No, you're not granting them their God, you're granting them your God. Which amounts to nothing. — Πετροκότσυφας

The only thing granted is existence. And the question was, what comes of it. God is a special topic; from mere existence nothing comes. Apparently you agree. But now follow out the implications. There's no doubt that the word "God" names a real something - for lack of a better word, phenomenon - and I think it's instructive to consider just exactly what that must be and also cannot be.

Look at a random image from the Sistene Chapel ceiling while listening to Mozart's Requiem. Long live the baubles. — frank

Very few Mozarts and Michelangelos, but very many fir trees - at least in parts of the world. Still, though, if I'm looking for God - questions of existence notwithstanding - I look more in the forest, even at a tree, and not at all in any chapel. It's an excavatable subject. Hmm. I believe the only God anyone can or ever will know or find is a product of mind, but where best found?

believe the only God anyone can or ever will know or find is a product of mind, but where best found? — tim wood

The eye only finds grey and brown in the woods cathedral. Only the mind can make a tree.

Wondering if the O/P is just an invitation to the same old do loop of having someone make a faith based claim, then challenge it based on reason. — Rank Amateur

Actually, no. This website, in both its present and prior incarnations, has nearly always featured at least one thread, sometimes more, on the question of the existence of God and proofs of same. In every case not only are the premises false or fatally equivocal, definitions lacking or fatally ambiguous or flexible, arguments invalid, and conclusions nonsense, but, and this but is the twist, these same people ignore every request to pay even slightest respect to this site's being at least in name a philosophy site, that is, to think! Or at least think honestly an openly.

So it's a weakness of mine to be unable to completely ignore such arguments, although I'm getting older and wiser in this regard - I'm not there yet. So it struck me to challenge any of these to make clear how it might matter if the existence of God were granted. As you can see for yourself, nothing.

My own view is that the question of God, or a god, or whatever along these lines, is a matter of mind. And that's neither unimportant nor trivial. Someone, maybe Christoffer, in this thread refers to "epistemic responsibility." I think I know what he means, and I think he's on to something. God in fact, in reality, and God in mind as idea, are two very different creatures. Which way are you? If fact, what can you get from that fact?

The eye only finds grey and brown in the woods cathedral. Only the mind can make a tree. — frank

Yes. One looks with mind. The chapel is ultimately a distraction (sez I) however pleasurable. But the tree speaks life. Is it possible two posters on this site might however briefly be on the same page?

Cool. If god is no less real the Johnson’s stone, then we’ll at least get to see what he looks like, the reality of a stone being common to everybody.

Cooler. The end of organized differential religions. “Praise be to stone” has no more import than “Amen to stone” when all there is to work with is a reality no less so than stone.

I was referring to your "here's your God". It's not their God, it's your God and your God amounts to nothing, — Πετροκότσυφας

The god granted in this thread exists. If you wish to say that's nothing, you may - and you have. If you read the OP you will also find this:

God's existence is granted, being supposed herein to be at the least not any less real than Samuel Johnson's stone (that he kicked) - or for that matter any degree of real beyond that you care to make Him. — tim wood

I've simply given the painters a blank canvas, those painters in particular who spend their time crying out for a canvas. None has painted anything on it yet.

So it struck me to challenge any of these to make clear how it might matter if the existence of God were granted. — tim wood

well - faith based for sure - but because of that belief - i have been, with various degrees of limited effectiveness, been trying to live by this first principal for quite some time. Because this provides a meaning for my existence.

God created human beings to praise, reverence, and serve God, and by
doing this, to save their souls.

God created all other things on the face of the earth to help fulfill this
purpose.

From this it follows that we are to use the things of this world only to
the extent that they help us to this end, and we ought to rid ourselves
of the things of this world to the extent that they get in the way of this
end.

For this it is necessary to make ourselves indifferent to all created
things as much as we are able, so that we do not necessarily want
health rather than sickness, riches rather than poverty, honor rather
than dishonor, a long rather than a short life, and so in all the rest, so
that we ultimately desire and choose only what is most conducive for
us to the end for which God created us.

God in fact, in reality, and God in mind as idea, are two very different creatures. Which way are you? If fact, what can you get from that fact? — tim wood

I will try, I have never made any claim whatsoever about the nature of God, in fact I would challenge any one - theist or atheist on what possible basis one could have to make such a claim. God is a very real thing to me, and very much an idea.

but yet again - these are matters of faith, of theology, not philosophy

The exercise is, granted existence, what can be got from that? From the idea of God, much flows. From existence, not so much - or nothing at all.

Were we to confine ourselves to a discussion of the meaning of god, or any facet of the significance of (the idea of) god, we would simply be embarking on the same voyage that people, usually men, have been on since time immemorial, with results as variable as the wills and intentions, good and bad and willy-nilly, of those same men. Of the Christian church, I'm satisfied the Patristic fathers established with some level of agreement that the idea of the thing was both the correct and the only way to understand it. They expressed both their agreement and the substance of their thinking in the opening words of their creed, "We believe...".

The question of existence is a hurdle, a barrier, that many folks cannot get over. More than a hurdle, it's a barbed wire trap that once caught in, is surpassing difficult to get out of. But a theology that finds its saviour and God in mind....

God is a very real thing to me, and very much an idea. but yet again - these are matters of faith, of theology, not philosophy — Rank Amateur

A profession demanding of complete respect. Yet we're a philosophy site. So it troubles me not at all to ask you what the driver of your faith is, the real or the idea? If you say the real, I shall ask you how. If the idea, then I shall ask about the reality of your "real," what its purpose is, and if you dispensed with it would it make a difference? As to your ideas, those that you believe in, I regard those as unassailable (In so far as they're not arguments; as arguments they'd be, well, arguable).

How is any of that worth considering? — Πετροκότσυφας

I suspect we agree, being separated merely by language. I say the existence of God is of no matter, a distraction. But I invite you, if you're of a mind, to say what is worth considering.

by real, do you mean like a human form sitting in taverna in ios drinking coffee and staring at the fishing boats ?? or real as some being outside our senses, but real none the less ? such as love or truth ? Can you give me some sideboards on what you mean by real?

Yes. One looks with mind. The chapel is ultimately a distraction (sez I) however pleasurable. But the tree speaks life. Is it possible two posters on this site might however briefly be on the same page? — tim wood

I'm sure during times when I was wildness-deprived, I would have agreed. I get my fill pretty regularly these days. Are you speaking out of hunger by chance?

Are you speaking out of hunger by chance? — frank

For agreement? Perhaps. I find it's attention, the ability to attend, that matters. The tree engages, while chapels become tiresome. May I infer you've aged out of the city to the country?

by real, do you mean like a human form sitting in taverna in ios drinking coffee and staring at the fishing boats ?? or real as some being outside our senses, but real none the less ? such as love or truth ? Can you give me some sideboards on what you mean by real? — Rank Amateur

Minimal sideboards. To the constraint already given you can add what you like. Love and truth are instructive examples, though. The Greeks personified these, externalized them, but the wiser of them never forgot they were representations of human matters, and that the personifications symbolized their importance and not their existence. Aphrodite, then, a poetic idea(l), not a substance.

My point in this thread is to challenge those who argue relentlessly that God is at least, say, as real as a stone, to make clear what follows from that existence, it being granted. I suppose it's a question of the ability to distinguish between an idea and a representation of that idea. In my experience people of genuine faith do not have that problem - nor insist on existence.

My point in this thread is to challenge those who argue relentlessly that God is at least, say, as real as a stone, to make clear what follows from that existence, it being granted — tim wood

got it - good hunting then.

I find it's attention, the ability to attend, that matters. The tree engages, while chapels become tiresome. May I infer you've aged out of the city to the country? — tim wood

I grew up beside a forest and then lived in a big city, then wandered a lot.

The only rule here is that whatever you wish to attribute to God must be derived from his existence only. — tim wood

God is sexless, timeless, benevolent and powerful:

1. Sexless: Not the product of bisexual reproduction so sexless.

2. Timeless: An eternal in time (presentist) God exists in a universe where time has no start. Such a God has no start in time; no coming into being; so cannot logically exist. Or if the God had a start point in time, there would be an empty stretch of time before him and nothing to cause his existence, which is also impossible. So God must be timeless.

3. Benevolent: Even God cannot know if there is another greater god than him in existence somewhere. Even if you grant God omniscience, a future greater god is possible. If God ever meets a greater god, the outcome is as follows: Greater god is evil, our god is good, our god is punished. Greater god is evil, our god is evil, our god is punished. Greater god is good, our god is evil, our god is punished. Greater god is good, our god is good, our god rewarded. The only satisfactory outcome is if our god is Good. God was intelligent enough to create the universe so he will have worked out the above and hence will be a good god.

4. Powerful: He created the universe so he must be.

...
5. Easily bored. Created universe to amuse himself.
6. Not a micro manager. Does not get involved in day to day running of universe.
7. Likes to do things on a grand scale (size of universe).

Of course existence as a predicate is useless, if there's no subject that the predicate is a predicate of. — Πετροκότσυφας

It seems, then, that existence is not a predicate at all, given that unlike predicates, it does not provide any information about the object to which it is applied.

It seems, then, that existence is not a predicate at all, given that unlike predicates, it does not provide any information about the object to which it is applied. — Echarmion

So, almost exactly, Kant said.

A different argument is that being (if you'll allow being = (real) existence, unreal existence being just no existence at all), being the highest genus, is itself not a species, and thus cannot have any differentia. Thus to say of anything that it "be" is to say nothing about the thing itself.

To speak or think of a thing it must have a nature, a set of intrinsic qualities or features (actual or imagined) that are essential to its being the kind of thing that it is. That which is non-existent is necessarily devoid of any qualities or features, be they intrinsic or otherwise.
— Jehu

Couldn't you speak about something you imagine? — Terrapin Station

As an author of fantasy novels who regularly writes about dragons and stuff, I certainly hope one can. I would hate to think I had merely hallucinated all the pages I have written.

BTW, dragons have qualities. Most of them have the quality of being fire-breathing. All of them have the quality of being imaginary.

It seems, then, that existence is not a predicate at all, given that unlike predicates, it does not provide any information about the object to which it is applied. — Echarmion

"Donald Trump exists."

This statement provides information about Donald Trump, namely that he does not belong to the class of objects (dragons, Bilbo Baggins, Superman, the fountain of youth, etc etc etc) that do not exist.

God is sexless, timeless, benevolent and powerful:

1. Sexless: Not the product of bisexual reproduction so sexless.
2. Timeless: An eternal in time (presentist) God exists in a universe where time has no start. Such a God has no start in time; no coming into being; so cannot logically exist. Or if the God had a start point in time, there would be an empty stretch of time before him and nothing to cause his existence, which is also impossible. So God must be timeless.
3. Benevolent: Even God cannot know if there is another greater god than him in existence somewhere. Even if you grant God omniscience, a future greater god is possible. If God ever meets a greater god, the outcome is as follows: Greater god is evil, our god is good, our god is punished. Greater god is evil, our god is evil, our god is punished. Greater god is good, our god is evil, our god is punished. Greater god is good, our god is good, our god rewarded. The only satisfactory outcome is if our god is Good. God was intelligent enough to create the universe so he will have worked out the above and hence will be a good god.
4. Powerful: He created the universe so he must be. — Devans99

You've presented in positive terms what can only be true negatively. 1) Because sex cannot be derived from being/existence, then sex cannot be an attribute. But you have attributed it, which, if you look at the OP, is disallowed as being not to the point. You can attribute anything you like, but nothing in your attributing makes it an attribution.

2) More groundless claims.

3) Etc.

4) & etc.

5. Easily bored. Created universe to amuse himself.
6. Not a micro manager. Does not get involved in day to day running of universe.
7. Likes to do things on a grand scale (size of universe). — Devans99

5, 6, 7) Non-sense. Please show how any of these are deduced from the existence of an existing God and not from your fevered brain.

This isn't about what God ought to be, but about what He is, deduced from the (granted) fact of His existence.

I grew up beside a forest and then lived in a big city, then wandered a lot. — frank

That sounds, if not ideal, then close to it. If not too personal, where and if you've settled, how?

By his works shall we know him. Some of my deductions do use the fact that God, if he exists, created the universe, but I'd argue that is derived from the definition of the term God so its fair play.

Because sex cannot be derived from being/existence, then sex cannot be an attribute — tim wood

God exists. Does he have a sex? Does he have a mother/father? No. Deductions from the nature of God's existence.

Couldn't you speak about something you imagine? — Terrapin Station

In order to speak of anything you must first be able to say what that thing is; i.e., what its nature is, and if we are able to say 'what it is' then we cannot deny 'that it is'. We are well within our right to say that one thing partakes of an actual existence, while another partakes of only an imaginary existence, but we cannot deny that the imaginary thing does not partake of any mode of existence at all.

And they are not doing that anyway? — Bitter Crank

Nope, they are imagining doing it to an imaginary being.

Not the same now that Timmy has granted him/her/it a part of reality/existence.

Remember Starman, Jeff Bridges not David Bowie, they had autopsy tables with straps for arms, legs, and torso.

If I understand you correctly you mean to show that the properties generally attributed to God are not deducible from just the mere fact of God's existence. If so, you should have used the word "creator" and not "God" because the former, by definition, possesses all the properties/attributes of God. A small error.

I don't think we can derive the necessary attributes of God from nothing more than an existence of a creator. However, it is not impossible so I'll try it here. A being that can create a universe must be omnipotent and also omniscient. Without omniscience the being wouldn't have the knowledge to create a universe. An omniscient being would understand morality completely and therefore would be omnibenevolent. So, there you have it. The existence of a creator implies an all-good, all-powerful and all-knowing God.

If so, you should have used the word "creator" and not "God" — TheMadFool

Why so?

If so, you should have used the word "creator" and not "God" because the former, by definition, possesses all the properties/attributes of God. A small error. — TheMadFool

Hmm. This God, existence granted, by virtue of that existence possesses attributes?

A being that can create a universe must be omnipotent and also omniscient. — TheMadFool

Perhaps, unless he's a one-trick pony. You've made a claim without evidence and about a conjectured being not part of this thread. The task is to exhibit what if anything can be derived from the existence of a particular being, God.

A being that can create a universe must be omnipotent and also omniscient. Without omniscience the being wouldn't have the knowledge to create a universe. An omniscient being would understand morality completely and therefore would be omnibenevolent. — TheMadFool

You are aware that the ideas of an omnipotent God and a perfect or a perfectly good God are inconsistent with each other, yes? And why "must"? And why does the universe require knowledge? You as well say that His name must be Bob.

This is just an extended form of, if god exists then he must exist, therefore he must exist. And if he must exist then he does exist. Taadaa. QED. What nonsense!

If you want to talk about creation, then perhaps make clear just what "creation is in this context, not easy to do. Or just re-read the OP.

The task is to exhibit what if anything can be derived from the existence of a particular being, God. — tim wood

But God is defined as all-good/knowing/powerful. If you grant that God exists then these are part of the package. Why ask a redundant question?

Ergo you must be talking about the cosmological argument - a creator being. Even if such a being should exist we wouldn't be warranted to deduce omnibenevolence. Only then your question makes sense.