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)

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 80:

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.

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.

'Pologies for my confusion. Let's plow my statement under.

I'm not "purposefully clumsy", I'm "clumsy despite my best efforts"

I do not now, nor ever have considered being "purposefully clumsy" a debate tactic worthy of my efforts. If I come across as stupid, that's a cross I'll bear - but I don't 'preciate repeated allegations or implications that I'm being disingenuous in our exchanges.

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.

I'm just trying to pin down what is objective about your position on the matter at hand.

I consider morality to be a concept, put into play by our considerations of our or others thoughts or actions.

Are there moral questions for which there ain't a "myriad of contingencies"?

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.

I 'pologize again for my confusion. You did present an example prior to my challenge, and any implication you hadn't would be in error.

What of those who don't "love God"?

What "objective moral" have they violated?

"Love me because I'm the giver of morals"?


Again, we get back to the "be selfless" as "objective moral". What about being "selfless" is objectively superior, morally, to the alternative?

If I give away all my clothes, selflessly, to help those without, but then I walked into the old lady's kid's school there, to pick her up while I'm butt naked, which moral value at play here do you think's gonna get the most fretting?

[AquinasD]

There is the troublesome paragraph 20 of Humani generis.

It is still just a Papal encyclical. Maybe in the future one of the Popes or a Council will say that Humani Generis is infallible, but currently it is not, even if it makes strong claims to authority.

[ThatGirlAgain]

There is the troublesome paragraph 20 of Humani generis.

It is still just a Papal encyclical. Maybe in the future one of the Popes or a Council will say that Humani Generis is infallible, but currently it is not, even if it makes strong claims to authority.

An interesting conundrum. If the (potentially infallible) Pope says you have to believe what he says, do you have to believe that statement?

[AquinasD]

An interesting conundrum. If the (potentially infallible) Pope says you have to believe what he says, do you have to believe that statement?

If that statement occurs coincident to the other conditions for the exercising of Papal infallibility;

1. "the Roman Pontiff"
2. "speaks ex cathedra" ("that is, when in the discharge of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, and by virtue of his supreme apostolic authority....")
3. "he defines"
4. "that a doctrine concerning faith or morals"
5. "must be held by the whole Church" (Pastor Aeternus, chap. 4)

Papal encyclicals will, by definition, have at least (1), and it might also have (3-5), but they will lack (2). They can be later defined as infallible by a Pope or a Council, but even in that case (2) would remain not the case for that encyclical.

[joncash]

Hi JoeyKnothead,

'Pologies for my confusion. Let's plow my statement under.

I'm not "purposefully clumsy", I'm "clumsy despite my best efforts"

I do not now, nor ever have considered being "purposefully clumsy" a debate tactic worthy of my efforts. If I come across as stupid, that's a cross I'll bear - but I don't 'preciate repeated allegations or implications that I'm being disingenuous in our exchanges.

By all means, let's start over. I know that patience is a weak point for me that I must improve on.

I'm just trying to pin down what is objective about your position on the matter at hand.

I'm happy to clarify what I mean by objective. I am saying there is a true moral standard that has existed quite separate and above what different beings, civilizations, and cultures have thought on the subject. I am saying that the subjective moralities which different civilizations have fostered have been mere reflections of an objective morality.

Unless there is an objective morality onto which all others are compared, there is no sense in saying any one morality is truer than any other. A universe without objective morality would be intrinsically weird to us. In this universe, there is no reason to prefer the morality of a civilized man to that of a savage man or the morality of a common citizen to that of a psychopath. If there is no moral north, moral compasses become worthless.

I consider morality to be a concept, put into play by our considerations of our or others thoughts or actions.

When I asked for your philosophy of morality, I was hoping for its rules or its source, hopefully with demonstrable congruence between the two. What you've given me instead is pretty vague.

An example of a philosophy of morality would be to posit that morality had arisen through a combination of evolution and cooperative selfishness. The counter I had for that philosophy was that there exists moral phenomena that lack congruence with such a source. If morality had arisen from cooperative selfishness, guilt should not result from ill treatment of a being outside of my cooperative group, but it does.

Are there moral questions for which there ain't a "myriad of contingencies"?

Only one.

I 'pologize again for my confusion. You did present an example prior to my challenge, and any implication you hadn't would be in error.

I appreciate the gesture.

What of those who don't "love God"?

What "objective moral" have they violated?

"Love me because I'm the giver of morals"?

I don't often respond with Bible verses, but, in this instance, there is a perfect passage.

Then the King will say to those on his right, Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.

Then the righteous will answer him, Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?

The King will reply, Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.' -Matthew 25:34-40

The moral of this story is that the things you do selflessly, you do for God, whether you know it or not.

Again, we get back to the "be selfless" as "objective moral". What about being "selfless" is objectively superior, morally, to the alternative?

If I give away all my clothes, selflessly, to help those without, but then I walked into the old lady's kid's school there, to pick her up while I'm butt naked, which moral value at play here do you think's gonna get the most fretting?

I think there's a hidden misconception here that I've not been patient enough to wrap my mind around until now. It seems like you think that being selfless reduces you to non-importance, leading to situations in civilized life where being a moral individual cannot provide for himself. What selflessness actually does is see all beings as equally important, yourself included.

In non-civilized life, the first thought experiment you brought up first could arise where a morsel of food could mean the difference between survival and extinction. I guess you could just eat the whole biscuit and survive while watching your friend die. I guess you could also give the whole biscuit away so your friend can watch you die instead. I would propose that we share.

[JohnPaul]

joncash wrote:

Then the King will say to those on his right, Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.

Then the righteous will answer him, Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?

The King will reply, Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.' -Matthew 25:34-40

The moral of this story is that the things you do selflessly, you do for God, whether you know it or not.

I very strongly disagree that that is the moral of this story. It seems to me that behavior based on a promise of reward as an alternative to terrible punishment can hardly be described as "selfless." To me, it seems to be selfishness in its purest form: self-preservation.

John

[joncash]

joncash wrote:

Then the King will say to those on his right, Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.

Then the righteous will answer him, Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?

The King will reply, Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.' -Matthew 25:34-40

The moral of this story is that the things you do selflessly, you do for God, whether you know it or not.

I very strongly disagree that that is the moral of this story. It seems to me that behavior based on a promise of reward as an alternative to terrible punishment can hardly be described as "selfless." To me, it seems to be selfishness in its purest form: self-preservation.

John

Hi JohnPaul,

Whether you wish to view this parable rationally or not is fully your prerogative. You presume based upon your anti-religious prejudices that motives for good in moral systems which acknowledge God must be reward based and thus, corrupt. This parable clearly demonstrates the surprise of the righteous who had no idea that their true goodness was expressed when they helped beings who could offer nothing in return.

[JohnPaul]

joncash wrote:

Then the King will say to those on his right, Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.

Then the righteous will answer him, Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?

The King will reply, Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.' -Matthew 25:34-40

The moral of this story is that the things you do selflessly, you do for God, whether you know it or not.

I very strongly disagree that that is the moral of this story. It seems to me that behavior based on a promise of reward as an alternative to terrible punishment can hardly be described as "selfless." To me, it seems to be selfishness in its purest form: self-preservation.

John

Hi JohnPaul,

Whether you wish to view this parable rationally or not is fully your prerogative. You presume based upon your anti-religious prejudices that motives for good in moral systems which acknowledge God must be reward based and thus, corrupt. This parable clearly demonstrates the surprise of the righteous who had no idea that their true goodness was expressed when they helped beings who could offer nothing in return.

I really do try to listen to Christians with an open mind, but it is insults to my intelligence such as the religious "explanation" of this parable that makes that impossible for me. In this same way, many years ago in Sunday School when I asked where the sons of Adam and Eve found their wives? I still remember the angry and shocked expression on the old teacher's face when she kicked me out of class for suggesting to my classmates that incest was the only possible answer.

John

[joncash]

Hi JohnPaul,

All due respect, but this is not debate. I see no merit in continuing to attempt to debate you when you are clearly unwilling.

[Confused]

...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.

Moderator Warning

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.

is highly offensive and seen as a personal attack. Please respect others beliefs as you wish your beliefs to be respected as well.


Please review our Rules.

______________

Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.