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)

[JohnPaul]

Since you are obviously a reincarnation of St. Thomas Aquinas, I thought you might be interested to know that I just used your "Cosmological Argument" to prove beyond any possible doubt that my pet cat "Snoopy" created the universe! Praise Snoopy!

John

Why do you even come around here?

Because I feel it is my public duty to insert a touch of rationality into threads such as this to keep the entire forum from floating away into ineffable metaphysical insubstantiality.

John

[JoeyKnothead]

Without folks like him, there would be no need for my "Ignores the Uncivil" usergroup...

The hypocrisy, it burns

[David 2.0]

Since you are obviously a reincarnation of St. Thomas Aquinas, I thought you might be interested to know that I just used your "Cosmological Argument" to prove beyond any possible doubt that my pet cat "Snoopy" created the universe! Praise Snoopy!

John

Why do you even come around here?

Because I feel it is my public duty to insert a touch of rationality into threads such as this to keep the entire forum from floating away into ineffable metaphysical insubstantiality.

John

Interesting JohnPaul ...And here I thought you were just angry all the time.
Explains a lot.

[JoeyKnothead]

Hi JoeyKnothead,

As I think you confuse objective with some other meaning than what the rest of the planet's using.

You claim there's an objective moral. What is this strange tongue you speak?

My claim is that objective morality exists and this phenomenon of moral facts being built into the fabric of reality is evidence that the force that caused the universe to exist prefers one thing over another. This force is the one I call God.

Force?

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

Please present a moral "fact" for analysis.

When I say objective morality, I mean as opposed to subjective. I mostly can't make heads or tails of the rest of your response because it sure seems like you're using "objective" as in "an objective that can be achieved". This misunderstanding reduces what I have said to nonsense.

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

I assure you my usage of the word "objective" isn't nearly as novel as you make it out to be. By the same token, when I say absolute morality, I mean as opposed to relative.

Unless you can present an "objective" moral, I can only conclude you use the term in a novel fashion.

[otseng]

Moderator Comments

Since you are obviously a reincarnation of St. Thomas Aquinas, I thought you might be interested to know that I just used your "Cosmological Argument" to prove beyond any possible doubt that my pet cat "Snoopy" created the universe! Praise Snoopy!

Sarcastic comments such as this is just flame bait, as evidenced in the many posts that followed.

Without folks like him, there would be no need for my "Ignores the Uncivil" usergroup...

There is no need to make comments as to who is uncivil. You are free to ignore anyone you want, but you don't need to announce it to the world.

The hypocrisy, it burns

It is best not to comment on the hypocrisy of others.

Interesting JohnPaul ...And here I thought you were just angry all the time.
Explains a lot.

This is only adding fuel to the fire.
______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster.

[AquinasD]

"God" is the ultimate, brute, logically necessary reality, on which all other contingent (non-necessary) reality depends.

How can God be a brute (factual) reality? If, as you say, reality is meant to depend on God's being, then why not say that God's being is established by Himself? Though I think you would say this. But if this is the case, then God is not a brute fact, as He has explanation.

[Goat]

Hi Goat,

I made the case for moral realism in a post which I will quote now:

So it sounds like you're saying that moral realism is not true. There is no real right, no real wrong. There are merely sociological constructs which are mere conventions we might have made any way we pleased if it were more convenient to our survival as a race.

What moral obstacle is there, then, in your model of morality, to stop a man who wishes to modify these subjective sociological constructs? Adolf Hitler believed that his race as well as others possessed superior traits and thus, it was to the benefit of the human race for him to conquer the world and eliminate races he saw as inferior. What is sensibly looked at by most people as evil seems like it could be regarded as quite acceptable in your philosophy of morality. This proves nothing, but the point I've made at least supports natural inclination of beings to take moral realism for granted.

I agree highly with you about which traits are innate (the good ones), but with all respect, I think you have to be curious how exactly these traits were chosen as the innate ones instead of other traits which may well have done much more for a species' evolutionary viability. Adamoriens is pointing out the same weakness in your moral philosophy in different words. He is quite right. Innate and taught apply much better to moral realism. If morals were a mere convention that could have been made any other way, I believe we would indeed find bigotry and a lot of other ugly things buried there in that subjective place we call morality.

When I was being indoctrinated in church school, I was taught that Voltaire was an avowed atheist and he was properly vilified for it. As it turns out, he knew God in much the same way I know God today. One of his most remembered quotes has stuck with me: "If we believe absurdities, we shall commit atrocities." Further thought of this truth led me to realize that the absurdity of a belief can be measured the the depth of atrocity it can be used to excuse.

I used your belief to excuse the Holocaust.

And, how is this evidence for having morality outside of what people think about it? More unsupported claims and tall tails is not showing that a set of morality is independent of what people think about it.

That , to me, appears to be just rhetoric.

[JohnPaul]

A Question for the Moderators

As has happened several times recently in this forum, a Christian has expressed a sentiment such as "Nonbelievers will burn in hell" or "If you don't accept this, you will go to hell." In no case has a Moderator commented on it.

I don't believe these are valid debate points, and no matter what kind of "ciivil" or "loving" Christian rhetoric is used to express them, they essentially say: "Go to hell!"

Is it permissible to respond in kind to such Christian sentiments, or must that always be left to the Moderators?

John

[EduChris]

...How can God be a brute (factual) reality?...why not say that God's being is established by Himself?...But if this is the case, then God is not a brute fact, as He has explanation.

If God's explanation is God, then God is the ultimate brute fact. Perhaps you would care to say that "the infinite recursion (or infinite loop, or perichoresis) of God's explaining himself" constitutes the ultimate brute fact. Either way, it all ends with God, it all ends with Purposeful Ultimate Reality.

[Goat]

A Question for the Moderators

As has happened several times recently in this forum, a Christian has expressed a sentiment such as "Nonbelievers will burn in hell" or "If you don't accept this, you will go to hell." In no case has a Moderator commented on it.

I don't believe these are valid debate points, and no matter what kind of "ciivil" or "loving" Christian rhetoric is used to express them, they essentially say: "Go to hell!"

Is it permissible to respond in kind to such Christian sentiments, or must that always be left to the Moderators?

John

The one that kept doing that is now banned, if you notice.