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)

[ThatGirlAgain]

AquinasD wrote:

Therefore, there is a necessary being. And God is this being.

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

Interesting. Can you present us with the argument?

[AquinasD]

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.

The purpose of a definition of God (especially within my own, and Aquinas' system, incidentally) is to provide a principle or set of principles from which all the other things we attribute of God are established.

Consider my claim that "God is the necessary being."

Since we know of matter that all individual material objects must be contingent, then it follows that God must be immaterial.

Since God is immaterial, and time is a function of matter, then God must be atemporal.

Since God is the necessary being who grounds His own being, and is not grounded by some other being, He must be absolutely simple, since being composed of parts would imply that those parts have an ontological priority to the whole; but it is the case that God is ontologically prior to all other possibilities, therefore God is absolutely simple.

All the other attributes which we would derive in a philosophical theology will proceed in similar ways.

This is how, for instance, Aquinas' Summa Theologica should be understood. The Five Ways are not meant to be by themselves proofs of God's existence, but to establish some principles about a necessary being which is recognized as God.

[AquinasD]

Not only God, but (surprise!) it turns out to be Aquinas' own personal God!

This demonstrates that you don't understand the method that Aquinas intends to present as the argument for God's existence. The Five Ways are not meant to be sufficient for demonstrating the existence of the God that Aquinas believes in; they are meant to be read alongside all the other material presented on God. This is why the Five Ways are presented near the beginning of the Summa; to provide the principles of our knowledge about God in order to have something to derive the other attributes from, which the rest of the books are about. The demonstration of God's existence is really presented by the entire manuscript.

[JohnPaul]

...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.

Serious folks? Oh, you mean Christians!

I assure you I am not the first in history to mock your argument. Years ago when I was in school, the Cosmological Argument was presented as a famous example of non-logic, so absurd and eqregious as to not even deserve to be called a fallacy.

A circular argument is one in which the truth of the conclusion is used or implied in one of the steps allegedly leading to that conclusion. The Cosmological Argument could be called a pre-circular argument, one in which the absolute truth of the desired conclusion is assumed to be so obviously and absolutely true as to have no need to be even stated, but is implicit and pervades the entire argument, even before it begins. Such an argument is not intended to reveal anything new in the conclusion, but is simply manipulated to artificially confirm what was assumed to be obviously true at the beginning.

In the case of the Cosmological Argument, the conclusion does not even pretend to be connected to any of the preceding steps. Such an absurd argument may be called a Theological Argument, and is only used by "serious folks" like Christians.

John

[ThatGirlAgain]

...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

Thomas Aquinas did not claim to demonstrate the existence of the Christian God. That is a matter of faith. His claim was to demonstrate the existence of God and to describe the necessary attributes of God. Does your cat Snoopy have those attributes? Or are you simply applying a different name to God, a name that also happens to be the name of your cat?

Follow the various links under the heading of The One God here to see what Aquinas said about God. Is he talking about your cat?

[JohnPaul]

AquinasD wrote:

Therefore, there is a necessary being. And God is this being.

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

Interesting. Can you present us with the argument?

Thanks for asking. Snippy appreciates your interest! Here is a "general outline" of Aquinas' "Cosmological Argument" taken from the anthology "Philosophy of Religion" by Louis P. Pojman, 1987:

1. Everything has a cause.

2. An infinite regress is impossible. The series of causes and effects cannot go on indefinitely but must have a beginning. (!!!)

3. So there must be a First Cause capable of producing everything besides itself.

4. Such a being (!!!) must be an infinite, necessary being, that is, God. (!!!)

5. Therefore, God exists.

As I gazed on these words, I realized that the word God was purely arbitrary and had no logical connection with the rest of the argument. I realized it could be replaced with any other name without changing the argument. Of course, I sought divine inspiration for this change. At that very instant my cat Snippy (I mistyped Snoopy in my original post) jumped onto the table in front of me. How could I ignore such an obvious miracle?

I later asked Snippy about this, using a more reverent tone than usual. He simply turned his divine countenance on me and gazed at me with an infinitely wise but somewhat contemptuous expression, then went back to his tuna. I realized this meant that I must have faith!

Welcome to the congregation!

John

[Goat]

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?

There is a difference. You can at last show your cat actually exists... and the term 'necessarily' is just a piece of unneeded verb-age.

[ThatGirlAgain]

AquinasD wrote:

Therefore, there is a necessary being. And God is this being.

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

Interesting. Can you present us with the argument?

Thanks for asking. Snippy appreciates your interest! Here is a "general outline" of Aquinas' "Cosmological Argument" taken from the anthology "Philosophy of Religion" by Louis P. Pojman, 1987:

1. Everything has a cause.

2. An infinite regress is impossible. The series of causes and effects cannot go on indefinitely but must have a beginning. (!!!)

3. So there must be a First Cause capable of producing everything besides itself.

4. Such a being (!!!) must be an infinite, necessary being, that is, God. (!!!)

5. Therefore, God exists.

As I gazed on these words, I realized that the word God was purely arbitrary and had no logical connection with the rest of the argument. I realized it could be replaced with any other name without changing the argument. Of course, I sought divine inspiration for this change. At that very instant my cat Snippy (I mistyped Snoopy in my original post) jumped onto the table in front of me. How could I ignore such an obvious miracle?

I later asked Snippy about this, using a more reverent tone than usual. He simply turned his divine countenance on me and gazed at me with an infinitely wise but somewhat contemptuous expression, then went back to his tuna. I realized this meant that I must have faith!

Welcome to the congregation!

John

When I asked that question I was not aware that you had partly answered it already. I will repeat my comments form above.

Thomas Aquinas did not claim to demonstrate the existence of the Christian God. That is a matter of faith. His claim was to demonstrate the existence of God and to describe the necessary attributes of God. Does your cat Snoopy have those attributes? Or are you simply applying a different name to God, a name that also happens to be the name of your cat?

Follow the various links under the heading of The One God here to see what Aquinas said about God. Is he talking about your cat?

It is clear that Snippy is not the God Aquinas referenced. Your faith is misplaced.

On the other hand it is obvious that the God of the Bible is...wait a minute.

[EduChris]

...It is clear that Snippy is not the God Aquinas referenced...

Yes, it is clear that nothing which exists contingently (e.g., Snippy) can be thought of as existing necessarily.

...it is obvious that the God of the Bible is...wait a minute.

All we can know about Ultimate Reality is whatever we can glean by means of logical analysis (and our AquinasD has been doing an able job with this). The Christian God seems to dovetail quite nicely with PUR (Purposeful or Volitional Ultimate Reality).

[JohnPaul]

AquinasD wrote:

Therefore, there is a necessary being. And God is this being.

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

Interesting. Can you present us with the argument?

Thanks for asking. Snippy appreciates your interest! Here is a "general outline" of Aquinas' "Cosmological Argument" taken from the anthology "Philosophy of Religion" by Louis P. Pojman, 1987:

1. Everything has a cause.

2. An infinite regress is impossible. The series of causes and effects cannot go on indefinitely but must have a beginning. (!!!)

3. So there must be a First Cause capable of producing everything besides itself.

4. Such a being (!!!) must be an infinite, necessary being, that is, God. (!!!)

5. Therefore, God exists.

As I gazed on these words, I realized that the word God was purely arbitrary and had no logical connection with the rest of the argument. I realized it could be replaced with any other name without changing the argument. Of course, I sought divine inspiration for this change. At that very instant my cat Snippy (I mistyped Snoopy in my original post) jumped onto the table in front of me. How could I ignore such an obvious miracle?

I later asked Snippy about this, using a more reverent tone than usual. He simply turned his divine countenance on me and gazed at me with an infinitely wise but somewhat contemptuous expression, then went back to his tuna. I realized this meant that I must have faith!

Welcome to the congregation!

John

When I asked that question I was not aware that you had partly answered it already. I will repeat my comments form above.

Thomas Aquinas did not claim to demonstrate the existence of the Christian God. That is a matter of faith. His claim was to demonstrate the existence of God and to describe the necessary attributes of God. Does your cat Snoopy have those attributes? Or are you simply applying a different name to God, a name that also happens to be the name of your cat?

Follow the various links under the heading of The One God here to see what Aquinas said about God. Is he talking about your cat?

It is clear that Snippy is not the God Aquinas referenced. Your faith is misplaced.

On the other hand it is obvious that the God of the Bible is...wait a minute.

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

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.

John