Can you make a God claim?

[Neo-Scholastic]

I'm not looking for a definition of God that encapsulates everything. I'm just looking for enough that demonstrates you actually know what it is.

Fortunatly the great minds have done the heavy lifting for us already...

Aristotle: Unmoved mover, i.e. that which persists in its being throughout all change. (In Aquinas, this means that God is in complete actually)
Anslem: that which the greater than which cannot be conceived.
Plotinus: The All, i.e. the perfect source of Form in which the forms of all contingent things partially partake. (That one needs to be unpacked some, but I think is a fair summary)
Aquinas: Among other things, the Supreme Intelligence that determines the final causes toward which efficient cause are directed.

Each of these encapsulates very nuanced and rigorous philosophical conclusions that withstand the mis-characterizations and strawmen of doubters.

[Nope]

I'm not looking for a definition of God that encapsulates everything. I'm just looking for enough that demonstrates you actually know what it is.

Fortunatly the great minds have done the heavy lifting for us already...

Aristotle: Unmoved mover, i.e. that which persists in its being throughout all change. (In Aquinas, this means that God is in complete actually)
Anslem: that which the greater than which cannot be conceived.
Plotinus: The All, i.e. the perfect source of Form in which the forms of all contingent things partially partake. (That one needs to be unpacked some, but I think is a fair summary)
Aquinas: Among other things, the Supreme Intelligence that determines the final causes toward which efficient cause are directed.

Each of these encapsulates very nuanced and rigorous philosophical conclusions that withstand the mis-characterizations and strawmen of doubters.

Because I want to understand and not mischaracterize what you wrote, is it okay if I break down those statements? I am not trying to be disrespectful but I really like to make certain that I understand clearly another person's viewpoint before I respond.

Aristotle: Unmoved mover, i.e. that which persists in its being throughout all change.

Something that moves others but doesn't move itself or maybe it changes others and doesn't change itself?

Anslem: that which the greater than which cannot be conceived.

Something that is so much more powerful than everything else that is beyond comprehension

Plotinus: The All, i.e. the perfect source of Form in which the forms of all contingent things partially partake. (That one needs to be unpacked some, but I think is a fair summary)

This one sounds almost Hindu. God is all. Does that mean that god is a tree or rock like in some religions? God is the perfect form of everything else. Is my interpretation correct?

Aquinas: Among other things, the Supreme Intelligence that determines the final causes toward which efficient cause are directed.

The most intelligent being that invented the end toward which the beginning is headed? Okay, that one can't be right.

[robvalue]

Can we test for any of these things? Are they just abstract concepts?

[abaris]

Aquinas: Among other things, the Supreme Intelligence that determines the final causes toward which efficient cause are directed.

The most intelligent being that invented the end toward which the beginning is headed? Okay, that one can't be right.

13th century clergyman. What kind of intellectual horizon do you expect from him?

[Neo-Scholastic]

13th century clergyman. What kind of intellectual horizon do you expect from him?

Philosophical genius having access to the same timeless reality as today. I'll get the rest of the posts shortly.

[abaris]

Philosophical genius having access to the same timeless reality as today.

Minus the knowledge that the earth isn't the center of the universe, just for starters.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Can we test for any of these things? Are they just abstract concepts?

As I said in previous posts, not all forms of knowledge are testable according to the methods used by natural science. The subjects of natural science and the methods used to investigate them operate against a deeper philosophical background.

Secondly, I object to the word 'just'. Your question tacitly assumes a form conceptualism with respect to immaterial objects. In contrast to this I take a realist position that avoids the contradictions and paradoxes of conceptualism.

[The Grand Nudger]

Aristotle: Unmoved mover - what moved the mover?
Anslem: that which the greater than which cannot be conceived. - a being that accomplishes "all of these things" -while- being nonexistent.
Plotinus: The All- Sure, the universe exists, but what about god?
Aquinas: the Supreme Intelligence -lets demonstrate marginal intelligence first, eh?

Your claim about knowledge has been disputed, at a fundamental level, btw. "I've stated it" does not settle it.

[robvalue]

That is a long way of saying no :p

Sorry I didn't mean to insult all your invisible mates :o I'll try and keep the j word to a minimum.

Sarcasm over, just messing with you. People keep referring to these "other methods", but if they can test something or demonstrate that they are there, then that is science. If they can't, they are of no use.

---

There is no reason to think anything other than the natural exists, and there is no current way for testing anything other than the natural.

[fr0d0]

if they can test something or demonstrate that they are there, then that is science. If they can't, they are of no use.

That's a philosophy. One that excludes everything but science.

Scientism is belief in the universal applicability of the scientific method and approach, and the view that empirical science constitutes the most authoritative worldview or most valuable part of human learning to the exclusion of other viewpoints.

Materialism is a form of philosophical monism which holds that matter is the fundamental substance in nature, and that all phenomena, including mental phenomena and consciousness, are the result of material interactions.