The necessary characteristics of a god

Originally posted by JS357
Given the strong preexisting semantic associations we have with the words "god/God and "universe", is there one word/term that can be used to replace "god" and "universe", such as "all" or "the all? If so, would it better represent our proper relationship with god/the universe, to use "the All" (upper case)?

I am here to utterly destroy your preexisting semantic associations, not to enable their pathetic inadequacies.

Originally posted by JS357
Given the strong preexisting semantic associations we have with the words "god/God and "universe", is there one word/term that can be used to replace "god" and "universe", such as "all" or "the all? If so, would it better represent our proper relationship with god/the universe, to use "the All" (upper case)?

The former being said, however, I don't think pantheists would agree with the necessity of coming up with an alternate term. They would, I'm sure, feel that 'god' was precisely what they meant. Nothing more, nothing less.

Originally posted by Agerg
So let me get this straight...if I was to ask you what is the minimal set of properties required for a meal to fill you up you would only be able to answer with *your favourite food*!??? Can you not for one moment cast away your bias and think objectively!? I am meeting you half way by supposing some god exists.

I still feel I honestly answered you with my opinion of what you are asking for. Do you just want me to make up an answer that you will approve or answer the way I feel? If you just want answers you approve just say so and I'll leave.

Originally posted by galveston75
I still feel I honestly answered you with my opinion of what you are asking for. Do you just want me to make up an answer that you will approve or answer the way I feel? If you just want answers you approve just say so and I'll leave.

Well if you were answering honestly, and genuinely believe that can do/know everything & anything is contained in the minimal set of characteristics associated with a being that can create universes; that you couldn't if thinking about it any harder streamline it a little bit, then what was the following $hite:

"I would think those things I said would naturally have to be justified in order for this God to really be a God."

all about when I asked for justification? 😕

Hell, if I supposed it had no restrictions on any level of his existence, power or knowledge apart from being unable to paint the Mona Lisa - why would it in this case have been unable to have created the universe?

Originally posted by Agerg
Well if you were answering honestly, and genuinely believe that [b]can do/know everything & anything is contained in the minimal set of characteristics associated with a being that can create universes; that you couldn't if thinking about it any harder streamline it a little bit, then what was the following $hite:
[quote]"I would think those things ...[text shortened]... aint the Mona Lisa - why would it in this case have been unable to have created the universe?[/b]

Well if you don't accept my "honest" answers then I have no need to answer at this thread at all. Good day.

Originally posted by galveston75
Well if you don't accept my "honest" answers then I have no need to answer at this thread at all. Good day.

No I don't accept your answers, they are dishonest (and I'm being generous by asserting that). Furthermore, I came up with a counter-example to your first answer in this thread.

Originally posted by Agerg
In this thread I'm making the (charitable) assumption (for the sake of argument) that
1) some sort of creator entity (a god) exists; and that
2) the universe as it exists today would not be possible without its handiwork in some way, behind the scenes.

Independently of any holy books (and to be fair, any postulated theories of the universe's origins on th ...[text shortened]... sical law of the universe (that it is resilient to change unless it is acted upon externally)[/b]

Without consulting the Bible...

This God would necessarily be a person, i.e., possess a personality.
Given than man is a person, we could not expect the created to surpass the creator.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Without consulting the Bible...

This God would necessarily be a person, i.e., possess a personality.
Given than man is a person, we could not expect the created to surpass the creator.

To start with, by the same reasoning could we not also argue that this god would also have to be a dolphin? they too possess a personality (and are regarded to be highly intelligent compared to other animals (and of course humans are also animals)). We also know dogs and cats have personalities too - should god also be a dog or a cat!?

Originally posted by rwingett
The former being said, however, I don't think pantheists would agree with the necessity of coming up with an alternate term. They would, I'm sure, feel that 'god' was precisely what they meant. Nothing more, nothing less.

I am not here to kowtow to the pathetic inadequacies of the pantheists.

I have been puzzling about this thread for some time. I think I know why now.

In the OP you said:

What characteristics do you hold this god must necessarily have in order to bring this universe about?

I, however, have been thinking about the necessary characteristics of a god, more in line with the title.

I can imagine entities/forces etc that could bring the universe about. However, these would not all be gods.

To define which of these are gods, I would need to define the necessary characteristics of a god. But that would not be the same as defining the characteristics they need to bring this universe about.

But I don't believe that a being that simply 'triggered' the universe, with no knowledge and conception of how it would turn out, and could even, say, die as a result, could be regarded as a god.

But I don't think that is what you are asking.

Originally posted by rwingett
The former being said, however, I don't think pantheists would agree with the necessity of coming up with an alternate term. They would, I'm sure, feel that 'god' was precisely what they meant. Nothing more, nothing less.

Hi rwingett, best to you and yours!

Since the differ states of the observer universe share both an epistemological and ontological role, they are both simultaneously a description of the current state of the observer universe and of everything that is contained in it. Since epistemology and ontology are inseparable, the epistemological acts alone (acts of perception) is the agent that creates ontology. Once more, It’s only Us.

To me, the universe is neither a machine neither synonymous to G-d but a world self-synthesized out of huge causal fields; each bit of information we have at our disposal as regards the observer universe (compressed information that can be well depicted as thick algorithms that they are in and by themselves and simultaneously mutually dependent, that is), constitutes our wide world of spacetime and the rest observers;

Since the observer universe (and all the other observers it contains) are coming into being through latent karmic imprints out of a vast pool of potentialities, the becoming into being of these causal imprints is forming whatever has form –and thus whatever has form lacks of inherent existence; because everything comes into being (into Form, that is) out of the development and of the propagation of these mind-only latent karmic potentials;

To point towards a transcendental G-d “with personality” as is the case with our Christian friends, is to me an unjustified superstitious assumption; and to argue that the observer universe is synonymous to G-d, as it appears to be the case according to the seemingly pantheist rant of yours, drives me nowhere and so I discard it as well
😵

Originally posted by Rank outsider
I have been puzzling about this thread for some time. I think I know why now.

In the OP you said:

What characteristics do you hold this god must necessarily have in order to bring this universe about?

I, however, have been thinking about the necessary characteristics of a god, more in line with the title.

I can imagine enti e as a result, could be regarded as a god.

But I don't think that is what you are asking.

I think as mentioned by JS357, we have the problem of anthropomorphizing "god", and we also have the problem of expecting it should be uber-capable - and the blame for this I say should be carried greatest by the major religions who insist it should take our form and be omni-everything.
I have no problem supposing of a god that was without purpose, without boundless powers/knowledge, without morality, and without immortality; I just need it to be able to, in a non-redundant way, help create at least one universe (and by "help" I mean that perhaps several gods would need to work together (either by design or by accident) in order to achieve the result of creating at least *this* universe).

Originally posted by Agerg
I think as mentioned by JS357, we have the problem of anthropomorphizing "god", and we also have the problem of expecting it should be uber-capable - and the blame for this I say should be carried greatest by the major religions who insist it should take our form and be omni-everything.
I have no problem supposing of a god that was without purpose, without b design or by accident) in order to achieve the result of creating at least *this* universe).

I agree with you. I just could never call that thing a god.

In fact, you might be able to list all the common traits of every concept of god that has ever existed (assuming there are any) and your concept of it would probably contain none of them.

But I realise I am responding to a question you didn't ask.

Originally posted by black beetle
Hi rwingett, best to you and yours!

Since the differ states of the observer universe share both an epistemological and ontological role, they are both simultaneously a description of the current state of the observer universe and of everything that is contained in it. Since epistemology and ontology are inseparable, the epistemological acts alone (ac ...[text shortened]... ding to the seemingly pantheist rant of yours, drives me nowhere and so I discard it as well
😵

If I had the slightest idea what you were talking about here, I would, no doubt, prepare a witty response. But since I don't...well...my wit shall remain in reserve for another day.

Originally posted by JS357
I am not here to kowtow to the pathetic inadequacies of the pantheists.

It would be sporting of you to make some slight allowance for their inadequacies. Kowtowing in quite unnecessary.