Taffy Lewis

What are the traditional attributes of the god of western theism?

It seems that the word "God" is most often used as a proper name for the god of western theism. And it seems that minimally this being must be personal, infinite, transcendent, and ultimate.

By 'personal', I just mean God performs intentional actions and has states of awareness.

'Infinite' means that God's attributes have no limit. This corresponds to omnipotence, omniscience, perfect goodness, and perfect freedom.

'Transcendent' seems to have a couple of different meanings. In the first sense, it could mean that God can perform actions that cannot be described by the correct laws of physics. The second sense just means that there are aspects of God's nature that we could never understand.

And 'ultimate' means nothing more than that God's existence is a brute fact. The idea is that if God exists his existence is unconditional and independent. He simply is. Further, it means that everything apart from God that exists ultimately depends upon God.

Can anyone think of any further properties which are essential to God?

Mageth

Imaginary?

Perchance

Are we talking about properties that people think are essential to God or properties attributed to God (such as in the Bible, for example?)

I know a whole lot of people who think God is omnibenevolent, omnikind, omni-on their side, for example.

But the Bible literature would seem to argue that God is also cruel, changeable, and really likes the smell of burning goat flesh.

The usual answer to this seems to be to throw out the Old Testament (or every part of the Bible the believer in question doesn't like).

How do we define "traditional?" As agreed upon by a majority of believers? Some other way?

-Perchance.

Taffy Lewis

Perchance:

I see no reason why the theist must accept every purported revelation of God. Consider sensory perception and memory. We allow that quite a few apparent sensory perceptions and memories are in fact nonveridical. However, we do trust our senses and memory in general.

It would be absurd to claim that someone throws out some sensory experiences and memories and accepts others simply because he "likes" some and "doesn't like" others. Parity of reasoning would suggest that we treat experiences of God's revelation in a similar way.

The overwhelming majority of western theists (Judaism, Christianity, Islam) have believed that God is perfectly good, just, and loving. Instances of apparent experiences of God's revelation that suggest God is cruel or wicked can thus be dismissed as nonveridical.

[ July 12, 2002: Message edited by: Taffy Lewis ]</p>

tronvillain

Right. So their current belief justifies throwing out most of what their current belief originated from.

not a theist

Why?
Because "western theism" has defined him in this way?
Are you just asking here for a definition of God according to "western theism"?
Whose "western theism"? That of the Scholastics? Of Luther? Of Calvin? Of Bob Jones?

This was certainly not true of the god of Aristotle, who was a western theist.

On the surface, many of these attribtes seem meaningful, but I'm really not certain that they are. Perhaps we'll have the chance to touch on some of them later in the discussion. I'll grant that these labels have been widely applied to God by many Western theologians.

The first sense here seems to impose a mode of thinking on the traditional God of "western theism" which is absent from many of the theologians of the past. I doubt that the idea of God being independent of the laws of physics was a very prominant part of their theology. It assumes that we already have a rather firm grasp on what the laws of physics are which is a rather recent phenomena.
The second sense is incorrect, I think, for many strains of Christian theology which seem to believe that we will have direct knowledge of God when we get to heaven, and will know him almost completely.

I thought that God was usually thought to be the sufficient reason for his own existence rather than his existence simply being a brute fact. At least that seems to be the case in Thomism.

Are you simply looking for a definition of the God of "western theism"? If so, why not just let a prominant Western theologian provide one?

[ July 13, 2002: Message edited by: not a theist ]</p>

99Percent

"God" is foremost and most importantly unknowable under any religion or epistemology.

This defeats the whole purpose of any discussion of "God" itself, which in turn is the purpose of any religion.

How convenient, eh? Particularly in the light that once you actually "know" god, this god ceases to exist by definition!

Perchance

I have ways of judging which parts of my memories and sensory impressions are "nonveridical," as you put it. For example, if I think I see a unicorn running down the hall, I can ask someone else standing by me if he or she saw it as well. If no one is there, I can follow and look at the carpet to see if it bears hoofprints. I can listen for the kinds of noises that a large beast like that would probably make (such as snorting), or the kinds of smells (manure, sweat). There are ways to test.

How do you "test" God? The test for many believers seems to be to compare their conception of God to what they already believe or have been told about him, and cut out anything that doesn't fit. Sort of like believing in unicorns because you want to.

Why "parity of reasoning?" Personal "revelations" wouldn't necessarily be valid to any other person, any more than my experience of seeing a unicorn, however much I might believe I saw one, would convince anyone else.

Argumentum ad numerum (or possibly populum; I get them mixed up). The number of people who believe something is true has nothing to do with the truth of the claim, to put it another way. Also, there are parts of the OT that suggest God is cruel. They are written down. Someone might, as you say, decide to dismiss them, but such a system needs reasoning behind it; he or she cannot shut his or her eyes and say, "They don't exist! Go away!"

-Perchance.

[ July 13, 2002: Message edited by: Perchance ]</p>

Taffy Lewis

Perchance:

You don't have means of judging which memories and sensory experiences are veridical apart from other memories and sensory experiences. My point is that we do in fact trust our senses and memory in general. We form a dynamic set of beliefs about how things are which is based upon this general trust and judge other sensory experiences and memories on the basis of this set.

Consider your unicorn example. You could ask someone else if they see the unicorn but you would be implicitly trusting your experiences of their response. You must trust your senses and memory at some point or you can't form any beliefs.

You say:

There aren't ways of testing which are independent of trusting your senses and memory in general.


The number of people who accept some claim certainly seems relevant to the rationality of a claim. Would you be more confident in an experimental result confirmed by one scientist or a result confirmed by one thousand? I think the answer is obvious.

Further, the fundamental principle at work here is the notion that how things seem in experience is good reason to believe that's how things are in reality unless you have reason to believe otherwise. And what could count as "reason to believe otherwise" other than more "seemings"? How things seem to one in experience is not an appeal to popular opinion even if the vast majority of mankind shares those seemings. It is a factual matter independent of personal opinion that things seem various ways to various people.

And there are instances of false sensory experiences and memories. Many of those are written down. So what? We "dismiss" nonveridical sensory experiences and memories all the time. Why can't we do this with respect to apparent experiences of God's revelation? You are applying a double standard.

[ July 14, 2002: Message edited by: Taffy Lewis ]</p>

Taffy Lewis

not a theist,

I am not claiming that every person who has ever lived in western civilization has agreed on one conception of "God". I am merely referring to the conception that the vast majority have accepted.