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)

[bjs]

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?

The inevitable challenge of language is that words have the meaning that we assign to them.

To make an analogy, I once saw a comic strip in which a boy asked if he could have a snack. His mother said yes. The mother then told him it would be okay if got an apple, but by then the boy already had a cookie in his mouth. The boy then said something like, We both speak English, but its like we speak different languages.

The boy and his mother each had different ideas about the traits/attributes/characteristics of a snack. Its not that one was right and one was wrong, they just meant different things by the same word.

Similarly, when a Christian and a Hindu talk about a deity we use the same words but we mean different things. Its not that one has the right view of what traits/attributes/characteristics a deity is required to have, we just mean different things by the same word.

Theism, for instance, says that there is a God who is personal, and therefor capable of having a relationship with people. Theism in general says nothing about God being good or powerful or wise " it says only that God is personal.

Christianity claims that God is the omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient, eternal creator of all that is. This is a more specific definition of God, and when we debate Christianity it is the framework we have to use. I am not saying that it is the only possible set of characteristics of God, but if we debate a God with some other set of characteristics then we are debating something other than Christianity.

~Questions of origin~

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

This would be one of the big questions. Theists claim that a Deity is the most reasonable explanation for certain things, while non-theists claim that some other explanations are more reasonable.

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

The Christian definition of God is that He is eternal. This means that before there was time, He existed. If God had an origin then he would not be eternal, and once again we would be debating something other than Christianity.

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

Personally, I think that the Christian definition of a deity is logical.

[TheBlackPhilosophy]

Hi TBP,

What attributes? How do you ask a poll question about the veracity of attributes of anything without supplying the attributes themselves? Doesn't this poll question put forth a question that can only be sensibly answered by people who deny that God exists?

Is this really how we debate?

1. I don't need to supply the attributes, I am simply asking if it is warranted to attach attributes to a deity (unproven idea) based on logical assumptions.

2. And no, this question is not biased. All attributes of a deity are assumptions, but as I asked before. Is it reasonable to attach such assumptions to the concept of deity? And if so, what attributes and why?

[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?

The inevitable challenge of language is that words have the meaning that we assign to them.

To make an analogy, I once saw a comic strip in which a boy asked if he could have a snack. His mother said yes. The mother then told him it would be okay if got an apple, but by then the boy already had a cookie in his mouth. The boy then said something like, We both speak English, but its like we speak different languages.

The boy and his mother each had different ideas about the traits/attributes/characteristics of a snack. Its not that one was right and one was wrong, they just meant different things by the same word.

Similarly, when a Christian and a Hindu talk about a deity we use the same words but we mean different things. Its not that one has the right view of what traits/attributes/characteristics a deity is required to have, we just mean different things by the same word.

Theism, for instance, says that there is a God who is personal, and therefor capable of having a relationship with people. Theism in general says nothing about God being good or powerful or wise " it says only that God is personal.

Christianity claims that God is the omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient, eternal creator of all that is. This is a more specific definition of God, and when we debate Christianity it is the framework we have to use. I am not saying that it is the only possible set of characteristics of God, but if we debate a God with some other set of characteristics then we are debating something other than Christianity.

~Questions of origin~

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

This would be one of the big questions. Theists claim that a Deity is the most reasonable explanation for certain things, while non-theists claim that some other explanations are more reasonable.

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

The Christian definition of God is that He is eternal. This means that before there was time, He existed. If God had an origin then he would not be eternal, and once again we would be debating something other than Christianity.

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

Personally, I think that the Christian definition of a deity is logical.

If you think the Christian definition of a deity is logical, explain why.

This is supposed to be a debate, not a questionnaire.

[TheBlackPhilosophy]

Can a moderator please move this to philosophy. I guess I posted in the wrong section!

[joncash]

Hi TBP,

If you assume all of some vague list of attributes of deity are assumptions, that is atheistic circular reasoning. You state definitively that "all attributes of a deity are assumptions". There is no support for this statement you can provide, because it is simply a restatement of your atheistic viewpoint in different words.

Let's say that I tell you that I have a friend named Janice, but whether she is real or not is unknown. If she is not real, it would be reasonable to say something like "all attributes of your imaginary friend Janice are assumptions". If she is real, it would not be reasonable. "All attributes of Janice are assumptions" boiled down spoken by one who actually understands what he is saying means "Janice does not exist".

You tried to pass off "all attributes of a deity are assumptions" as a reasonable statement that needs no support. What you did there was reword "there is no God" and used it to prove that there is no God.

Is this really how we debate?

[TheBlackPhilosophy]

Hi TBP,

If you assume all of some vague list of attributes of deity are assumptions, that is atheistic circular reasoning. You state definitively that "all attributes of a deity are assumptions". There is no support for this statement you can provide, because it is simply a restatement of your atheistic viewpoint in different words.

Let's say that I tell you that I have a friend named Janice, but whether she is real or not is unknown. If she is not real, it would be reasonable to say something like "all attributes of your imaginary friend Janice are assumptions". If she is real, it would not be reasonable. "All attributes of Janice are assumptions" boiled down spoken by one who actually understands what he is saying means "Janice does not exist".

You tried to pass off "all attributes of a deity are assumptions" as a reasonable statement that needs no support. What you did there was reword "there is no God" and used it to prove that there is no God.

Is this really how we debate?

I am not assuming anything, I simply asked a couple of questions.

This is not circular reasoning, look it up.

The Janice example isn't gonna fly. As there is no evidence for a deity, and no set attributes to judge a deity by (unless it is a specific one, which isn't what I was asking). Hence why I asked if it is reasonable to decide which attributes a deity should have, based upon logic.

And I didn't say that all attributes of a deity are assumptions, I asked whether you all thought they were or not. I also did not state that there is no god.

Notice that I am a pantheist. And if the forum had a category, I would be a panpsychist.

[JoeyKnothead]

From the OP:

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

A home in human imagination.

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

Elsewise he's just another god.

1. Why do we use deities as a theory of everything?

I s'pose it's more intellectually or psychologically pleasing to some.

(Aren't other explanations more reasonable?)

What, about a theory of everything would be deemed "reasonable"?

I propose that trying one explanation to fit 'em all is like stuffing Oprah into some of the Olsen's britches.

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

The origin of a deity seems wholly dependent on there being humans to fret over such.

Do you think that the literalist/modern definition of a deity is logical or illogical?

Either way, I consider such to be unverifiable.

(In particular the fundamentalist-christian god)

Bless their hearts - they've got one of the goofiest gods ever conceived, and expect others to toe their line.

While we most certainly shouldn't be hatin' on theists in general, my experience is that the more "fundamentalist" folks tend to take their unproven beliefs far too seriously, and my recommendation is that they go jump in a lake if they expect me to follow their laws regarding a god they can't even show exists.

I've yet to meet a "fundamentalist" theist that can present to me a compelling argument regarding their favored god's attributes.

[joncash]

Hi TBP,

I have quoted your last two posts to me in their entirety in chronological order. Bolding added was me.

1. I don't need to supply the attributes, I am simply asking if it is warranted to attach attributes to a deity (unproven idea) based on logical assumptions.

2. And no, this question is not biased. All attributes of a deity are assumptions, but as I asked before. Is it reasonable to attach such assumptions to the concept of deity? And if so, what attributes and why?

I am not assuming anything, I simply asked a couple of questions.

This is not circular reasoning, look it up.

The Janice example isn't gonna fly. As there is no evidence for a deity, and no set attributes to judge a deity by (unless it is a specific one, which isn't what I was asking). Hence why I asked if it is reasonable to decide which attributes a deity should have, based upon logic.

And I didn't say that all attributes of a deity are assumptions, I asked whether you all thought they were or not. I also did not state that there is no god.

Notice that I am a pantheist. And if the forum had a category, I would be a panpsychist.

Is my problem here obvious?

[TheBlackPhilosophy]

Hi TBP,

I have quoted your last two posts to me in their entirety in chronological order. Bolding added was me.

1. I don't need to supply the attributes, I am simply asking if it is warranted to attach attributes to a deity (unproven idea) based on logical assumptions.

2. And no, this question is not biased. All attributes of a deity are assumptions, but as I asked before. Is it reasonable to attach such assumptions to the concept of deity? And if so, what attributes and why?

I am not assuming anything, I simply asked a couple of questions.

This is not circular reasoning, look it up.

The Janice example isn't gonna fly. As there is no evidence for a deity, and no set attributes to judge a deity by (unless it is a specific one, which isn't what I was asking). Hence why I asked if it is reasonable to decide which attributes a deity should have, based upon logic.

And I didn't say that all attributes of a deity are assumptions, I asked whether you all thought they were or not. I also did not state that there is no god.

Notice that I am a pantheist. And if the forum had a category, I would be a panpsychist.

Is my problem here obvious?

Ah, I see. I suppose what I meant was different from what I typed lol.

What I meant is that since there is no objective evidence of a deity, in this way all we have are assumptions of its attributes. You essentially took my line out of it's context, which killed it's original meaning. Hence the contradiction.

So when you stated that I assumed all attributes of deity are assumptions, you clearly didn't know why I said that.

Sorry for the confusion.

[joncash]

Hi TBP,

Absolute morality is objective evidence of a deity. The failure of science to understand morality has left a void in our understanding of existence. In this void, religion was born.

When science understands morality (and I'm not talking about junk science reducing thoughts to chemicals or irrational explanations for morality), religion becomes obsolete. As it stands, religion is far from obsolete because science is still morally blind.

And I didn't know why you said what? Here's what I know: You said something that was easily disprovable. I disproved it. What does why have to do with anything? What circumstance or motive makes "all attributes of deity are assumptions" actually a correct statement?

What you meant was not originally different from what you typed. It became different when I demonstrated (with my "non-flying" Janice example) that what you typed was atheistic circular reasoning. In the midst of this, it must've taken a lot of willful denial to tell me that I need to look up circular reasoning. You say my example fails because no evidence for deity exists while evidence is completely irrelevant to the debate as you have no evidence that Janice exists either.

No need to apologize. There is no confusion over here.