Minimum Attributes of God

[ThatGirlAgain]

[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]

[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.