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?

[EduChris]

...If not "God's" what should we call supper or omni-beings that are not a part of necessary reality...

Since we have no good evidence for their existence, and since they "are not a part of necessary reality," we may simply refer to them as superstitions.

...The property of having no arbitrary limitations regarding knowledge, time, space and causal efficacy is irrational to me. My understanding of a mind (and the will associated with it) are rooted within our space-time causal material world...

Whatever exists beyond our universe will necessarily seem foreign to us in some respects. The question is, what is more reasonable to accept as a working hypothesis: 1) a tautological argument that assumes the consequent, relies on arbitrary assumptions, faces insuperable prima facie obstacles, and offers no epistemically justified explanation; or 2) a volitional, mind-like necessary reality which offers an epistemically justified explanation for our universe and our selves?

Either option involves a stretch, but as rational people we have an obligation to pursue the only possible epistemically justified explanation, which is theism.

[Fuzzy Dunlop]

...If not "God's" what should we call supper or omni-beings that are not a part of necessary reality...

Since we have no good evidence for their existence, and since they "are not a part of necessary reality," we may simply refer to them as superstitions.

Under your new definition, would any theism not involving a god creating ex nihilo be redefined as atheism? Do we now define ancient Roman and Greek religion as atheistic, for example?

[EduChris]

...Do we now define ancient Roman and Greek religion as atheistic, for example?

No, we define them as "obsolete theisms," since few if any serious persons today even attempt to promote or defend the notion of contingent god(s).

[Fuzzy Dunlop]

...Do we now define ancient Roman and Greek religion as atheistic, for example?

No, we define them as "obsolete theisms," since few if any serious persons today even attempt to promote or defend the notion of contingent god(s).

That's an interesting idea. I think you're advocating for too much revision in our common vocabulary for it to have much hope of catching on, though.

The main difference between Apollo and Yahweh isn't that one is contingent while the other isn't. Both are contingent, it's just that one has had its followers stick around long enough to reinvent the way they interpret their mythology in light of these particular theological ideas. Yahweh can be both contingent and noncontingent depending on which generation of believers we ask; your terminology would seem to classify him as a superstition that evolved into a god, which is actually a pretty interesting way of putting it.

[EduChris]

...Apollo and Yahweh...Both are contingent, it's just that one has had its followers stick around long enough to reinvent the way they interpret their mythology in light of these particular theological ideas...

The genius of the Jewish contribution to theistic thought is precisely that the true God (Yahweh) is non-contingent; with the obvious corollary that contingent gods are not gods at all, but only superstitious idols.

[Fuzzy Dunlop]

...Apollo and Yahweh...Both are contingent, it's just that one has had its followers stick around long enough to reinvent the way they interpret their mythology in light of these particular theological ideas...

The genius of the Jewish contribution to theistic thought is precisely that the true God (Yahweh) is non-contingent; with the obvious corollary that contingent gods are not gods at all, but only superstitious idols.

Well yeah, they eventually decided to believe that. And I think that was more of a contribution of Greek philosophy than Judaism. But like I said, you have a superstition elevated to a god (in your terminology).

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 235:

The genius of the Jewish contribution to theistic thought is precisely that the true God (Yahweh) is non-contingent; with the obvious corollary that contingent gods are not gods at all, but only superstitious idols.

Can EduChris show this is the "true" god?

Nope. Why? Because the god concept is where we put all that which we can't confirm.

Thus, to propose one has found a "true" god is as goofy as me claiming I'm it.

Further, calling anothers' gods "superstitious idols" is the very epitome of the pot calling the kettle black.

[EduChris]

...to propose one has found a "true" god is as goofy as me claiming I'm it...Further, calling anothers' gods "superstitious idols" is the very epitome of the pot calling the kettle black.

The Jewish tradition was the first to posit the notion of a non-contingent God. Being first doesn't necessarily prove that one is correct in all other respects, but this idea of one non-contingent deity did eventually win the day, as non-contingent gods have subsequently proven unable to retain the allegiance of any significant number of thoughtful, educated people.

[Flail]

...to propose one has found a "true" god is as goofy as me claiming I'm it...Further, calling anothers' gods "superstitious idols" is the very epitome of the pot calling the kettle black.

The Jewish tradition was the first to posit the notion of a non-contingent God. Being first doesn't necessarily prove that one is correct in all other respects, but this idea of one non-contingent deity did eventually win the day, as non-contingent gods have subsequently proven unable to retain the allegiance of any significant number of thoughtful, educated people.

Assuming a single, necessary, non-contingent, first cause being...how do you get from that assumption to BibleGod?....;or is BibleGod just the first best guess?

[EduChris]

...Assuming a single, necessary, non-contingent, first cause being...how do you get from that assumption to BibleGod?....;or is BibleGod just the first best guess?

There is no way to demonstrate conclusively that the God of the Bible provides the end-all-be-all-absolutely-correct account of the "logically necessary volitional ultimate reality." We are not talking about proof here, but about options, about explanatory scope, internal coherence, general congruence with other scholarly disciplines.

What we do is examine all of the available options, under the assumption that VUR (volitional ultimate reality) has communicated something of itself to us. I believe that Islam can be eliminated from the mix fairly quickly, since it is obviously derivative and based on oral developments of Judaism and Christianity (which is inconsistent with the Qur'an's claims about itself). After that, the others (Hinduism, some forms of Buddhism, Judaism, and Christianity) all offer something of value, but Christianity's doctrine of the Trinity best explains the intrinsic relationality that would seem necessary in order for VUR to be anything more than a perfectly solitary solipcist. And the incarnation, life, death, and resurrection of God in Jesus provides the best hope for a God who understands us, cares about us, and provides for us the example and the hope of life overcoming death.