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]

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.

Sorry, I did notice that the one I had in mind was banned, but I didn't realize it was for wishing us all in hell.

[otseng]

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.

Sorry, I did notice that the one I had in mind was banned, but I didn't realize it was for wishing us all in hell.

It was one reason, but not the only reason. See here for his posts that got him banned.

Also, if you do have a question for the moderators, don't stick it in the middle of a thread. Either PM a moderator or post it in Comments, Suggestions, and Questions.

[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.

Sorry, I did notice that the one I had in mind was banned, but I didn't realize it was for wishing us all in hell.

That was one of the things I noticed he got reported for.

[EduChris]

...my pet cat "Snoopy" created the universe...

Today's major world theisms contend that "something exists necessarily, and that something--whatever it may be--is what we refer to as God."

The claim that "something exists necessarily" is scientifically and logically uncontroversial, despite the fact that everything in our universe appears to exist contingently.

Your mistake, then, is pointing to something contingent (your cat) inside our universe, and then simply claiming (without evidence or argument) that it exists necessarily.

In short, it appears you have absolutely no clue what is meant by the terms, "logically necessary" and "logically contingent."

[Flail]

EduChris wrote:

Your mistake, then, is pointing to something contingent (your cat) inside our universe, and then simply claiming (without evidence or argument) that it exists necessarily.

But isn't that precisely what Christians do with the BibleGod?

[McCulloch]

...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.

I have a problem defining God as the ultimate reality. The word God has significantly more implications to it than what can be shown about this metaphysical ultimate reality. Gods are said to plan, to care, to will, to reveal wisdom, to love, to regret, to listen, to punish and reward. These are all attributes which cannot be objectively shown to abide in the universe's ultimate reality. If you believe in the ultimate reality, wonderful! Just don't call it god, it confuses the many who believe that god refers to something much different than this.

[EduChris]

EduChris wrote:

Your mistake, then, is pointing to something contingent (your cat) inside our universe, and then simply claiming (without evidence or argument) that it exists necessarily.

But isn't that precisely what Christians do with the BibleGod?

No, it isn't. All of today's major world theisms (Christianity being the largest) posit God as Ultimate Reality, the logically necessary source and ground and basis for all contingent existence.

The only folks who run around thinking about contingent "gods" are non-theists who don't want to give up their strawman arguments--and of course those rare gadflys who still cling to animism and/or other all-but-obsolete ancient traditions.

[JohnPaul]

...my pet cat "Snoopy" created the universe...

Today's major world theisms contend that "something exists necessarily, and that something--whatever it may be--is what we refer to as God."

The claim that "something exists necessarily" is scientifically and logically uncontroversial, despite the fact that everything in our universe appears to exist contingently.

Your mistake, then, is pointing to something contingent (your cat) inside our universe, and then simply claiming (without evidence or argument) that it exists necessarily.

In short, it appears you have absolutely no clue what is meant by the terms, "logically necessary" and "logically contingent."

Of course I know what logic is. That was the whole point of my post! But if you had read my post from which you quoted, you would have noticed I wrote that I was using the "Cosmological Argument" of St. Thomas Aquinas. What logic is contained in that well-known parody? It is simply a series of unsupported and disconnected in-your-face-assertions magically ending with a claim that something called "God" exists. Not only God, but (surprise!) it turns out to be Aquinas' own personal God! Who would have thought? I simply replaced the arbitrary word "God" with "Snoopy." I admit it could have been replaced with a million other choices, but like Aquinas, I used a word of my own personal choice and it somehow turned out to be my pet cat! By what authority do you claim I do not have just as much right as Aquinas (either of them) to do that?

John

[EduChris]

...Gods are said to plan, to care, to will, to reveal wisdom, to love, to regret, to listen, to punish and reward...

"God" with a capital "G" would involve volition, as you rightly point out. If there is no volition, then you end up with the "god" (small "g") of scientism.

...These are all attributes which cannot be objectively shown to abide in the universe's ultimate reality...

Ultimate Reality is a "black box." We cannot fully know the contents of this black box, but we can employ logical analysis and at least arrive at some beliefs which are epistemologically sound. In this particular instance, the volitional God (capital "G") is epistemologically preferred over the "god" (small "g") of chance & necessity, since we have no basis for removing volition from the three known possible options for causality (chance, necessity, and volition).

In other words, PUR does not necessarily rule out some aspect of chance and/or necessity; all three causal factors might coexist. NPUR, on the other hand, specifically rules out "purpose" or "volition." But to rule out "purpose," actual arguments are necessary--and thus the "lazy atheist's non-debate club," subsisting on the empty claim to represent the "default position," is shown to be a farce.

...If you believe in the ultimate reality, wonderful! Just don't call it god, it confuses the many who believe that god refers to something much different than this.

For me, when we're simply talking about general theism, it makes sense to use the terms PUR (Purposeful Ultimate Reality) and NPUR (Non-purposeful ultimate Reality). When talking about a specific major world theism, we can talk about PUR(s), where the (s) stands for the specifics of this or that particular theism.

[EduChris]

...By what authority do you claim I do not have just as much right as Aquinas (either of them) to do that?

My only claim is that if you want to mock an argument, you should at least exhibit some effort at understanding that argument. Since you have not exhibited any such effort or ability, your posts automatically manifest themselves as irrelevant and offensive to serious folks.