Assumptions about God

This isn't to any particular type of poster on here but...

What sort of properties attached to *edit* Christian *edit* God are atheists (or subscribers to a different god) forced (in the spirit of debate) to take as axiomatic???

For example; I think I have to take the notion that God is all powerful, and God is creator of the universe as self evident or irreducibly true in the framework of most religions and see what problems I can find with these assumptions.

Do I really have to take, for example, it as an axiom that God is ground zero for morality (ie his opinion of what is right or wrong), or that he is perfect??? If so why???

If it could be demonstrated that any divergence from Gods morality is wholly detrimental, then its hardly axiomatic nor assumptive. Assumptions are not good.

Originally posted by Agerg
This isn't to any particular type of poster on here but...

What sort of properties attached to God are atheists (or subscribers to a different god) forced (in the spirit of debate) to take as axiomatic???

For example; I think I have to take the notion that God is all powerful, and God is creator of the universe as self evident or irreducibly tr ...[text shortened]... rality (ie his [i]opinion of what is right or wrong), or that he is perfect??? If so why???

[/i]There only need be one assumption made ... god refers to something that is supernatural. Certainly that's all I assume, as an atheist.

Originally posted by amannion
[/i]There only need be one assumption made ... god refers to something that is supernatural. Certainly that's all I assume, as an atheist.

Pantheism?

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Pantheism?

I guess pantheism could come from that assumption although I'm not sure what it's point is.
As I understand it pantheism describes the god entity as being the entire universe. To me that's a trivial, and not very helpful position.
And I'm immediately cautious of any theism since it seems to head towards the supernatural.

Originally posted by amannion
I guess pantheism could come from that assumption although I'm not sure what it's point is.
As I understand it pantheism describes the god entity as being the entire universe. To me that's a trivial, and not very helpful position.
And I'm immediately cautious of any [b]theism since it seems to head towards the supernatural.[/b]

My point was that your assumption that "God refers to something that is supernatural" does not fit in the case of Pantheism.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
My point was that your assumption that "God refers to something that is supernatural" does not fit in the case of Pantheism.

Yes, and my point was I don't find pantheism very illuminating or useful ...

My own silly fault but I should have been more specific in what I meant by God since I generally think of capital G God as being mainstream holy book based.

I accept this of course is a bit short sighted though...edited my OP

🙂

Originally posted by amannion
Yes, and my point was I don't find pantheism very illuminating or useful ...

I understood that you don't find it useful.

However, you made the following statement:
"I guess pantheism could come from that assumption although I'm not sure what it's point is."

Pantheism does not fit your assumption, so how could it come from it?

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
I understood that you don't find it useful.

However, you made the following statement:
"[b]I guess pantheism could come from that assumption although I'm not sure what it's point is."

Pantheism does not fit your assumption, so how could it come from it?[/b]

My apologies, I misunderstood your original post and then didn't bother correcting myself later. You're right, I should have indicated pantheism as an alternative to the supernatural assumption.

Originally posted by Agerg
My own silly fault but I should have been more specific in what I meant by God since I generally think of capital G God as being mainstream holy book based.

I accept this of course is a bit short sighted though...edited my OP

🙂

My position remains to your correction.
This god you refer to - which I'm just unable to capitalise - needs only one assumption: it's supernatural.

Originally posted by amannion
My position remains to your correction.
This god you refer to - which I'm just unable to capitalise - needs only one assumption: it's supernatural.

ok...fair enough, but if i adopt that position exactly how much progress can I really make with those theists (surely a good number of the regulars here?) who do unquestionably take for granted that God is, say, creator of the universe? (because their Holy book says/defines it as so)

Originally posted by Agerg
This isn't to any particular type of poster on here but...

What sort of properties attached to *edit* Christian *edit* God are atheists (or subscribers to a different god) forced (in the spirit of debate) to take as axiomatic???

For example; I think I have to take the notion that God is all powerful, and God is creator of the universe as self evident[ ...[text shortened]... rality (ie his [i]opinion of what is right or wrong), or that he is perfect??? If so why???

If God is our creator then we are wired with his morality. It is only when we go against this inner voice that we begin to go awry. What morality you may ask? It is the morality of doing unto others as you would have them do to you. Once you violate this law, guilt and other ugly consequences begin to creep onto the scene.

If God is not our creator, then he is not our God. At that point, he becomes one of many gods or voices of morality. I suppose it then becomes a question of who can impose their morality one whom?

Originally posted by Agerg
ok...fair enough, but if i adopt that position exactly how much progress can I really make with those theists (surely a good number of the regulars here?) who do unquestionably take for granted that God is, say, creator of the universe? (because their Holy book says/defines it as so)

Issues like god as creator or god as omnipotent or god as instigator of miracles or whatever, just flow out the assumption of supernatural as a valid explanation for phenomena.
Well, I don't think you can make any progress with a theist. If they assume that supernatural explanations are acceptable then we're at an impasse.

Originally posted by whodey
If God is our creator then we are wired with his morality. It is only when we go against this inner voice that we begin to go awry. What morality you may ask? It is the morality of doing unto others as you would have them do to you. Once you violate this law, guilt and other ugly consequences begin to creep onto the scene.

If God is not our creator, th ...[text shortened]... es of morality. I suppose it then becomes a question of who can impose their morality one whom?

[/i]Not exactly sure what you're trying to say here.
But the morality of do unto others does not arise from a belief in god as a creator or any other sort of supernatural entity.