Definitions of deity

[TheBlackPhilosophy]

I wish to ask a question that has long been unnoticed in debates about a deity.

By a deity I don't mean the god of the Judeo-Christian bible, but a general archetype of god.

We often use the problem of evil to show a deity that is all powerful, all knowing, and all good/loving, to be illogical. But where do we get these definitions? Are they reasonable attributes of a deity?

~Questions of definition~

1. What traits/attributes/characteristics is a deity required to have?

2. If a deity is required to have certain attributes, why?

~Questions of origin~

1. Why do we use deities as a theory of everything? (Aren't other explanations more reasonable?)

2. Can we explain the origin of a deity? (All things have an beginning and an end)

Do you think that the literalist/modern definition of a deity is logical or illogical?
(In particular the fundamentalist-christian god)

[AquinasD]

I suggest that "Catholic philosophers" have a vested interest, so their rigid opinion can hardly be considered objective, and might even be seen as a valid argument against the Cosmological Argument.

Ah, so Catholic philosophers must be wrong because they believe what they argue for!

After all, it took them 400 years to apologize to Galileo and admit that the earth revolves around the sun.

John

For obviously, in the meanwhile, the Catholic Church taught the geocentric model.

[ThatGirlAgain]

Snippy has revealed unto me that he is not the evil God of the Bible. Thank God for that!

You believe the word of a cat that he is not evil???

I confess I have not read all of St. Thomas Aquinas' works, so I cannot argue about anything else he may have said. I stand by my opinion that the Cosmological Argument is absurd as logic and does not "prove" anything. I am not the only person who holds that opinion. Here is an extract from "A Critique of the Cosmological Argument" by Paul Edwards, professor of philosophy at Brooklyn College:

"The so-called "cosmological proof" is one of the oldest and most popular arguments for the existence of God. It was forcibly criticized by Hume, Kant, and Mill, but it would be inaccurate to consider the argument dead or even moribund. Catholic philosophers, with hardly any exception, appear to believe that it is as solid and conclusive as ever."

I suggest that "Catholic philosophers" have a vested interest, so their rigid opinion can hardly be considered objective, and might even be seen as a valid argument against the Cosmological Argument. After all, it took them 400 years to apologize to Galileo and admit that the earth revolves around the sun.

Edwards paper is available online.

When I finally win that lottery and have the time, I will write my own paper on the subject.

Galileos trial was not about geocentrism but about discipline. He was ordered not to write about Copernicanism as if it were fact and, in the opinion of the Court of Inquisition, he violated that order. The 1992 apology was for a miscarriage of justice. Here is an interesting book detailing the circumstances and politics of the trial.

[JohnPaul]

I suggest that "Catholic philosophers" have a vested interest, so their rigid opinion can hardly be considered objective, and might even be seen as a valid argument against the Cosmological Argument.

Ah, so Catholic philosophers must be wrong because they believe what they argue for!

After all, it took them 400 years to apologize to Galileo and admit that the earth revolves around the sun.

John

For obviously, in the meanwhile, the Catholic Church taught the geocentric model.

Belief is often wrong. Are you saying that all the many different beliefs in the world must somehow be "right" simply because they are sincere beliefs?

Don't get too snippy about it. I understand that the Catholic church now is one of the relatively few Christion sects that openly accepts evolution, and that is a giant leap forward in my mind which excuses other intellectual gaps they may have.

By the way, Snippy says "Hi."

John

[ThatGirlAgain]

I understand that the Catholic church now is one of the relatively few Christian sects that openly accepts evolution, and that is a giant leap forward in my mind which excuses other intellectual gaps they may have.

The Catholic Church does not have a formal opinion about evolution but has no problem with Catholics accepting it.

Concerning biological evolution, the Church does not have an official position on whether various life forms developed over the course of time. However, it says that, if they did develop, then they did so under the impetus and guidance of God, and their ultimate creation must be ascribed to him.
http://www.catholic.com/tracts/adam-eve-and-evolution

However

It is equally impermissible to dismiss the story of Adam and Eve and the fall (Gen. 2"3) as a fiction. A question often raised in this context is whether the human race descended from an original pair of two human beings (a teaching known as monogenism) or a pool of early human couples (a teaching known as polygenism).

In this regard, Pope Pius XII stated: "When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains either that after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parents of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now, it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the teaching authority of the Church proposed with regard to original sin which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam in which through generation is passed onto all and is in everyone as his own" (Humani Generis 37).
Ibid.

It is incumbent on Catholics to believe that all humans are descended from a single pair of parents. Otherwise the doctrine of inherited original sin falls apart.

BTW this article has Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur. These are officially approved statements.

[AquinasD]

It is incumbent on Catholics to believe that all humans are descended from a single pair of parents. Otherwise the doctrine of inherited original sin falls apart.

Technically, the doctrine only states that there is a man and a woman that all people are in common related to. This does not require the the man and the woman procreated with each other directly.

Though I might note that I tend more towards believing that the man and woman did procreate with each other. However, it is a possibility that the group was larger than an individual couple.

[JohnPaul]

ThatGirlAgain wrote:

It is incumbent on Catholics to believe that all humans are descended from a single pair of parents. Otherwise the doctrine of inherited original sin falls apart.

BTW this article has Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur. These are officially approved statements.

How can Original Sin be inherited and passed on from Adam through "generation" as the Pope says? It is the soul that sins, not the body. A human soul is not inherited from the souls of the parents. Each human soul is individually created. Of course, there is the doctrine of the pre-existence of souls, which means that all human souls for all eternity were created at one time at the original creation and stashed away for future use, but even this would mean that God, in a fit of ungodlike spite, cursed all his completely innocent stored souls at once. Otherwise, God must individually curse each freshly created human soul and deliberately create a defective soul at the time each new body is conceived.

Ah, Theology...

John

[ThatGirlAgain]

It is incumbent on Catholics to believe that all humans are descended from a single pair of parents. Otherwise the doctrine of inherited original sin falls apart.

Technically, the doctrine only states that there is a man and a woman that all people are in common related to. This does not require that the man and the woman procreated with each other directly.

Though I might note that I tend more towards believing that the man and woman did procreate with each other. However, it is a possibility that the group was larger than an individual couple.

The Humani Generis passage quoted above explicitly rules out the possibility of a group being involved. It also appears that Adam and Eve not procreating together is also ruled out.

For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains either that after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents.

All of Adams descendents carry original sin and there are no humans not descended from Adam. Whoever Adam procreated with is Eve.

Also the Catholic Catechism refers clearly to the original fault being committed by our first parents.

390 The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man. Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents.

http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p1s2c1p7.htm

Or so Catholic doctrine goes.

[AquinasD]

The Humani Generis passage quoted above explicitly rules out the possibility of a group being involved. It also appears that Adam and Eve not procreating together is also ruled out.

Yes, so Humani Generis does that. But it is only a papal encyclical. It is not infallible. But I'm only noting a technicality of doctrine, so it's not a big deal.

390 The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man. Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents.

http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p1s2c1p7.htm

Or so Catholic doctrine goes.

The Catechism is not an infallible document either. Nihil Obstat and the Imprimatur only signify that the work is "free of conflict from standing dogma." Origen could've obtained an Imprimatur when he wrote, but not now.

*sigh*

Now I'm worried that we're going to need to have a lengthy discussion on inspiration, infallibility, and development of doctrine.

[ThatGirlAgain]

The Humani Generis passage quoted above explicitly rules out the possibility of a group being involved. It also appears that Adam and Eve not procreating together is also ruled out.

Yes, so Humani Generis does that. But it is only a papal encyclical. It is not infallible. But I'm only noting a technicality of doctrine, so it's not a big deal.

390 The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man. Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents.

http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p1s2c1p7.htm

Or so Catholic doctrine goes.

The Catechism is not an infallible document either. Nihil Obstat and the Imprimatur only signify that the work is "free of conflict from standing dogma." Origen could've obtained an Imprimatur when he wrote, but not now.

*sigh*

Now I'm worried that we're going to need to have a lengthy discussion on inspiration, infallibility, and development of doctrine.

There is the troublesome paragraph 20 of Humani generis.

20. Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent, since in writing such Letters the Popes do not exercise the supreme power of their Teaching Authority. For these matters are taught with the ordinary teaching authority, of which it is true to say: "He who heareth you, heareth me"; and generally what is expounded and inculcated in Encyclical Letters already for other reasons appertains to Catholic doctrine. But if the Supreme Pontiffs in their official documents purposely pass judgment on a matter up to that time under dispute, it is obvious that that matter, according to the mind and will of the Pontiffs, cannot be any longer considered a question open to discussion among theologians.

http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG1101/_P1.HTM

Here is some interesting (to fanatics such as we) commentary on how obligatory the statements of Humani generis are:

The fact that a question is thus treated by the Roman Pontiff is, according to the Humani generis, an indication that the Holy Father intends that this subject should no longer be considered as a question open to free debate among theologians. The theologians of the Catholic Church have always recognized the fact than an intention on the part of the Holy Father is requisite if the faithful are to be bound by the teaching contained in his official acta. Hitherto, however, there has been too much of a tendency to consider that such an intention would have to be manifested by some sort of formula, as, for instance, by the use of such terms as define or declare. The Humani generis has put an end to this dangerous minimism. Henceforth Catholic theologians have no excuse for not recognizing the fact that a deliberate pontifical statement on a subject which has hitherto been rightly considered as open to debate, takes the matter treated out of this category and makes it a subject on which Catholic writers are bound to accept the judgment of Christs Vicar on earth.

If the decision of the Holy Father be not irrevocable, the fact that the matter is no longer open to debate does not in any way prevent individual theologians from investigating the subject with a view of working towards a modification of the present Catholic position. There is always at least the absolute possibility that such investigation may eventually result in a modification of the opinion incumbent upon Catholics by reason of the authority of the Roman Pontiff. It is wrong, however, to teach or to advocate the now reproved position. If the decision is irrevocable, but only in the sense that the Holy Father has placed this teaching within the category of doctrina certa (but not doctrina de fide), then the theologian is free to argue about the possibility of a de fide or dogmatic definition of this point, but he is definitely not free to teach or to hold that the doctrine set forth by the Holy Father can be rejected or modified at all. No teaching is set forth as certain unless it has been defined as true, unless there is no possibility, no fear of danger, that the opposite may turn out to be true.

http://www.strobertbellarmine.net/forum ... ?f=2&t=714

In light of this recall again the language use by Pius XII (from paragraph 37 of the encyclical).

When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents.

It is of course academic to me. But I SO get off on these discussions.

[joncash]

Hi JoeyKnothead,

Force?

I'm unaware of any moral applying any force to anything.

Please present a moral "fact" for analysis.

Please present an instance where I have claimed that a "moral can apply a force" so that I may retract it. Otherwise, it would seem like you are being purposefully clumsy with my words to distort what I have said. I'm not impressed.

If you believe morality has arisen from nothingness, by all means, present your philosophy of morality with its myriad of contingencies so that I can compare your ideas to my own philosophy of morality and its only rule which I've already presented.

Please present an example of one of these "objective" morals for examination.

I've presented a complete philosophy of morality, while you've really presented nothing. And now you want more examples? Maybe I should just start quoting myself to respond to you, too, because I've already said in this thread:

There is but one moral rule that has existed throughout the ages, though it has been said in different ways. When Jesus Christ was asked this same question in the form, "what is the greatest commandment?" he told people to love God. Realizing there were really no more rules to give, when asked of a second greatest commandment his answer was redundant in case the first commandment was misunderstood. His second commandment was to love others, but both commandments are really the same commandment that has been known for all of time: be selfless.

There you go. The one rule my entire model of morality has and will ever have. Be selfless. Feel free to present a competing theory with as many rules as you feel like adding to it. We will see if I can't force you to add a few more rules.