Minimum Attributes of God

Argue for and against Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
ThatGirlAgain
Prodigy
Posts: 2961
Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2011 1:09 pm
Location: New York City
Been thanked: 1 time

Minimum Attributes of God

Post #1

Post by ThatGirlAgain »

Flail wrote: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?
Dogmatism and skepticism are both, in a sense, absolute philosophies; one is certain of knowing, the other of not knowing. What philosophy should dissipate is certainty, whether of knowledge or ignorance.
- Bertrand Russell

TheJackelantern
Under Probation
Posts: 772
Joined: Mon Jan 02, 2012 2:48 am

Post #191

Post by TheJackelantern »

EduChris,

Maybe we can simplify this even further.. You believe a conscious being, a being you believe to be a GOD, is the most simplistic entity right? Very simple? As simple as it gets right? ... Ok... Make me a conscious entity. It should be ridiculously simple that even you could make a conscious entity, thing, or being.. After all, I can sit here all day and make unconscious things. I can go out side and make an unconscious snowman.. Can you make me a Jack Frost?, a conscious happy snowman? The answer is no you can't, and you can't because it's not that simple

.. We humans don't even have the technology yet to even do that yet. Artificial Intelligence is pretty damn good these days, but no-where near what you can subscribe to as conscious beings. Though we will likely be capable of doing that after quantum computing takes off. Why do I say this? Well, classical computing that deals with binary code is extremely limited in the fact that 0 and 1 can only act as switches. Hence, you can only have one or the other as on/off. Thus processing limits things like AI ect.. It's why AI is scripted and can't ever fully be unscripted. It's also why AI in games suck..

However, quantum computing involves qubits to where each bit can be both zero and one at the same time. What this means is that future computing will allow us to process two things at once, and process things in abstract probability much like a human brain! Hence, we can then make and code AI that has self-determinism, and the ability to learn abstractly from it's mistakes like we do. Put such a thing into a neuro-networks where you have quantum computing and Neurocomputing, it's more than possible to create an artificial conscious entity. But Ethically we should refrain from doing so. Hence you can read this here:

The Brain Is Both Neurocomputer and Quantum Computer

User avatar
Filthy Tugboat
Guru
Posts: 1726
Joined: Sat Nov 06, 2010 12:55 pm
Location: Australia
Been thanked: 1 time

Post #192

Post by Filthy Tugboat »

ThatGirlAgain wrote:
EduChris wrote:
Filthy Tugboat wrote:...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.
OK, on that note, should, "simplest possible entity" apply to the definition of God, I think not. If anything Gods are ridiculously hard to identify, the amount of variations major and minor are beyond count, I would find it difficult to identify just about anyone's individual God concept and if I restrict it to just the major world theisms, as EduChris would have us do then I would have much less success as deism and pantheism do not fall into those categories and they are by far the easiest to identify.
ThatGirlAgain wrote:
EduChris wrote:
Filthy Tugboat wrote:...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].
So basically, what's being said is that Brahman is simpler than the universe in the sense that it is more easily identifiable, it only has to be defined by 'Brahman,' but similarly the universe is still identified as "the universe" so which one is simpler? Should we perhaps appeal to a different definition of 'simplest' as this one does not provide an answer? But if we look at it from a contemporary standard, Brahman is infinitely more complex than the universe and everything within it. That's my problem with this use of the term 'simple' it is not really consistent with any other definition of 'simple' when used as the description of a thing.
ThatGirlAgain wrote:
EduChris wrote:
Filthy Tugboat wrote:...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.
Some may want to do this. It doesn't really accomplish that goal though, it merely moves the debate to something with a more specific label. If God were defined in a way that includes all Gods, including contingent and non-contingent, the debate would still continue, people would just have to be more specific. Keeping the definition general and non-specific prevents confusion and limits assumptions.
EduChris wrote:
Filthy Tugboat wrote:...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
Are the limits arbitrary though? The Lesser Gods portrayed in Hinduism are limited in many capacities but their limitations aren't necessarily arbitrary, no more-so than our own.
ThatGirlAgain wrote:
EduChris wrote:
Filthy Tugboat wrote:
EduChris wrote:...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.
Indeed, should modern Western religions be the focus of the definition of God though? What of those that view Jesus as a demi-God rather than God himself? Should their views be excluded from the definition?
EduChris wrote: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.
An atheist is Someone who rejects every God concept that they have encountered. That includes contingent and non-contingent Gods.
EduChris wrote:Messing around with Apollo is pointless. If there are any Apollo believers around here this is not the sub-forum for them.
Why does that mean that [discussing] or [debating] Apollo is pointless? Does debate become pointless when the topic is of Gods that are no longer believed in or popular?
Religion feels to me a little like a Nigerian Prince scam. The "offer" is illegitimate, the "request" is unreasonable and the source is dubious, in fact, Nigeria doesn't even have a royal family.

TheJackelantern
Under Probation
Posts: 772
Joined: Mon Jan 02, 2012 2:48 am

Post #193

Post by TheJackelantern »

"the universe" so which one is simpler?
Good question... We could even simplify that to Just "E"

E = Existence
E = Energy
E = Everything
E = Mc^2
E = Me
E = Everybody
E= Entity


Very simple.. In fact it's "E"asy to understand to! A lot less complicated than trying to Explain the Abrahmic GOD concept or consciousness. Hell, the Christian religion is just too complicated and complex to be simple enough for this argument. Any questions? Is that too difficult for Christians and Creationists to understand? I would like to say in closure:

The "E"nd :)

Flail

Post #194

Post by Flail »

Filthy Tugboat wrote:
OK, on that note, should, "simplest possible entity" apply to the definition of God, I think not. If anything Gods are ridiculously hard to identify, the amount of variations major and minor are beyond count,...
'God' would necessarily be the 'best', most superior, ultimate creative entity which has created the 'best possible world'. All of these superlatives are subjective and vague which of course would be expected as creations of man; which is why man has concocted so many different flavors of 'God'.

The problem with static religious ideas of 'God' like the BibleGod is that little room has been left for change as we evolve our intellects and our collective knowledge....we're stuck with the same old 'God'. The risk is that someday we may become smarter and better than our own Gods.

User avatar
ThatGirlAgain
Prodigy
Posts: 2961
Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2011 1:09 pm
Location: New York City
Been thanked: 1 time

Post #195

Post by ThatGirlAgain »

Filthy Tugboat wrote:
ThatGirlAgain wrote:
EduChris wrote:
Filthy Tugboat wrote:...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.
OK, on that note, should, "simplest possible entity" apply to the definition of God, I think not. If anything Gods are ridiculously hard to identify, the amount of variations major and minor are beyond count, I would find it difficult to identify just about anyone's individual God concept and if I restrict it to just the major world theisms, as EduChris would have us do then I would have much less success as deism and pantheism do not fall into those categories and they are by far the easiest to identify.
I agree that the God that one arrives at via the “simplest possible entity� route does not tie in to any religion. In fact I started a usergroup based on that idea. Not only that but the end point that I arrive at (but EduChris does not) in pursuing the “simplest possible entity� route is not God at all. But that is a different thread that has run its course.

Atheism is an absence of belief in any gods. But considering the fundamentally different type of God that one might reach by logical “necessary being� arguments, it seems gratuitous to lump all of the deities ever dreamed up by mankind into that same bushel basket. If one wishes to dismiss the supernatural entirely that is one thing, an idea already discussed in this thread. But to single out ‘gods’ from the vast supernatural landscape of the imagination and then to include a very different kind of God seems very arbitrary. There is of course a common factor that is perhaps the rationale for doing so. And that is religion. It seems to me that the term ‘atheist’ is a misnomer and that what is really intended is ‘areligious’, questioning the validity of religions. Again see my usergroup definition.
Filthy Tugboat wrote:
ThatGirlAgain wrote:
EduChris wrote:
Filthy Tugboat wrote:...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].
So basically, what's being said is that Brahman is simpler than the universe in the sense that it is more easily identifiable, it only has to be defined by 'Brahman,' but similarly the universe is still identified as "the universe" so which one is simpler? Should we perhaps appeal to a different definition of 'simplest' as this one does not provide an answer? But if we look at it from a contemporary standard, Brahman is infinitely more complex than the universe and everything within it. That's my problem with this use of the term 'simple' it is not really consistent with any other definition of 'simple' when used as the description of a thing.
In Hinduism, Brahman is not more complex than the universe. The complexity of the universe is Maya, illusion. In the end there is only the simple unity of Brahman.

What is this “contemporary standard� you refer to? Can you define it and give supporting citations? Contemporary standards would seem to be those inherent in the sciences and in mathematics. There the drive is to find the simple principles that underly the apparent complexity. Speaking metaphorically, they are searching for ‘Brahman’? :lol:
Filthy Tugboat wrote:
EduChris wrote:
Filthy Tugboat wrote:...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...
They are all supernatural. Again why single out gods? As I said atheism is the wrong term. A-religious or perhaps a-supernatural seem closer to the true intent.
Filthy Tugboat wrote:
EduChris wrote: 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.

Some may want to do this. It doesn't really accomplish that goal though, it merely moves the debate to something with a more specific label. If God were defined in a way that includes all Gods, including contingent and non-contingent, the debate would still continue, people would just have to be more specific. Keeping the definition general and non-specific prevents confusion and limits assumptions.
Either make it more general – not religious and/or not supernatural – or more pertinent – the God of the theologians who claim to be supporting their religion. Debunking Apollo or any of the other gods of history does not do a thing to debunk the Gods of contemporary western religions. Insisting on including Apollo smells a lot like wanting to make the atheist argument easier by avoiding addressing the theist counter-arguments.
Filthy Tugboat wrote:
EduChris wrote:
Filthy Tugboat wrote:...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
Are the limits arbitrary though? The Lesser Gods portrayed in Hinduism are limited in many capacities but their limitations aren't necessarily arbitrary, no more-so than our own.
The lesser gods in Hinduism are not independent. Ultimately they are all Brahman, as is everything.
Within Hinduism a large number of personal gods (Ishvaras) are worshipped as murtis. These beings are either aspects of the supreme Brahman, Avatars of the supreme being, or significantly powerful entities known as devas. The exact nature of belief in regards to each deity varies between differing Hindu denominations and philosophies. Often these beings are depicted in humanoid or partially humanoid forms, complete with a set of unique and complex iconography in each case. These deities may be different but they are generally all considered forms of the one god (Brahman). These deities and their Pujas (religious rituals) provide one of the ways to communicate with this one divinity.
The devas are expansions of Brahman into various forms, each with a certain quality. In the Rig Veda 33 devas are described, which are personifications of phenomena in nature.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindu_deities

In Hinduism, a murti (Devanagari: मूर�ति), or murthi, or vigraha or pratima typically refers to an image which expresses a Divine Spirit (murta). Meaning literally "embodiment", a murti is a representation of a divinity, made usually of stone, wood, or metal, which serves as a means through which a divinity may be worshiped. Hindus consider a murti worthy of serving as a focus of divine worship only after the divine is invoked in it for the purpose of offering worship. The depiction of the divinity must reflect the gestures and proportions outlined in religious tradition. It is a means of communication with the god or Brahman in Hinduism. Murti is a Sanskrit term which is meant to point to the transcendent "otherness" of the divine and when substituted with statue or idol - its inherent meaning is lost since neither is a correct translation of the word murti.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murti
Filthy Tugboat wrote:
ThatGirlAgain wrote:
EduChris wrote:
Filthy Tugboat wrote:
EduChris wrote:...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.
Indeed, should modern Western religions be the focus of the definition of God though? What of those that view Jesus as a demi-God rather than God himself? Should their views be excluded from the definition?
Those that view Jesus as a demi-God nonetheless have a non-contingent God above him without which their religion would be pointless. Rejecting Jesus in any form is not necessarily atheism.

As I said above, focusing on God is missing the point. But if you are going to focus on God you have to deal with the prevalent modern concepts of God.
Filthy Tugboat wrote:
EduChris wrote: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.
An atheist is Someone who rejects every God concept that they have encountered. That includes contingent and non-contingent Gods.
EduChris wrote:Messing around with Apollo is pointless. If there are any Apollo believers around here this is not the sub-forum for them.
Why does that mean that [discussing] or [debating] Apollo is pointless? Does debate become pointless when the topic is of Gods that are no longer believed in or popular?
When the debate wants to discard all forms of God by debunking obsolete forms of god and avoiding modern concepts, it is suspect. Is modern science debunked because astrology and alchemy have gone by the wayside? In theology, rejecting contingent deities is easy. What are the grounds for rejecting non-contingent deities? That is what a definition of God is trying to get at.
Dogmatism and skepticism are both, in a sense, absolute philosophies; one is certain of knowing, the other of not knowing. What philosophy should dissipate is certainty, whether of knowledge or ignorance.
- Bertrand Russell

Flail

Post #196

Post by Flail »

ThatGirlAgain wrote:
When the debate wants to discard all forms of God by debunking obsolete forms of god and avoiding modern concepts, it is suspect. Is modern science debunked because astrology and alchemy have gone by the wayside? In theology, rejecting contingent deities is easy. What are the grounds for rejecting non-contingent deities? That is what a definition of God is trying to get at.
What definition of 'God'; are there any coherent ones? Are there verifiable grounds for accepting non-contingent beings as 'supernatural somethings'? Aren't all conditional beings non-falsefiable and thus pointless to debate as existent of non-existent?

User avatar
ThatGirlAgain
Prodigy
Posts: 2961
Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2011 1:09 pm
Location: New York City
Been thanked: 1 time

Post #197

Post by ThatGirlAgain »

Flail wrote:ThatGirlAgain wrote:
When the debate wants to discard all forms of God by debunking obsolete forms of god and avoiding modern concepts, it is suspect. Is modern science debunked because astrology and alchemy have gone by the wayside? In theology, rejecting contingent deities is easy. What are the grounds for rejecting non-contingent deities? That is what a definition of God is trying to get at.
What definition of 'God'; are there any coherent ones? Are there verifiable grounds for accepting non-contingent beings as 'supernatural somethings'? Aren't all conditional beings non-falsifiable and thus pointless to debate as existent of non-existent?
A definition of what it is that atheists do not believe in is what this thread is all about. What is that definition? If we are going settle on 'supernatural beings', i.e., beings not accounted for by the laws of the natural world, then fine. I like that idea. But we need to decide what it is that verifiable grounds are needed to support.

Is the thing that atheists do not believe in supernatural beings in general? That would certainly simplify the debate.
Dogmatism and skepticism are both, in a sense, absolute philosophies; one is certain of knowing, the other of not knowing. What philosophy should dissipate is certainty, whether of knowledge or ignorance.
- Bertrand Russell

User avatar
EduChris
Prodigy
Posts: 4615
Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2010 4:34 pm
Location: U.S.A.
Contact:

Post #198

Post by EduChris »

Flail wrote:...What definition of 'God'...
At minimum, if non-theists wish to engage in contemporary discourse about God, non-theists will need to understand how contemporary theists define God. It makes no sense for non-theists to say, "I don't believe in contingent gods," since contemporary theists also do not believe in such gods. In order for there to be some distinction between contemporary theists and contemporary non-theists, the non-theists will have to agree to reject the non-contingent God of today's major world theisms; otherwise, the non-theists will just be talking amongst themselves about a subject that no one else cares about anymore.

Flail wrote:...are there any coherent ones?...
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.

It seems incoherent to suggest that this definition is somehow less coherent than numerous other things that are regularly discussed: freedom, justice, rights, duties, the square root of -1, etc.

User avatar
EduChris
Prodigy
Posts: 4615
Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2010 4:34 pm
Location: U.S.A.
Contact:

Post #199

Post by EduChris »

ThatGirlAgain wrote:...A definition of what it is that atheists do not believe in is what this thread is all about. What is that definition? If we are going settle on 'supernatural beings', i.e., beings not accounted for by the laws of the natural world, then fine. I like that idea...
By definition, anything beyond our universe (e.g., your "omniverse generating system") would not be accounted for by the laws of our universe. Do you regard your "omniverse generating system" as "supernatural"?

User avatar
JoeyKnothead
Banned
Banned
Posts: 20879
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 10:59 am
Location: Here
Has thanked: 4093 times
Been thanked: 2573 times

Post #200

Post by JoeyKnothead »

From Post 198:
EduChris wrote: ...
This "necessary reality" called God is best conceived as the simplest possible entity, possessing no arbitrary limitations regarding knowledge, spatio-temporality, or causal efficacy.
And therein lies the rub.

We get a "simple" entity that has no limitations on its knowledge (even when within reasonable, but personally defined parameters) as well as other properties which can not be confirmed.

I contend this is partly due to the nature of the god concept, where specifically a lack of confirmable knowledge is placed within, and then what is ostensibly a "confirmed" knowledge is then derived - this "entity" possess knowledge.

This definition of a god is what is conceived, but not shown to be reality. I propose what we are witnessing is a prime example of how the concept is used. Where there is a lack of knowledge, this 'entity' then becomes a container for that lack, and immediately takes on unlimited 'knowledge'. Why? I propose it is a form of psychological "appeasement", meant to ensure the mind doesn't enter into an infinite loop of "whys".

So yes, we should sorta concede that those who use the concept, and who place various pieces of non/data within it, would have some authority as to the hows and whys of the concept's use, within their own system of belief. However, we can look at the god concept and see that in nigh on every case of its use, it is where the unconfirmed, the unknown and the unknowable reside.
I might be Teddy Roosevelt, but I ain't.
-Punkinhead Martin

Post Reply