But God is defined as all-good/knowing/powerful. — TheMadFool

"Is defined." Do you not see the problem with this? You're prepared to define in everything that is in question. Existence is granted, for the present purposes of this thread, which is an attempt to see if all those concerned with their own proofs of His existence can, relieved for the moment of the problem of proof, have anything beyond that. Which is to say, of what significance could existence be, or have, that can be derived from that existence.

And did you not see where all-good, all-powerful, is inconsistent? Disagree? Take it up with theologians who have wrestled with it for more than one thousand years. You're just using words without adequate consideration of their meaning, probably that you learned from someone themselves either genuinely ignorant or who was trying to sell something. Critical thinking. Give it a try.

Critical thinking. Give it a try. — tim wood

:lol: Yes it's very difficult for me.

My problems are not less than yours. But it's a start. Much discussion of God, as I hear it, is about what this or that group of people think he ought to be. And I think this is exactly right, exactly what should happen. But such a God is an idea, a concept. It's correct to question ideas and concepts. But it all becomes a problem when those same questioners insist on existence. At that point it all falls apart.

And did you not see where all-good, all-powerful, is inconsistent? — tim wood

I'll give it another try...

Ok. Which of the 3 god attributes will you accept?

1. All powerful
2. All knowing
3. All good

I'm going to rely on the cosmological argument which you accept of course since this thread begins with acceptance of God's existence.

If a being (God) can create a universe then God must be all powerful.

As creating something is not only about ''what to do'' but also about ''how to do'' God must be all-knowing.

If God is all-knowing then it must be that God has perfect knowledge of morality. If so, God must be all good.

The omnipotent-omnibenevolent problem is a problem for ''us'' and not for God. Could a chimpanzee understand our motivations to conserve its species when a ranger darts it unconscious, puts it in a cage and takes it to another location?

1. All powerful
2. All knowing
3. All good

I'm going to rely on the cosmological argument which you accept of course since this thread begins with acceptance of God's existence. — TheMadFool

None. This isn't about what I'll buy; it's about what you can demonstrate is a consequence of existence. You want him to be all powerful? Fine, but that God is your idea. Besides, just what is all powerful? And don't start any mind/language games here.

Look, if I want to define a horse as a four-legged animal, you in turn might mock and ridicule me for whatever reason. But I can exhibit a horse, and we can jointly investigate phenomena in some way and at some level appropriate to a discussion concerning what a horse is. In short, on horses and wide variety of other things, we have recourse to unimpeachable authorities - or we moderate our claims to comport with those authorities. But the trouble with our topic is no such authority or authorities exist. Which in itself is suggestive....

None. This isn't about what I'll buy; it's about what you can demonstrate is a consequence of existence. You want him to be all powerful? Fine, but that God is your idea. Besides, just what is all powerful? And don't start any mind/language games here.

Look, if I want to define a horse as a four-legged animal, you in turn might mock and ridicule me for whatever reason. But I can exhibit a horse, and we can jointly investigate phenomena in some way and at some level appropriate to a discussion concerning what a horse is. In short, on horses and wide variety of other things, we have recourse to unimpeachable authorities - or we moderate our claims to comport with those authorities. But the trouble with our topic is no such authority or authorities exist. Which in itself is suggestive.... — tim wood

But it's not that we just want to prove existence alone. We also want to prove that God has certain attributes too. Just the existence of an x is not enough to pronounce x as God. Also, it seems to me that you're being unfair because God's other attributes aren't derived from His existence alone, although I've tried to prove it with the cosmological argument, which you don't accept.

You are aware that the ideas of an omnipotent God and a perfect or a perfectly good God are inconsistent with each other, yes? — tim wood

If it's impossible to change the universe after it is brought into being then God could be omnipotent, omnipresent and omnibenevolent and the problem of evil goes away.

So for example, if you believe in an eternalist universe, God changing things in the present would destroy an already extant future... so it maybe impossible for him to change anything... and the definition of omnipotent does not extend to achieving the impossible.

But it's not that we just want to prove existence alone. We also want to prove that God has certain attributes too. — TheMadFool

It seemed to me that the point of this thread was basically that people spend so much time/effort on simply trying to prove existence, but nothing else follows from that even if they were to succeed. No one seems to bother coming up with what they believe are novel, blockbuster arguments proving any of the other supposed attributes.

It seemed to me that the point of this thread was basically that people spend so much time/effort on simply trying to prove existence, but nothing else follows from that even if they were to succeed. No one seems to bother coming up with what they believe are novel, blockbuster arguments proving any of the other supposed attributes — Terrapin Station

But then it was incorrect to make the OP about God. It should've been about a creator being. The OP quibbles between creator and God.

The fact is a creator doesn't necessarily have to be good but God has to be.

However, if someone's starting premise is that God exists then all God's attributes must exist too.

Isn't that only if one accepts particular definitions?

Isn't that only if one accepts particular definitions?
5m — Terrapin Station

Yes, and the God in this discussion is the monotheistic God isn't it?

I don't think it's necessarily a monotheistic god, necessarily an omnipotent god, etc.

If God exists and revealed Himself to all humanity, because he is our creator, we would recognized him instantly. He has not done so, so, there is no proof that God exists.

My answer to your question is, MAN can not prove God exists, only God Himself can do that.

No. God doesn't exist - you would benefit from using the term 'natural forces involved in the big bang and vessel-selection-process.'

Words are an abstraction of reality; to name 'natural forces involved in the vessel-selection-process', God, is firstly, an abstraction of the reality of these forces, and finally, inaccurate therefore.

It seems, people who have no answers, use God, for no other answer exists for our reference; not to mention it refers to a holy book, but given you're implying God is the dictionary definition, we'll skip the theatrics...

You can theorize all day different definitions for God, such as 'the multi-verse', 'light', 'the status quo', but these aren't the definition of God, that is 'deity' or 'higher power'.

'The status quo' exists, we can sense it; why would you reduce the status quo, named accurately, to God? Then you will use this knowledge immaturely, by going to church, rather than helping/hindering the status quo?

At most, the word is useful when defined as 'pointer to forces that we currently do not know about until further notice...'

Can your mind grow out of God, and actually define the higher forces in question? If not, please stop redefining God as you please, it's silly use of words technology.

What follows from existence? Some or all of the following: distinguishability, perceptibility, reasonable inferrability, etc. I'm not sure where that gets us, and why this is interesting. We can do the same with anything. I grant you your horse, but the only thing I grant you is its existence. What follows from that? I'm struggling to understand the significance of this line of enquiry.

I don't think it's necessarily a monotheistic god, necessarily an omnipotent god, etc — Terrapin Station

Since I'm referring to the omni-God what lesser God could fit the bill here?

I'm asking because the impression I got was that @tim wood made a specific challenge about the omni-God of the monotheistic triad. Maybe I was wrong.

But it's not that we just want to prove existence alone. We also want to prove that God has certain attributes too. Just the existence of an x is not enough to pronounce x as God. Also, it seems to me that you're being unfair because God's other attributes aren't derived from His existence alone, although I've tried to prove it with the cosmological argument, which you don't accept. — TheMadFool

Good. Existence isn't enough. Think about that. Whatever you say or think about God is either derived from His existence, or something else - the something else, whatever it might be, being not God. You refer to other attributes, but since you do not, cannot, get them from a God even one whose existence is granted, then where do you get them (not a rhetorical question)?

:up: :cheer:

But then it was incorrect to make the OP about God. It should've been about a creator being. The OP quibbles between creator and God. — TheMadFool

I have rechecked the OP. Nothing about "creators" in it. No quibbling at all. If you want to call something a creator, you're free to do so But I suspect that in the next instant you'll claim the creator - so named - must just be the creator you have in mind. After all, if he's the creator then he must have created something. By the way, what is it, exactly, that you imagine the meaning of "creator" or "creation" to be?

And an existing God must have the attributes of God? And how would you know that?

Yes, and the God in this discussion is the monotheistic God isn't it? — TheMadFool

Did anyone say that? You're just itching to decide who, what, where, when, why, how God is. But that God is just your creation, your idea. Not in itself a bad idea, in fact I hold that's the only God there is. But the invitation here is for you to demonstrate how your God is an existing God, one really out there in a substantial sense.

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

have to say I am perplexed by the question. Not that that is hard to do. Firstly it seems you are not defining what this "god" is that you are granting existence, but are arguing with when he tries to do so, i think arguing that he can't derive them from just existence. If i substitute "tim wood' for god in the o/p if i can't assign Tim Wood any characteristics not sure what is left to derive about you, based on your existence, other than you exist. By the simple granting of your existence I cant derive if Tim is a good man who loves well, or is a mass murderer or much or anything else of importance.

Could be lack of my intellect, but each time I try to answer with the way the O/P is worded - not sure what anyone could derive about anything by simply allowing its existence but not defining it or allowing other definitions about its characteristics.

Good. Existence isn't enough. Think about that. Whatever you say or think about God is either derived from His existence, or something else - the something else, whatever it might be, being not God. You refer to other attributes, but since you do not, cannot, get them from a God even one whose existence is granted, then where do you get them (not a rhetorical question)? — tim wood

I understand what you mean. You want to say that the just existence is not enough for any concept of God. God's other attributes are not inferrable from plain existence. God's other attributes may be regarded as accessory that need their own proofs. I agree.

But...

The difficulty in proving God's existence is in the part you deliberately subtract - omnibenevolence. What I'm saying is it is tough to prove an omnibenevolent, omnscient and omnipotent God exists. Theists aren't concerned only about existence. They are concerned that a well-defined God exists.

What you're doing here is like ''Ok. Unicorns exist. So what?'' The problem is that a unicorn is a horse with horns and it is these attributes that weigh in on its existence or nonexistence. We can't say unicorns exist without also accepting the horse and the horn.

In my opinion omnipotence is added to God, and be subtracted whenever, because God is a way to worship such a thing I do not like, you do so scientifically. I worship the status quo in light of heaven and hell (what's also added to God); key; worshipping the status quo; benefiting the status quo.

What goes around comes around; things like karma are implied by the status quo; the Earth is sustainable and we can benefit it by tapping into it's potential; dying with a success in mind. Who's to say it is the best success, but is it's success valuable? Murder, is it wrong? (people's lifes hold particular value); morality is to do with beneficence or malefience to the greater system; in a universe as chaotic as this lot's is forgiven; lot's of value is determined good, and you can be beneficent or maleficent. Simple logic is, if you aren't, you will either go to hell, degraded or even just not given entry into the better lives. Why should anyone be nice to you if they catch you?

Firstly it seems you are not defining what this "god" is that you are granting existence, but are arguing with ↪TheMadFool when he tries to do so, — Rank Amateur

Stop right there! We, I, have covered this. It appears that you simply do not know, do not understand, the simple English word "definition." Come back to the thread when you've got that covered.

But here's a hint. In defining, you are saying what something is. With respect to horses and the like, we can look at a horse and try to craft our saying to match what we perceive. In the case of God, nothing is perceived, so what you say about God is nothing about God, but everything about what you think God is or should be.

It's as if you claimed three is red. But of course you wouldn't do that because that would be crazy.

Stop right there! — tim wood

more than happy to

If i substitute "tim wood' for god in the o/p if i can't assign Tim Wood any characteristics not sure what is left to derive about you, based on your existence, other than you exist. — Rank Amateur

Eggzackly!! Existence doesn't give you anything. Well, in the case of me you might try to infer that I'm human. But about God no one knows anything, especially anyting that might derive from his existence. So what do you do when you find out that what you are doing is categorically useless? Anyone?

So the logic of the thread is you disprove of people arguing for the existence of God that they define in one way or another.

You grant them that they can say their God exists, but they can't have their definition of Him

Than ask them to give this god with out definition attributes - solely from existence

Then declare some type of victory -

Still don't see the point, but don't need to - not that interested really. Seems rather meaningless to me.

You want to say that the just existence is not enough for any concept of God. — TheMadFool

Exactly not. I have a clear understanding of God that works for me and that meets all the criteria I think can be met. This God is completely and entirely real - it just has no material existence of any kind. I am simply putting before folks who want their God to be materially real, that material reality, existence, does not get you a god, or to any god. You're at liberty to disagree, but you're here invited to make your case. As you can see from reading here - and really in a lot of places - folks cannot do it. Indeed thinkers on religion, who all arguably would have been glad to find a real God, decided that such a thing would never be. They chose faith in the undemonstrable. I think the world had been better off if they'd decided that clearly God was a powerful regulative idea, and worked it that way.

You grant them that they can say their God exists, but they can't have their definition of Him — Rank Amateur

"THEY can't have THEIR definition of him." Let's accede to your wishes. THEY CAN HAVE their definitions of him. It's not too hard too imagine a circumstance where definitions conflict, are even contradictory. Not in any sense that a God could encompass contradiction, but in the stronger sense that God is what God cannot be. But hey, according to you, it's definitions all the way down. And this is happening as we speak, all the time. The famous example is the tension between scholastic realists and nominalists, the realists being about a perfect God, the nomialists an omnipotent God. And they found you cannot have both. So, anyway, you have your definitions. Now connect them to a real, materially existing God, and not just your idea of one that just happens to fit your definition.

If you're not seeing the problem, then you're like someone from the home out on a hayride to appreciate the colors - that is, on a fool's ride. But it's really easy to get off the hay wagon and stop being a fool. All you have to do is think, and not even too much of that!

If you're not seeing the problem, then you're like someone from the home out on a hayride to appreciate the colors - that is, on a fool's ride. But it's really easy to get off the hay wagon and stop being a fool. All you have to do is think, and not even too much of that! — tim wood

and the evidence that you are not just on a different hay ride is ???