What attributes must something possess to qualify as a god?

[Paradoxum]

I'd say that the attributes of a 'God' are more specific than that for a 'god'.

I'll say a 'god' is a being whose fundamental essence is tied to the ability to work beyond natural laws. Perhaps you could call this transcendence. They may still be contained by higher laws though.

This would discount beings that have overcome physics by gradual improvement (technology), or who come from another universe.

What attributes must something possess to qualify as a god?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

talquin

Let's try again:

Yes or No: Do you think that a god doesn't need to possess certain attributes to qualify as a god?

Well, I could lay out a list of attributes I'd 'like' for a god to have, but then who is to say whether or not my list accurately qualifies the actual nature of a god? The creation of such a list, and the deductions one might attempt to make from it, seems to me to be a bit presumptuous; unless, of course, I could talk to a god directly and verify that my list is correct (along with my understanding of the denotations of attributes so listed). Do you know where I might find such a god?

Please explain the process you use to go about determining what is a god and what isn't a god?

To determine the accuracy of my ideas about a god, I would probably need to have access to such a being and do 'an interview' with Him, would I not? Again, do you know where I can find such a being to interview? Or perhaps even a message from a god might suffice...

Otherwise, I can pull divinely deductive concepts out of my behind all day long and still be in the same cognitive situation as a blindfolded man with a bow and arrow. When do I know that I've hit the mark...?

Peace

 

[talquin]

If Y was going to later be "A," then X would never have been "B."

You are not properly understanding what it means to have actual foreknowledge.

That wouldn't be true if X has a static/truth/fixed value as of day 1 or a day before Y gets its value.

Once again:

1) X has a fixed/static/truth value as of day 1. This is akin to God knowing what he'll choose on day 2.
2) Y gets a value on day 2. This is akin to God freely making his choice on day 2.
3) Y is equal to X. This is akin to God's day 1 knowledge of God's day 2 choice will always be in alignment with the choice God actually makes on day 2.

Not all three of those can be true. If it doesn't make sense to you, I'll be happy to show you why.

What does it mean? It means that a god which is omnipotent and omniscient is a logical impossibility.

 

[talquin]

The ability to persuade others that it/he/she is a god

Do you mean at least one person? Or must one be able to persuade multiple people that it is a god?

 

[talquin]

This above is way too convoluted. This god had two choices; he chose choice A because it is the right choice. He would never choose choice B because it is the wrong choice. It's that simple.

Let's say God knows he will choose A. Is he physiologically capable of then choosing B? If not, what happens if he tries to choose B? If so, what would happen to his foreknowledge that he would choose A if he chooses B.

 

[talquin]

talquin

Well, I could lay out a list of attributes I'd 'like' for a god to have, but then who is to say whether or not my list accurately qualifies the actual nature of a god? The creation of such a list, and the deductions one might attempt to make from it, seems to me to be a bit presumptuous; unless, of course, I could talk to a god directly and verify that my list is correct (along with my understanding of the denotations of attributes so listed). Do you know where I might find such a god?

To determine the accuracy of my ideas about a god, I would probably need to have access to such a being and do 'an interview' with Him, would I not? Again, do you know where I can find such a being to interview? Or perhaps even a message from a god might suffice...

Otherwise, I can pull divinely deductive concepts out of my behind all day long and still be in the same cognitive situation as a blindfolded man with a bow and arrow. When do I know that I've hit the mark...?

Peace

I sense you aren't interested in having me read your response or learn about your position on the matter. If I'm incorrect, then start out with a yes or no answer to the following: Do you think that a god doesn't need to possess certain attributes to qualify as a god?

 

[terryjohn]

The only attribute needed is to be the only God.

 

[Davian]

talquin

Well, I could lay out a list of attributes I'd 'like' for a god to have, but then who is to say whether or not my list accurately qualifies the actual nature of a god? The creation of such a list, and the deductions one might attempt to make from it, seems to me to be a bit presumptuous; unless, of course, I could talk to a god directly and verify that my list is correct (along with my understanding of the denotations of attributes so listed). Do you know where I might find such a god?

To determine the accuracy of my ideas about a god, I would probably need to have access to such a being and do 'an interview' with Him, would I not? Again, do you know where I can find such a being to interview? Or perhaps even a message from a god might suffice...

Otherwise, I can pull divinely deductive concepts out of my behind all day long and still be in the same cognitive situation as a blindfolded man with a bow and arrow. When do I know that I've hit the mark...?

Peace

I sense you aren't interested in having me read your response or learn about your position on the matter. If I'm incorrect, then start out with a yes or no answer to the following: Do you think that a god doesn't need to possess certain attributes to qualify as a god?

To nail fog to a wall is quite straightforward; in an area that has fog, chill a nail below the dew point, hammer the nail into a suitable surface, and allow the fog to condense on the nail.

To nail down 2PhiloVoid on something regarding gods, you will need to be far more inventive.

 

[Ken-1122]

Does this mean it must have always existed?

Yes

If true, then an additional attribute of god must be one of these:
1) it doesn't exist
2) it is responsible for itself.

Yes.

If it does exist and it is responsible for all that exists, then it is responsible for itself.

True.

What do you mean by 'perfect'?

Without flaw.

What do you mean by more powerful than mankind? Provide me with a few of your best examples.

The ability to control nature, the ability to change hearts.

Ken

 

[ananda]

What attributes must something possess to qualify as a god?

The ability to create and manipulate reality through intention is one attribute. Quantum physics is beginning to show that even mankind possesses that ability. IMO all beings have a greater or lesser ability to do so, making some greater gods, and others, lesser gods.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I sense you aren't interested in having me read your response or learn about your position on the matter. If I'm incorrect, then start out with a yes or no answer to the following: Do you think that a god doesn't need to possess certain attributes to qualify as a god?

Actually, I have had an interest all along in giving you my position on the matter you've inquired: God's nature. I've given you my response, but you apparently do not find my response to be amenable to the 'speech-act' which you are proffering.

I surmise that your reaction to my response is what it is because my response undermines your apparent belief that we can identify a god on our own terms apart from any revelation given by any specific god.

Perhaps you think that the act of "qualifying" the nature of a god is a legitimate human act and endeavor? I think it is not, at least not through raw, sheer human intellect. All that we can do is evaluate the existing religious traditions by way of various analyses, as well as through comparison and contrast, to see if we might catch any glimmer of truth that might possibly evince itself to us through the aperture of each respective religion's cognitive edifice. The creation and evaluation as to what "qualifies" as our own philosophical matrices of a god isn't a consideration to me.

In other words, to apply philosophical evaluation of existing traditions about God is one thing, a useful act in fact, but to evaluate our own individual 'guesswork' as to what could possibly constitute a 'real' god seems to me to be just so much pretense and obfuscation...

If my response above does not resonate with you, then there is nothing more I can say to you about your original inquiry...

Peace

 

[2PhiloVoid]

To nail fog to a wall is quite straightforward; in an area that has fog, chill a nail below the dew point, hammer the nail into a suitable surface, and allow the fog to condense on the nail.

To nail down 2PhiloVoid on something regarding gods, you will need to be far more inventive.

...or you can decide to acknowledge that the conceptual parameters of what supposedly qualifies as "evidence" are not in and of themselves 'self-evident.' Then again, some people like to play the game of Logical Positivism all day long...I for one, don't.

 

[Davian]

...or you can decide to acknowledge that the conceptual parameters of what supposedly qualifies as "evidence" are not in and of themselves 'self-evident.'

The kind of objection only raised by conspiracy theorists and theists.

Then again, some people like to play the game of Logical Positivism all day long...I for one, don't.

Niether do I. If you cannot present whatever you think of as evidence for the existence of deities in some form of a falsifiable hypothesis, then do it in some other manner that might raise them above being just characters in books.

...or you can continue to construct this vast and intricate rational for why you cannot do that.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

The kind of objection only raised by conspiracy theorists and theists.

...and from which source on epistemology did you drag this response?

Niether do I. If you cannot present whatever you think of as evidence for the existence of deities in some form of a falsifiable hypothesis, then do it in some other manner that might raise them above being just characters in books.

of course....I can't satisfy the presumptions you make in your reliance upon an evidential framework. No one can.

...or you can continue to construct this vast and intricate rational for why you cannot do that.

It's not a "rationale," it's a position on epistemology. And my position is that evidentialism, as Clifford would like for us to apply, is bunk.

Moreover, if you think my position is inadequate, please suggest a source on epistemology that you think I'd benefit from by reading (preferably one you've already read and refer to on a regular basis), and I'll be MORE than happy to engage it.

 

[talquin]

Actually, I have had an interest all along in giving you my position on the matter you've inquired: God's nature. I've given you my response, but you apparently do not find my response to be amenable to the 'speech-act' which you are proffering.

I surmise that your reaction to my response is what it is because my response undermines your apparent belief that we can identify a god on our own terms apart from any revelation given by any specific god.

Perhaps you think that the act of "qualifying" the nature of a god is a legitimate human act and endeavor? I think it is not, at least not through raw, sheer human intellect. All that we can do is evaluate the existing religious traditions by way of various analyses, as well as through comparison and contrast, to see if we might catch any glimmer of truth that might possibly evince itself to us through the aperture of each respective religion's cognitive edifice. The creation and evaluation as to what "qualifies" as our own philosophical matrices of a god isn't a consideration to me.

In other words, to apply philosophical evaluation of existing traditions about God is one thing, a useful act in fact, but to evaluate our own individual 'guesswork' as to what could possibly constitute a 'real' god seems to me to be just so much pretense and obfuscation...

If my response above does not resonate with you, then there is nothing more I can say to you about your original inquiry...

Peace

If your answer starts out with the yes or no and follows with an explanation, then I will provide you the service of reading your response.

Once again - yes or no: Do you think that a god doesn't need to possess certain attributes to qualify as a god?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

If your answer starts out with the yes or no and follows with an explanation, then I will provide you the service of reading your response.

Once again - yes or no: Do you think that a god doesn't need to possess certain attributes to qualify as a god?

Once again, I'll insinuate that your question, as it is so articulated, is basically illegitimate from a human standpoint. You're free to believe otherwise, however. As long as you use the word "qualify" in your inquiry about God's nature, you will continue to overtly assert that you have something over and above God. And you don't.

I guess we're at an impasse...

 

[Davian]

...and from which source on epistemology did you drag this response?

Participation on sites such as this one.

of course....I can't satisfy the presumptions you make in your reliance upon an evidential framework. No one can

I do not "rely" on it. I am open to other methods of exploring reality, which is why I said "some other manner", to leave it open to you and whatever manner you see fit.

However, if this other methodology you suggest leaves the Earth covered in giant, immaterial, invisible marshmallows, I may be skeptical.

It's not a "rationale," it's a position on epistemology. And my position is that evidentialism, as Clifford would like for us to apply, is bunk.

Unless it *could* show that gods exists as more than characters in books, of course. The attempts at this never cease over in the Physical & Life Sciences forum. You should visit.

Moreover, if you think my position is inadequate, please suggest a source on epistemology that you think I'd benefit from by reading (preferably one you've already read and refer to on a regular basis), and I'll be MORE than happy to engage it.

I do not know what your position is; I can only guess from your "faith" icon that you believe that the bible is, in some indeterminable amount, an accurate description of reality. If you can articulate how you got to that conclusion, feel free to elaborate.

 

[Davian]

Once again, I'll insinuate that your question, as it is so articulated, is basically illegitimate from a human standpoint. You're free to believe otherwise, however. As long as you use the word "qualify" in your inquiry about God's nature, you will continue to overtly assert that you have something over and above God. And you don't.

I guess we're at an impasse...

I don't see it as an impasse. If a god can't keep up, it gets left behind. It is my understanding that the pile of discarded gods is pretty high.

Godchecker.com - Your Guide To The Gods

"Welcome to Godchecker - We have more Gods than you can shake a stick at.

Our legendary mythology encyclopedia now includes nearly four thousand weird and wonderful Gods, Supreme Beings, Demons, Spirits and Fabulous Beasts from all over the world. Explore ancient legends and folklore, and discover Gods of everything from Fertility to Fluff with Godchecker..."

 

[talquin]

Once again, I'll insinuate that your question, as it is so articulated, is basically illegitimate from a human standpoint. You're free to believe otherwise, however. As long as you use the word "qualify" in your inquiry about God's nature, you will continue to overtly assert that you have something over and above God. And you don't.

I guess we're at an impasse...

You're the one choosing to be at an impasse.

Once again - yes or no: Do you think that a god doesn't need to possess certain attributes to qualify as a god?

 

[FreeinChrist]

MOD HAT


This thread is being closed.

Folks, this is not General Apologetics. It is not the place to promote non-Christian faiths or a lack of faith, or to discredit Christianity.

The site rules include:

Statement of Purpose and Off-Topic
Read and abide by each forum's Statement of Purpose; Statement of Purpose threads are sticky threads located at the top of the forum's page. Not all forums have a Statement of Purpose thread. Start threads that are relevant to that forum's stated purpose. Submit replies that are relevant to the topic of discussion.