definition of

[Metacrock]

We tend to think of God as a big man with a beard, or some sort of powerful "person" like a human being, although one who can do amazing things. This is just the childish version, it is conditioned in our thinking by a pedestrian approach to religion.

There are religions that don't have a "God" per se, such as Buddhism. Essentially, there is no reason to think of God as a person, certainly not one with a corporeal body. That image, which is hinted at in the Bible, is merely metaphor. Depending upon the religious tradition, however, one can have very abstract views of God which have nothing to do with a father figure or a mother figure.

There is a more abstract way to think about God: that is "Transcendental Signifier;" the notion of a metaphysical first principle that organizes everything into a metaphysical hierarchy. This is the more sophisticated view of God, and most of the works of the great Christian philosophers hint at notions of God in these abstract terms.

Anselm defined God as "that which nothing greater than can be conceived." He ended all of his arguments by saying "this thing we call God," as a means of keeping the exact nature of God open-ended. This is because God is beyond our understanding, as the Bible says, but we can leave a "place marker" for the concept of God by understanding that the ultimate logical function of the God concept is that of the transcendental signifier.

basic minimal attributes:

eternal
necessary

creator

An eternal existent which creates all things and chooses to do so is compatible with the definition of "God" found in any major world religion, and therefore, can be regarded as God. Thus God must exist QED!

ps

yes ground of being can have these traits

[met]

But are those enough? - "eternal, necessary, creator"?

There could be such a being, and Brassier's claims could still be true, I think?

Nihilism, for Brassier, is the realization “that there is a mind-independent reality which…is indifferent to our existence and oblivious to the ‘values’ and ‘meanings’ which we would drape over it in order to make it more hospitable” (NU, xi).

To say "there's a God," I think we need something more, some kind of benevolence, some concern for us, or at least a basis for "goodness" and "beauty," as we understand those things....

[Jim B.]

An eternal existent which creates all things and chooses to do so is compatible with the definition of "God" found in any major world religion, and therefore, can be regarded as God. Thus God must exist QED!

ps

yes ground of being can have these traits

Ground of being is an existent?

[Jim B.]

But are those enough? - "eternal, necessary, creator"?

There could be such a being, and Brassier's claims could still be true, I think?

Nihilism, for Brassier, is the realization “that there is a mind-independent reality which…is indifferent to our existence and oblivious to the ‘values’ and ‘meanings’ which we would drape over it in order to make it more hospitable” (NU, xi).

To say "there's a God," I think we need something more, some kind of benevolence, some concern for us, or at least a basis for "goodness" and "beauty," as we understand those things....

met, are those essential traits of God? Maybe some of God's traits are just brute facts that can't be deduced from anything else.

[Metacrock]

An eternal existent which creates all things and chooses to do so is compatible with the definition of "God" found in any major world religion, and therefore, can be regarded as God. Thus God must exist QED!

ps

yes ground of being can have these traits

Ground of being is an existent?

good point. that is from an earlier strata of my apologetics when I was nor so versed in Tillich. But Harsthorne got Tillich to admit with proviso that it was ok to speak of existence of God; proviso was use exist metaphorically. still I try not to so to avoid confussion.

thanks for pointing that out man.

[Metacrock]

But are those enough? - "eternal, necessary, creator"?

There could be such a being, and Brassier's claims could still be true, I think?

Nihilism, for Brassier, is the realization “that there is a mind-independent reality which…is indifferent to our existence and oblivious to the ‘values’ and ‘meanings’ which we would drape over it in order to make it more hospitable” (NU, xi).

To say "there's a God," I think we need something more, some kind of benevolence, some concern for us, or at least a basis for "goodness" and "beauty," as we understand those things....

you forget the link both Tillich and Balthasar point out: being itself-love (we can perhaps say better it imjpli9es love).

when you unpack all the terms you find that all the attributes are summed up in these. ie creation implies choice implies consciousness.

[met]

But are those enough? - "eternal, necessary, creator"?

There could be such a being, and Brassier's claims could still be true, I think?

Nihilism, for Brassier, is the realization “that there is a mind-independent reality which…is indifferent to our existence and oblivious to the ‘values’ and ‘meanings’ which we would drape over it in order to make it more hospitable” (NU, xi).

To say "there's a God," I think we need something more, some kind of benevolence, some concern for us, or at least a basis for "goodness" and "beauty," as we understand those things....

met, are those essential traits of God? Maybe some of God's traits are just brute facts that can't be deduced from anything else.

Well, the question I was asking myself was, "What kind of entity would we be wiling to call God?" What attributes would be enough to fulfill the ordinary theist's claim that "There really is a God"?

Like that.

It's a tricky question because "God" doesn't have to be any kind of candy machine either, and we have to wonder if, or the extent to which, what we call "suffering" (and sometimes blame God for) can really be explained in terms of "thwarting our desires" in a Buddhistic kind of way.

[Jim B.]

Well, the question I was asking myself was, "What kind of entity would we be wiling to call God?" What attributes would be enough to fulfill the ordinary theist's claim that "There really is a God"?

Like that.

It's a tricky question because "God" doesn't have to be any kind of candy machine either, and we have to wonder if, or the extent to which, what we call "suffering" (and sometimes blame God for) can really be explained in terms of "thwarting our desires" in a Buddhistic kind of way.

That's a very good question. The ordinary theist, at least in the west, would need other things like you mentioned. But at the risk of sounding elitist, maybe the ordinary theist shouldn't be the ultimate authority?

[met]

Well, if there's a creator being who's - eg - so indifferent to human existence and values at all levels that Tripp's interpretation of Brassier above is essentially the case after all, I'm not sure that being would fit the bill of "a God" for most people, whether theologically sophisticated or not. Wdyt?

[Jim B.]

Well, if there's a creator being who's - eg - so indifferent to human existence and values at all levels that Tripp's interpretation of Brassier above is essentially the case after all, I'm not sure that being would fit the bill of "a God" for most people, whether theologically sophisticated or not. Wdyt?

I agree. My point, which I totally botched making, was something like: Ordinary theists see God as essentially personal, conscious, loving, etc. I just question whether ordinary theists have a very coherent notion of what those terms mean. Maybe even most theologians and philosophers of religion lack a coherent understanding what they mean and how they relate to God's other features. I guess that leaves a huge opening for the atheist to come back with, See? The whole concept is a muddle!