complex than something without a brain. We don't care what theism believes because theism doesn't reflect reality.

And I can easily debunk your arbitrary limits bs in dealing with anything conscious:

Is your GOD arbitrarily limited in the ability to entirely destroy existence and then re-create existence itself so he himself can exist? Your argument is like saying he could destroy himself entirely and then recreate himself willingly from a position of non-existence.

No arbitrary limits is exactly the same thing as trying say your god is omnipotent. All arbitrary allows you to say is "well, he doesn't have to if he doesn't want to" as some sort of lame escape route when considering that omnipotence is a logical fallacy to begin with.

Can he create information into existence so he can know he exists? How about knowledge so he can have the ability of intelligence? Do tell us how your god designed and created consciousness... This is just to easy to debunk that it's literally ridiculous..


And to make it clear to him, there is only 1 universal set of all sets. That is existence itself.. The rules / substance of existence is causation of all that exists. Sorry EduChris.., you have no relevant argument. And I will even demonstrate it very simply:

We will pretend our observable Universe was created by a being, or entire species of beings. These beings being highly intelligent and can manipulate physical laws to induce a big bang. We will even pretend they made Earth and all us Humans out of dirt (yes your bible says we are magically made of dirt as dirt people).. So we will just assume all of that for argument sake.. So here is the first question:

1) Are they GOD(s)

Explain to me what makes them GOD.. after you are done there, you can answer which of the following do we require most in order to exist. Hence, what is actually the source origin of our existence. What actually governs that of all things to which include the supposed beings, or supposed being.?

1) The beings in question?
2) Magical Unicorns?
3) Papa smurf?
4) A rock?
5) Pixie Fairy dust?
6) Existence itself and it's rules?

And I want you to explain in exact detail of your answer. And if you don't choose number (6), I want you to explain to me in exact detail how your other choice doesn't require number 6, and doesn't requires to follow the rules of number 6. I want you to explain to me how your choice would not require causation in exact detail...

And when you are done with that, I want to you explain to us why humans are not GOD's when we can create things from a preexisting existence.. Create things like light from a vacuum.. We might even be able to create a universe according some physics? So what exactly are you worshiping here? Power? ability? Ego? Elitism? .. Compared to fleas, humans are GODS... And what makes you think you don't have an infinite ingress of GODs? After all, it's logical to say a conscious being will always have a conscious creator and thus end up with infinite regress, and ingress of supposed creators. That's the funny thing about infinity and dealing with existence son. There can be an infinite number of universes, and infinite number of conscious beings, and infinite number of Earths in a hotel that has an infinite amount of room for an infinite amount of things.

But here's the kicker.. Compared to existence itself, everything else is indeed entirely irrelevant. That includes your concept of GOD.. Existence doesn't require any of you, or your GOD concepts to exist. It's you that requires it to exist.

THUS ABRAHAMIC GODS ARE LOGICAL FALLACIES!

[TheJackelantern]

Who wants to bet he will entirely ignore my post, and not even bother to properly address it. ???

[ThatGirlAgain]

...I can't say I've seen that definition of the term "simplest"... Ever...All constraints, limitations and specifications require explanation, what does their being arbitrary have to do with it?...

I'll let TGA respond to this, if she cares to.

I have used that same meaning of ‘simplest’ in my posts on related subjects. Something is simpler if it requires less specification to uniquely identify it. There is a guard at the office door. How simple are the decisions he must make to stop people from leaving early under each of the following scenarios?

1) The people in this office can go home early.
2) The female people in this office can go home early.
3) The red-headed female people in this office can go home early.
4) The red-headed female people less than 5 foot 1 inch tall in this office can go home early. (Hey, cool!)

An arbitrary constraint, limitation or specification is one for which there are no prior reasons. The guard from the example above might receive order (4) but arbitrarily add the condition that such persons must be over the age of 20. (Hey, no fair!) For simplicity I am assuming non-deterministic volition on the part of the guard. In a strictly deterministic universe, nothing is arbitrary.

...Brahman, is naturally far more complex than the entire universe as the universe is apart of Brahman or depending on beliefs, comes from Brahman. So Hinduism is excluded from your list. I personally think the Abrahamic religions propose that the Abrahamic God is complex but I think Hinduism was enough to make my point...

The set of all integers is simpler than any specific finite set of integers.

The set of all integers is specified by the definition of ‘integer’. Specifying a specific subset of integers first requires the definition of ‘integer’, then the definition or labels of the specific subset. E.g., [all even integers] or [1 2 7 10 12].

The 19th century mathematician Georg Cantor developed the theory of sets including infinite sets. There are multiple infinite sets of different sizes, e.g., the set of integers and the set of real numbers. For any given set, a larger set can be easily specified: the set of all subsets of the given set (the powerset). This means that there is no largest set. There are an infinite number of sets of different sizes.

This raises a problem. Is there a set of all sets? It would seem that there is. A set is a collection. Can’t we collect all sets under one label? But by the powerset technique, we can make a set that is larger than the set of all sets. Obviously that set cannot be contained in the candidate set of all sets and it is not the set of all sets. Saying “the set of all sets� is contradictory.

Cantor called this unclassifiable thing the Absolute Infinite. In Cantor’s opinion this Absolute Infinite was God! It is interesting to combine this concept with another idea of Cantor, that “a set is the form of a possible thought�. (Ref) A set is a collection of things with some definite description, even if only an arbitrary one such as the integers [1 2 7 10 12]. That description is a thought. It is not possible for all possible thoughts to itself be a thought. God is unthinkable. (Nice double entendre there, I just realized.)

...I disagree, many things have been labelled "God", you definition does not include all of them...They are still Gods are they not? It doesn't matter if people do or don't believe in them. It doesn't matter how many believe in them or whether they are rational, they are still Gods...

Definitions can have multiple entries for the same word. Perhaps you would like to add a second entry to describe the limited and contingent gods of obsolete theisms. Contingent gods are so utterly and completely different than any non-contingent God that they simply cannot be described by the same definition--unless you want to define "God" so generically (e.g., an object of veneration or ultimate concern) that it would cover, say, science or money or power or popularity or pleasure (the common idols of our age).

Earlier on in this thread there was some discussion of not trying to define God/god but having atheism be essentially the denial of supernatural entities, of which God/gods are examples regardless of how they are defined. But I do feel that some atheists want to make the theological God into a non-supreme being, like maybe Apollo, thereby bypassing the issue of debating theology. There is definitely a distinction between debating the Necessary Being and Biblegod. The question is whether the distinction is only academic, or rather to whom]i/] it is only academic.

...It wasn't your point when you stated, "and failed to capture any viability for the limited gods of obsolete polytheisms." Your point here was to demonstrate that the definition I supplied did not fill this criteria, to which I ask, why should this criteria be fulfilled? This criteria was never something I proposed nor agreed to...

You keep on insisting (against the stated intention of the OP) that such "gods" need to be included in the definition, and yet your definition does not succeed in this respect. Contingent "gods" of obsolete theisms are not described at all by your definition: "possessing no arbitrary limitations regarding knowledge, spatio-temporality, or causal efficacy," since such gods are quite limited in all of these respects

...The OP specifically rules out any consideration of limited, contingent "gods."

No it doesn't, it asks a question as to whether it should be ruled out...

I'll leave this to TGA, since this is her thread.

Whether or not there is a God – and I mean the God of e.g., Thomas Aquinas – is essential to the idea of religion having divine authority, at least in modern Western religions. It seems to me that an atheist needs to either reject the supernatural as fact or debate the God of Aquinas or something like that. Messing around with Apollo is pointless. If there are any Apollo believers around here this is not the sub-forum for them.

[AquinasD]

Existence is literal the sum total of everything. It's not about just being in existence. It's about being of existence.. Everything follows the rules of existence. Entities, especially conscious ones, can never be considered the source origin to all there is. Much less the creator to. So unless you can tell me how one creates existence and the rules to existence, there is no such thing as a GOD. Unless you want to go with Pantheism.

Yeah, I was right. You're equivocating.

God is included in the "sum total of everything." It only happens to be the case that God founds the possibility of everything else that might be included in the "sum total of everything."

There, see? God does not "create existence," but is simply a necessary part of it. He does not create the "rules of existence," but He is their foundation.

It means you require causation to exist.

So by information you mean... contingent? Cuz' that's the word for that sort of thing.

What about necessary things, i.e. doesn't require causation to exist/be actual?

Information is the substance value of existence. Energy =/= information = force = causation.. Not hard to grasp.

Actually, that just doesn't make any sense. I mean, look at how you're using the word "information," by which apparently you just mean "contingent."

So how about you stop avoiding my questions and answer them...

I can't answer your questions if I don't know what you're asking. I didn't know that you meant by information "contingent," for example.

[EduChris]

...Messing around with Apollo is pointless. If there are any Apollo believers around here this is not the sub-forum for them.

Agreed, and thank you.

The only people who insist that the discussion must include the "Apollos" of obsolete theisms are the very people who don't believe in such gods! Obfuscation, anyone?

[TheJackelantern]

Yeah, I was right. You're equivocating.

No, I am making a point. And regardless of equivocation, it doesn't make my point wrong.

There, see? God does not "create existence," but is simply a necessary part of it. He does not create the "rules of existence," but He is their foundation.

Exactly my point. Equivocation is correct. It's not just about being in existence. It's the fact that everything is of existence, as in made of existence and follows the rules of existence.... Everyone here can manipulate existence to suit there needs btw. We do it everyday.. And the problem with your GOD argument is that consciousness can't exist without causation.. So what exactly are you calling GOD? Pantheists have you beat on this GOD concept / issue entirely. Hence the point is that if anything is to be GOD, it can only realistically be existence itself... It's the full range of complexity, simplicity, or anything that there is. It also nullifies your supposed simplicity argument.

Not sure if you understand why this supports the Atheist point of view..

So by information you mean... contingent? Cuz' that's the word for that sort of thing.

yes, everything has informational value and complexity.. Everything that exists has information to offer. The problem is that no single bit of information is conscious, and a conscious mind can't simply exist without causation. Consciousness can not exist without the same system of feedback that things like life and your common computer require to exist. Simple living organisms are far less complex, and even require far less causation to exist than something with a conscious mind. The odds of conscious emergence is far less likely than the emergence of primitive life to which evolves into something like us, or even likely than the birth of a Universe. If you really want to look at design ect.. Consciousness is the epiphany of what you could argue for in what appears to need it... So the question you really want to ask is how did consciousness come to be? You can't sit there and claim consciousness is magically the simplest thing when it's no-where near that.

What about necessary things, i.e. doesn't require causation to exist/be actual

Only existence itself, the substance of existence, and it's rules can represent that. Conscious minds can not. Conscious minds are not necessary for existence.. Energy does a lot of things.. No conscious mind is necessary for snowflakes to form. No conscious mind is necessary for any electromagnetic phenomenon like life to occur... You just like to believe it does..

Actually, that just doesn't make any sense. I mean, look at how you're using the word "information," by which apparently you just mean "contingent."

Ok, explain biochemistry, how your computer works, how snowflakes form, or how you managed to post that argument... You think it's magic? How much do you know about electromagnetism? Apparently not a whole lot. Information is a physical thing. Information can not be made of nothing since nothing can't literally have any informational value or exist. Energy in science is equal to information.. they are two sides of the same coin as both substance and value... If you also understood what force is, the four stages of matter are, or what energy is in relation to those, you would comprehend why energy =/= information = force = causation. If you knew anything about genetics for example, you would realize that genetics is a prime example of what I am talking about. Life is an electromagnetic phenomenon! And that goes right down the atoms, particles and the very energy they are made of. If you don't understand information science and information theory, I suggest you go back and read my posts on the subject.

I can't answer your questions if I don't know what you're asking. I didn't know that you meant by information "contingent," for example.

You can't answer them because doing so actually proves my point. Hence, you can't do anything without actually proving the point being made. That includes your ability to sit there and contemplate it all.