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?

[TheJackelantern]

Yep, even a 5 year old can understand that anything existent is in and of existence.

Typo fixed.. And this wasn't an insult, it was making a clear point of fact. This meaning that for someone to try and pretend they don't grasp it, is someone trying to bait the argument into utter ignorance by pretending to not understand. These people are simply dismissed from the discussion. Especially when they assert that an argument is equivocating when it's not.

Are you saying that logic is a causal mechanism? If so, how do you support this claim? If not, what is your causal mechanism?

It's called reality (existence).., something that in itself collapses your entire argument.

[SailingCyclops]

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."

Really? We now KNOW the ONLY thing which "necessarily exists", is energy. Some of which is observed as matter (a form of energy). So, your definition of god is that god is energy. I know THAT god exists; I prefer the term energy however, as it is more accurate, and doesn't have superstitious baggage attached to it.

Bob

[Flail]

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."

Really? We now KNOW the ONLY thing which "necessarily exists", is energy. Some of which is observed as matter (a form of energy). So, your definition of god is that god is energy. I know THAT god exists; I prefer the term energy however, as it is more accurate, and doesn't have superstitious baggage attached to it.

Bob

I like it; God is energy. Energy is a good and necessary commodity, and you wouldn't need to worship it. But really anything general when it comes to notions of God would be better than any of the particular BibleGod superstitions we are currently stuck with.

[SailingCyclops]

... I gave only the essentials that are agreed on by all of today's major world theisms.

Here is the Catholic Church's definition of God:

DICTIONARY OF CATHOLIC TERMS

"The infinite divine being, one in being yet three Persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. God has revealed himself as the "One who is," as truth and love, as creator of all that is, as the author of divine revelation, and as the source of salvation."

This definition differs widely from the one you have provided. Are we to understand that the Catholic Church is not to be counted among "today's major world theisms"?

Similarly, if you look up the various definitions of god in both the Jewish faith and the Muslim faith, you will discover they too differ widely from your definition. Are they too not to be counted among "today's major world theisms"?

Can you provide evidence, and citation, about one major world theism which agrees with your essential definition of god?

Bob

[SailingCyclops]

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.

Freedom, justice, rights, duties .... are philosophical questions, while the existence of a god, like the existence of everything else in the universe, is a scientific question.

The existence of protons, neutrons, photons, etc... do not rely on philosophy to be proved, only on science. If you state that SOMETHING exists, then science is the only discipline capable of proving or disprove it's existence. It either is or it isn't, that's science. You can not prove something is or isn't by philosophic reasoning, similarly you can't say something is good or bad, just or unjust, free or oppressive, by scientific reasoning.

What is incoherent, is your conflating science and philosophy.

Bob

[SailingCyclops]

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"?

Of course not. Other universes would still be natural within their own bounds, and abide by their own particular laws of physics. Supernatural implies something which defies the laws of a particular universe. That in itself, is a sort of oxymoron.

Bob

[AquinasD]

It's literally everything. It's the totality of all there is.. You can also look up reality..

So by existence you mean what people normally call "reality." Okay.

Then you should have no problem replying without information or existence

I don't see how my ability to post or not post using whatever you mean by "information" is relevant, since I do not understand how the fact and nature of my posting necessarily leads to you being correct about whatever you mean by "information."

Yep, even a 5 year old can understand that anything existence is in and of existence.

Now you're equivocating again.

If by existence you mean "reality," then it follows you're saying something like;

Anything in reality is of reality.

Which supposedly a 5 year old would naturally understand.

Makes sense..

So reality is made of reality?

Are you saying nonsense or are you just stating a tautology? Suppose I asked you what a Lego is made out of, would you reply "That Lego is made of a Lego?"

Yep, existence is literally the totality of everything to which include you kiddo. Not hard to comprehend.

I think you are misunderstanding my request for you to further explain your argument. I am not asking for a yes or no, I am asking for a why.

If you exist, you are an entity of existence (reality). This that which also makes up the entirety of the essence of your being.

But there are lots of different things people mean by "existence." I wouldn't call existence an entity, but you would. Getting out the dictionary is not going to be helpful in a discussion where the very thing named is being discussed. Your usage of words is odd and doesn't seem to fit with the way most others would use them.

I've outlined it several times already..

All I'm asking is for a simple, straightforward explanation. You haven't yet given one.

They have.. It's called information science, information theory, digital physics.. Information literally deals with every aspect of our existence.. In science son, energy is information as both substance and value. They are two sides of the same coin. Energy is not only the capacity of information and force to causation.

I'm not seeing it. I am more familiar with information as discussed on these pages.

Semantic Conceptions of Information
Philosophy of Computer Science
Quantum Entanglement and Information

I do not know about energy being information (much less considering I have no idea what you mean by the term), but I am more familiar with the idea that we might use things, including energy, for the purposes of encoding information. But noumenal information is, as I understand the idea of information and noumena, self-contradictory. Something can't represent an informational value unless it represents an informational value to a subjective observer. Information is just quantitative meaning, in other words.

Intentional ignorance is always a good trolling tool. I'm surprised you are conscious at all.

Considering you spurn every request of mine for clarification and seek pathetic means at insult, I wonder why you think my ignorance would be intentional, rather than the result of your poor communication abilities.

This is, until you are able and willing to engage in civil discussion, my last reply to you.

[TheJackelantern]

So by existence you mean what people normally call "reality." Okay.

They are synonymous. And yes, if you exist you are in and of reality. It's actually not relevant which term I use. If one doesn't understand what existence means, there was a dictionary.

I don't see how my ability to post or not post using whatever you mean by "information" is relevant, since I do not understand how the fact and nature of my posting necessarily leads to you being correct about whatever you mean by "information."

To be existent would mean you would have existential value. Hence, you would have informational value greater than zero. To have no informational value would mean you wouldn't exist. This means without information, you have no substance, property, value, capacity, attributes, traits, dna, thoughts, a brain, a conscious state, knowledge, language, or any sort of existence.. You wouldn't have a computer, or anything to serve as a base of inquiry.

So feel free to try and post from a position of non-existence, a position of literally no value. Try posting a reply without language, the alphabet, energy, material physicality, knowledge ect..

Now you're equivocating again.

Incorrect

If by existence you mean "reality," then it follows you're saying something like;

Anything in reality is of reality.

Which supposedly a 5 year old would naturally understand.

Yep.. I've seen some pretty smart 5 year olds that can understand basic English words, and concepts such as these.

So reality is made of reality?

Are you saying nonsense or are you just stating a tautology? Suppose I asked you what a Lego is made out of, would you reply "That Lego is made of a Lego?"

Seems you are quite confused there lol ... The lego will be made of the same stuff reality is made of.. For it to be in reality, and of reality, it will have to be an emergent property, or object of reality itself.

But there are lots of different things people mean by "existence." I wouldn't call existence an entity, but you would. Getting out the dictionary is not going to be helpful in a discussion where the very thing named is being discussed. Your usage of words is odd and doesn't seem to fit with the way most others would use them.

So you are not in existence or of existence? .. But hey, at least you are a figment of my imagination! And do explain how they don't fit from a position of non-existence, and a position of nothing, or the lack of information.

All I'm asking is for a simple, straightforward explanation. You haven't yet given one.

If you can't understand why you can't even so much as make a stupid argument such as this without information, or being in and of existence, then I am simply going to ignore your self-refuting posts that only prove my premise. A little advice, don't try to argue against something you require to make an argument with in the first place. You just make yourself look stupid, or at least intentionally ignorant.

I'm not seeing it. I am more familiar with information as discussed on these pages.

Semantic Conceptions of Information
Philosophy of Computer Science
Quantum Entanglement and Information

This is a very small part of information science, and information theory. But hey, add what you think you are familiar with... Now maybe you can look up terms like digital physics, information science, information theory, physical information, complex adaptive systems, systems theory, or why anything of existence can be considered a source of inquiry with informational structure, property, pattern, complexity, value, state, function, capacity, and substance... Under those you have posted, they concur that energy is equal to information as they are interchangeable in the context of being two sides of the same coin, and as both substance and value. And this has everything to do with reality or existential value.

Example:

The image of your desktop is not only a source of inquiry, but an emergent property of the processing of information. Even the monitor it self has informational structure, complexity, and value. The atoms that make up the monitor is the informational structure of the monitor. The energy that makes up the atoms is the capacity value of the information. The energy is hence literally that of the essence of the information, structure of the monitor, and that of the displayed image on screen.

This is applicable to everything. And that includes your posts and anything you say in them.

I do not know about energy being information (much less considering I have no idea what you mean by the term), but I am more familiar with the idea that we might use things, including energy, for the purposes of encoding information.

This is a self-refuting argument... In science, the ground state of energy is also the ground state of information. That's right, you need that energy to even have a language, an alphabet, a conscious state, or even that Lego..

But noumenal information is, as I understand the idea of information and noumena, self-contradictory.

Wrong.. You first need to understand that information can not be made of nothing. And any pattern of information is a physical pattern. This means that an imagined apple is indeed a physical pattern of energy (information).. Noumenal only meas the imagined apple either doesn't exist beyond that, or it is not THE apple it's in reference to.

Example:

A memory of your dog is a physical object / pattern just as much as the data on your computer hard drive is. However, it is not literally your DOG, or THE dog itself.

So when people imagine a pixie fairy, it doesn't mean the pixie fair really exists outside just the imagination, or whatever you pictured in your mind as a pixie fairy. And language along with memory plays a massive role in our brains ability to imagine such things... Hence knowing faces, shapes, colors, experiences, sensations ect can shape into new concepts, ideas, and imaginings..

Example:

Three words can be enough to allow our brains to imagine an untold number of supposed variations of green monsters..

Big Green Monsters

Hence your brain accesses memory on things like shapes, colors and concepts like Monsters.. And memory plays a huge role in supporting a conscious state. Blocking access to memory would be like trying to boot up your computer without any ram, or hardrive to which contains information as a source of inquire and instruction.

Hence, if you know nothing, you can't do anything at all. If there is no source of inquiry, or no information, you can't make choices, be conscious, learn, experience, exist, know yourself or anything exists, or even respond to this post.

And it goes much deeper than this when dealing with what is required to support cognitive dynamics and functionality. But if you are curious, you can go out and learn the base principles that are behind artificial intelligence. So information does not just deal with nomenal. It deals with everything in and of reality.

So here we come to understand that information isn't just nomenal, it's also physical and phenomenal:

phenomenal [fɪˈnɒmɪnəl]
adj
1. of or relating to a phenomenon
2. extraordinary; outstanding; remarkable a phenomenal achievement
3. (Philosophy) Philosophy known or perceived by the senses rather than the mind
phenomenally adv

It relates to all phenomenon, and is of all existential phenomenon, things, objects, entities, substances, or places in and of existence / reality. Existence is thus seen as a phenomenal reality of physical self-oscillating, self-organizing energy that makes you, me, the stars, matter, anything with mass possible. "A universal set of all sets"

And here are other sources dealing with information:

* Information is any type of pattern that influences the formation or transformation of other patterns. In this sense, there is no need for a conscious mind to perceive, much less appreciate, the pattern.[citation needed] Consider, for example, DNA. The sequence of nucleotides is a pattern that influences the formation and development of an organism without any need for a conscious mind.

--

** Systems theory at times seems to refer to information in this sense, assuming information does not necessarily involve any conscious mind, and patterns circulating (due to feedback) in the system can be called information. In other words, it can be said that information in this sense is something potentially perceived as representation, though not created or presented for that purpose. For example, Gregory Bateson defines "information" as a "difference that makes a difference".

--

*** If, however, the premise of "influence" implies that information has been perceived by a conscious mind and also interpreted by it, the specific context associated with this interpretation may cause the transformation of the information into knowledge

--

**** In 2003, J. D. Bekenstein claimed there is a growing trend in physics to define the physical world as being made of information itself (and thus information is defined in this way) (see Digital physics). Information has a well defined meaning in physics. Examples of this include the phenomenon of quantum entanglement where particles can interact without reference to their separation or the speed of light. Information itself cannot travel faster than light even if the information is transmitted indirectly. This could lead to the fact that all attempts at physically observing a particle with an "entangled" relationship to another are slowed down, even though the particles are not connected in any other way other than by the information they carry.

--

***** Another link is demonstrated by the Maxwell's demon thought experiment. In this experiment, a direct relationship between information and another physical property, entropy, is demonstrated. A consequence is that it is impossible to destroy information without increasing the entropy of a system; in practical terms this often means generating heat. Another, more philosophical, outcome is that information could be thought of as interchangeable with energy. Thus, in the study of logic gates, the theoretical lower bound of thermal energy released by an AND gate is higher than for the NOT gate (because information is destroyed in an AND gate and simply converted in a NOT gate). Physical information is of particular importance in the theory of quantum computers.

And:

1) "Information is any type of sensory input and output or source to inquiry."

2) "Information as a concept has many meanings, from everyday usage to technical settings. The concept of information is closely related to notions of constraint, communication, control, data, form, instruction, knowledge, meaning, mental stimulus, pattern, energy, perception, matter, and representation."

3)

information(in·for·ma·tion)
Pronunciation:/ˌinfərˈm�SHən, ˌɪnfərˈmeɪʃən/
noun

*
1 facts provided or learned about something or someone:a vital piece of information
*
Lawa formal criminal charge lodged with a court or magistrate by a prosecutor without the aid of a grand jury:the tenant may lay an information against his landlord
*
2 what is conveyed or represented by a particular arrangement or sequence of things, or things of representation and value:genetically transmitted information
*
Computingdata as processed, stored, or transmitted by a computer.
*
(in information theory) a mathematical quantity expressing the probability of occurrence of a particular sequence of symbols, impulses, energy, matter., as contrasted with that of alternative sequences.

Or:

Things that are or can be known about a topic; Data that have been processed into a format, Any unambiguous abstract data, the smallest possible ...
en.wiktionary.org/wiki/information

Or:

http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Information
http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Physical_information
http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Algori ... ion_theory
http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Free_I ... astructure
http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Information_theory
http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Medium
http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Information_processing
http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Observation
http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Entropy
http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Systems_theory
http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Cybernetics
http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Librar ... on_Science

Considering you spurn every request of mine for clarification and seek pathetic means at insult, I wonder why you think my ignorance would be intentional, rather than the result of your poor communication abilities.

I did so because I've posted this more than once in this forum.. And I am pretty sure I've posted this link more than once:

Information: The material physical Cause of causation

And this should have been self-evident and obvious:

Energy =/= information =/= cause

This is unarguable:

A: There can be no choice, or decision made without information
B: There can be no consciousness or awareness without information
C: One can not have knowledge without information
D: One can not do anything without information
E: One can not exist without informational value
F: One can not think without information
G: One can not even know one's self exists without information
H: One can not reply, respond, or react without information
I: One can not convey, send, or express a message without information
J: There can be no morals, ethics, or laws without information
K: One can not have or express emotions, or feelings without information
L: One can not have experiences, or experience anything at all without information
M: One can not have a place to exist in order to be existent without information
N: One can not Create, or Design anything without information
O: One can not have the ability to process things without information
P: Intelligence can not exist without information to apply
Q: No system, or process can exist without information
R: Cause and effect can not exist without information
S: Logic can not exist without information
T: Reason can not exist or things can not have a reason / purpose without information
U: There can be no meaning without information
V: There can be no value without information
W: There can be no capacity without informational value
Y: There can be no complexity without informational structure
Z: There can be no "I" without the information that gives I an Identity.

So if you can defy that list, you can then claim I am equivocating. Thus please prove I am posting a Logical fallacy. And I already know how futile that will be. :/

[Flail]

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.

Freedom, justice, rights, duties .... are philosophical questions, while the existence of a god, like the existence of everything else in the universe, is a scientific question.

The existence of protons, neutrons, photons, etc... do not rely on philosophy to be proved, only on science. If you state that SOMETHING exists, then science is the only discipline capable of proving or disprove it's existence. It either is or it isn't, that's science. You can not prove something is or isn't by philosophic reasoning, similarly you can't say something is good or bad, just or unjust, free or oppressive, by scientific reasoning.

What is incoherent, is your conflating science and philosophy.

Bob

You have clearly stated a common tactic utilized by theists in examining and justifying the issue of God's existence; frustrated theists tend to redefine their particular God in philosophical terms so as to hide the incoherent nonsense of their trained beliefs in a vaguely posited word salad....but you have brought their trick to the forefront by your comments above.

You can't rationally or reasonably change disciplines from the science of proving existence to the philosophy of speculating existence; doing so is not only incoherent but disingenuous.

[JoeyKnothead]

From several posts...

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.

Freedom, justice, rights, duties .... are philosophical questions, while the existence of a god, like the existence of everything else in the universe, is a scientific question.

The existence of protons, neutrons, photons, etc... do not rely on philosophy to be proved, only on science. If you state that SOMETHING exists, then science is the only discipline capable of proving or disprove it's existence. It either is or it isn't, that's science. You can not prove something is or isn't by philosophic reasoning, similarly you can't say something is good or bad, just or unjust, free or oppressive, by scientific reasoning.

What is incoherent, is your conflating science and philosophy.

You have clearly stated a common tactic utilized by theists in examining and justifying the issue of God's existence; frustrated theists tend to redefine their particular God in philosophical terms so as to hide the incoherent nonsense of their trained beliefs in a vaguely posited word salad....but you have brought their trick to the forefront by your comments above.

You can't rationally or reasonably change disciplines from the science of proving existence to the philosophy of speculating existence; doing so is not only incoherent but disingenuous.

Very much. The god concept is a purely philosophical one, where there is no means to test it in anything resembling a scientific fashion.

Where one philosophical definition or explanation fails, anothern's ready to take its place, but in the end, none can be shown to be a true and accurate take on the reality of the situation.

Combine that with clear and obvious anthropomorphism and we see a species that's just so proud about its existence the only "logical" explanation is that some supernatural force must be involved. We become "supermen" in our pride and ignorance.