A God?

[Sam]

I've always thought of atheism as a changeable stance (only in that if presented with solid evidence an atheist may affirm the existence of a god). But to be classed as a God what charecteristics would such a being require?

We could say things like;

- Omniscience
- Omnipotence
- Omnipresence and so on and so forth ...

But are these qualities neccesary for an entity to be considered a God?

In essence what qualities would you expect from a God (assuming there is proof of it's existence)?

Sam

[Tiberius]

The other thing about all those attributes is that they cannot be measured by any beings that don't have those attributes. In other words, the very attributes that gods have are the attributes that can never be proven. This is why I think the argument for agnosticism as a philosophy is so powerful. We can never "know" certain things about the universe.

[Sam]

Well said,

I din't even think of that. It does place a question on whether we could ever positivley distinguish a God from a more advanced lifeform (if they exist)

Sam

[g-mark]

True. The more evolved you are, the more understanding you will have.

[Edwardo Piet]

I say it's God if he/she/it created the universe - and was there right from the beginning 'always' or from 'BEFORE the beginning' - whatever that would mean..

Could be an extremely complex superbeing that created the universe - I don't think it would have to NECESSARILY be entirely omnipotent/omnipresent/omniscient or perfect, etc.

I think just some kind of superbeing that created the universe is enough of a definition for me.

(i.e - the supposed creator of the universe).

An evolved God wouldn't count... it wouldn't be a 'God' since, if it evolved - then it can't have created the universe...whether it created life on earth, our planet, our solar, system or our galaxy (or our universe IF there are many universes) - it didn't start off the universe itself (or existence itself) - for it has evolved from something else - it is NOT the beginning.

A super-duper super ALIEN life form superbeing for example then, that created life on earth, our galaxy or whatever - (it would have to be pretty fucking super but nevertheless,) - that wouldn't count as God.

God would have to be the creator of the universe itself (or existence itself, if there are more than one universes) - God would have to be something eternal that created (or at least 'started off') the whole of existence. Something eternal, right from the beginning - an alien wouldn't count.

But as Adrian has explained - in practical terms this wouldn't mean anything, since there is no way we could tell the difference between a super alien creator and the genuine article, "God".

EvF

[g-mark]

Perhaps you could say: From the begining of the 'time' that we can understand.

Could a pure/perfect form of 'being' consist of pure energy?

Whatever that maybe?

[fr0d0]

The other thing about all those attributes is that they cannot be measured by any beings that don't have those attributes. In other words, the very attributes that gods have are the attributes that can never be proven.

(1.) Which is why the evidence requirement makes no sense. Humans define God in terms of god sized (non human) attributes. If humans made this stuff up it is by design effectively making science impotent. Given God sized measuring instruments we could declare factual evidence; but that would be impossible, so.. *1

[Edwardo Piet]

Yes it makes no sense to require empirical evidence for God, because you couldn't tell if it really counts towards God or not anyway, etc (i.e it could just be an alien, etc, etc).

BUT - to BELIEVE you still need evidence. Whether you can have it or not. You STILL need a REASON to BELIEVE (i.e. evidence) before you can rationally believe something..

So despite the fact it wouldn't count as evidence, you still need a reason to believe. You still need evidence of SOME form - whether empirical would count or not.
The fact there can be no (at least empirical) evidence whatsoever - doesn't give you a reason to believe...

No evidence is not a reason to believe!! That's like saying no evidence=evidnece!! WTF?

SO: whether there can be empirical evidence of God or not.. - you still need SOME form of evidence. There being no evidence is not a rational reason to believe.
As I said - that would be like saying the absence of evidence=evidence! No evidence of God is not a reason to believe - it's still a reason NOT to - regardless of whether there CAN be evidence or a rational reason to believe or not.

Because the thing is fr0d0 you seem to keep mixing something up here. If there can be no evidence of God - that doesn't mean that we don't require it to BELIEVE.

To require evidence for God is one thing...to require evidence for God to BELIEVE in him is another. Evidence is indeed not absolutely required for God - but to rationally believe in him it is - if there is no evidence, why believe? How could you believe and be rational without there being SOME form of real evidence?

EvF

[fr0d0]

Well there you have it EvF. Evidence makes no sense, so you MUST use something else. Take your pick, but to say 'because there's no evidence' is scientifically unsound. You need to find a better... ie REAL reason.

[Edwardo Piet]

Nope. As I just tried to explain - what you don't seem to get it is... if there is no evidence that does NOT imply that you "MUST use something else". Or that you should "Take your pick".

If there is no evidence of SOME shape or form then there's no rational reason to believe. Otherwise you might as well believe anything at all and for no good reason at all.

EvF