Mageth

So, theism, per se, cannot be denied because of the absence of specific attributes.

It can be denied because of the absence of the attribute of existence.

omnia

The problem that strikes me is the whole +1 idea. It's like the expansion of the universe; it's not an expansion through space, it's an expansion of space. Similarly, perhaps your definition is slightly wrong. An all-powerful being will be the most powerful being possible, but that's not really the point. It just means the all-powerful being cannot be more powerful and that a being more powerful than it cannot be.

Hypothetically you can keep doing the whole "well what if you made a being that could control god, and then another one that could control that..." aka +1 ad infinitum. You can get around it by saying god is in control of itself, but cannot create a being more powerful than it is. This leads into can-god-make-a-stone-he-can't-lift problems, but I think this is why apologists introduced the "most powerful being" concept instead of "omnipotent being." It's just another way of trying to make it internally consistent.

Nit-picky internal contradictions are great for annoying fundies and really hardcore theists, but it doesn't really strike at the core of theism IMHO.

theophilus

Try not to jump in with these pointless, irrelevant outbursts.

Mageth

It's not pointless, theo. You, I assume, claim that God (actually, your particular God) has the attribute of existence. I claim God has the attribute of non-existence, or conversely that the attribute of existence is absent. Your God "exists" only in the mind of believers. Until you can establish God's existence, any other attributes such as "power" you might wish to discuss are merely mental gymnastics. Non-existent Gods don't have any power except through the minds of those that believe in them.

In any case, your statement "So, theism, per se, cannot be denied because of the absence of specific attributes" is false if one considers existence an attribute - for I can indeed deny theism on the basis of the absence of that specific attribute.

Jove

Thank you all for your input.

fishbulb

I can't think of anyone who actually defines their god as nothing more specific than the most powerful being there is, except when trying to equivocate. (For example, a Christian who can't make a convincing argument for the existence of a god he believes in, so he instead argues for the existence of a more generic god in the hopes of pulling a bait-and-switch later.) History is also replete with gods who are not all-powerful, especially in polytheistic religions, which are more numerous than monotheistic ones.

Apart from deists who suggest that there is something out there, but we don't know anything about it except that it definitely exists, most concepts of god include a few common characteristics:

- sentient,

- thoughtful (not in the sense of considerate, but in the sense that it acts deliberately),

- qualitatively more powerful than human beings (can do things of a sort that is beyond the capacity of humans, even with advanced technology),

- makes demands of humans,

- in some way rewards and punishes humans for obedience, respect, homage, or lack thereof.

It's possible that some people believe in gods which don't have all of these characteristics, but such people must be quite rare. Unless we are given a specific definition of what a "god" is, it seems to me to be pretty reasonable to assume it includes those characteristics which are nearly universally ascribed to gods by people who believe in them.

Asha'man

But you aren't talking about a possible being at all! You are talking about an imaginable being. Clearly, we are able to imagine something that isn't possible, that is what Hollywood movies are all about.

There is simply no reason to believe that anything like a diety is possible. Even the simplest attributes of a god, such as intelligence without a supporting physical brain, are probably only imaginable, but not possible.

However, once you finish limiting your imaginable god to what is possible, then you have another hurdle to jump through: actual. Again, just because something is possible, doesn't mean it is actually real.

I can imagine being able to fly like superman, but that isn't possible. It may be possible that a supermodel will be waiting for me in bed tonight, but that isn't actual. Do you see the difference?

Since your concept of god doesn't even seem possible, I have no reason to even consider if it is actual.