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 85:

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

I'm getting tired of your impatience

I can't claim to be the least bit better. Hopefully our acknowledging such will lead us to a better understanding.

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.

While offering your subjective opinion of what constitutes 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.

I don't say one is truer'n another. I say they are different.

A universe without objective morality would be intrinsically weird to us.

Argument from incredulity.

I see absolutely no objective morality, and don't feel the least bit weird about it.

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.

Why not?

I believe it is perfectly moral to drink myself into a stupor. Others tell me I'm heading straight to Hell for doing so.

If there is no moral north, moral compasses become worthless.

Compasses are not needed by those that know where they're headed.

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.

My philosophy of morality is that none can show there's an objective morality.

Anything beyond that would be my subjective opinion on what constitutes proper moral behavior or thought.

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.

It is my contention that morality has no other source than as a concept. It is our understanding of this concept that seems to cause the most fuss.

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

Only one. Smile

Yet your opinion about this one is just one of many.

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.

And I 'preciate that you'd ensure folks know it.

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.
...

So, to those who love God, it would seem that being selfless is an objective moral.

Ask the man who steals another's bread to eat how he feels about being "selfless".

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.

That wasn't my conscious thought. I just feel that being selfless can not be shown to be an objective moral value.

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.

And I propose I dump that biscuit in some red-eye gravy and have it all to myself.

Now that I have a full belly, ensuring my survival, I can attend your hunger-caused funeral. How "selfless" of me to attend, when I could be out fishing.

[David 2.0]

Well put me on the short bus, but there is something that has always confused me about the concept of attributes and deity.

Basically I get attributes.

Short
Tall
Big
Small

The problem for me is that on some level the attributes become vague when used in conjunction with the deity concept.

Short God(s).
Well how tall would that be exactly?

All Powerful God.
Where is the dividing line between a Pretty Darn Powerful God and an All Powerful God?

Omni-benevolent God.
Okay, you have got to stop, that tickles.

Perfect God.
I'll take subjective for one hundred Pat!


Basically I don't even get to the stage where I'm wondering if the attributes of a particular deity are logical assumptions.
I'm stuck wondering if the assumptions are made meaningless when attached to a deity concept to begin with?

A powerful man paints a specific picture.
A powerful deity? Not so much.

[joncash]

Hi JoeyKnothead,

Let's get right to it.

While offering your subjective opinion of what constitutes objective morality.

Earlier in this thread, a young debater who goes by TheBlackPhilosophy attempted to take me on. He wrote something remarkably similar when he unthinkingly stated that "all attributes of a deity are assumptions" and I exposed the flaw in his reasoning.

The same thought experiment I gave TBP applies (with Janice = objective morality):

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".

To assert that what I can offer must be nothing more than a subjective opinion assumes that the subject, be it God or morality, doesn't exist. To then, take such an assertion that must be founded on an assumption and use it as support for that assumption is an egregious debate sin. You have posited completely self-confirming, circular reasoning.

I am left with no path to debate you. I can point out moral phenomena and make all the thought experiments I want, but you have reasoned yourself into a position where you can feel justified in denying any truth to anything I have to say. I have no ins.

[Goat]

Hi JoeyKnothead,

Let's get right to it.

While offering your subjective opinion of what constitutes objective morality.

Earlier in this thread, a young debater who goes by TheBlackPhilosophy attempted to take me on. He wrote something remarkably similar when he unthinkingly stated that "all attributes of a deity are assumptions" and I exposed the flaw in his reasoning.

The same thought experiment I gave TBP applies (with Janice = objective morality):

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".

To assert that what I can offer must be nothing more than a subjective opinion assumes that the subject, be it God or morality, doesn't exist. To then, take such an assertion that must be founded on an assumption and use it as support for that assumption is an egregious debate sin. You have posited completely self-confirming, circular reasoning.

I am left with no path to debate you. I can point out moral phenomena and make all the thought experiments I want, but you have reasoned yourself into a position where you can feel justified in denying any truth to anything I have to say. I have no ins.

Yes, you can make 'thought experiments' and point out moral phemena all you want.

However, so far, none of your thought experiments, or any of your moral examples have shown any independent existence from what people think about actions.

From that, I can only assume that you can not support that morality is objective.

[joncash]

Hi Goat,

Yes, you can make 'thought experiments' and point out moral phemena all you want.

However, so far, none of your thought experiments, or any of your moral examples have shown any independent existence from what people think about actions.

From that, I can only assume that you can not support that morality is objective.

Believe me, I am well aware that you don't view philosophy as a valid means of gaining knowledge. This, along with your demonstrably suspect mastery of logic, is why I have been debating JoeyKnothead while I have been largely ignoring you this entire time.

I do not wish to debate you at this time as I see no possible common ground.

[Goat]

Hi Goat,

Yes, you can make 'thought experiments' and point out moral phemena all you want.

However, so far, none of your thought experiments, or any of your moral examples have shown any independent existence from what people think about actions.

From that, I can only assume that you can not support that morality is objective.

Believe me, I am well aware that you don't view philosophy as a valid means of gaining knowledge. This, along with your demonstrably suspect mastery of logic, is why I have been debating JoeyKnothead while I have been largely ignoring you this entire time.

I do not wish to debate you at this time as I see no possible common ground.

It all depends on what you mean by 'gaining knowledge'. Philosophy is good for certain things, but there are some claims many philosophers make that can not be verified, and have no objective use.

The claim that there is 'objective morality' is a specific claim. Since it makes the claim of 'objective', it puts the claim beyond mere philosophy, since the term 'objective' has a specific meaning.If you talk about 'optimal morality' , then it does not cross outside the noosphere.

Philosophy can have it's uses. However,when it makes a claim beyond the intellect, and makes a claim about objective existence, it's claims can, and should be subject to independent verification.

Since you make claims beyond the mere intellect, and refuse to provide verification for those claim, I can only assume that it you can't.

[JohnPaul]

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.

Hi, joncash,

Pardon me!!! I had not noticed any sign of debate from you. I thought you were merely expounding your personal beliefs and making vague unsupported assertions, ambiguous and undefined at best.

Cheers!

John (with an "h")

[Lux]

Moderator Comment

Hi, joncash,

Pardon me!!! I had not noticed any sign of debate from you. I thought you were merely expounding your personal beliefs and making vague unsupported assertions, ambiguous and undefined at best.

This post is not only not debate, it's a personal comment against another poster. If your post contains nothing relevant to the topic at hand then you may want to reconsider posting it, and if it only contains personal comments then you definitely want to keep it to yourself.

Please review the Rules.





______________

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.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 93:

While offering your subjective opinion of what constitutes objective morality.

TheBlackPhilosophy attempted to take me on. He wrote something remarkably similar when he unthinkingly stated that "all attributes of a deity are assumptions" and I exposed the flaw in his reasoning.

The same thought experiment I gave TBP applies (with Janice = objective morality):

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"

I have evidence that humans exist. Your "objective morals" not so much.

To assert that what I can offer must be nothing more than a subjective opinion assumes that the subject, be it God or morality, doesn't exist...

Then show me where "be selfless" is objective.

To then, take such an assertion that must be founded on an assumption and use it as support for that assumption is an egregious debate sin.

My assumption is that you can't show there's an "objective moral". Thus far I've been stymied in my efforts to get you to show you speak truth.

You said "be selfless" is an objective moral, while I contend that it is not. Am I more moral in giving all my food away, selflessly, thus starving to death and being unable to provide for my family, or am I more moral in hoarding my food so I can live to support my family?

You have posited completely self-confirming, circular reasoning.

I don't see it. What I posit is that you can't show there's an "objective moral". Thus far all you've done is make the claim that "be selfless" is such, while not showing you speak truth. That I may agree with the notion that being selfless is a good thing, this in no way shows it to be an objective moral.

I am left with no path to debate you.

I propose the "path" is blocked by your inability to confirm the veracity of your claim.

I can point out moral phenomena and make all the thought experiments I want, but you have reasoned yourself into a position where you can feel justified in denying any truth to anything I have to say. I have no ins.

I propose you have no "ins" because you have no evidence - thought experiment or not.

Trying to say I'm denying the truth is yet one more example of you trying to impugn my integrity, and frankly I'm getting about fed up with it. If the only "debate" you can present is to slander others, I propose you try to find some "objective moral" for not doing so.

[joncash]

Hi JoeyKnothead,

I have evidence that humans exist. Your "objective morals" not so much.

They say that those who don't study history are doomed to repeat it. Not only have you repeated TheBlackPhilosophy's pattern of circular reasoning, but upon having it pointed out to you, your responses were logically identical willful denials of reason, taking your default fallback position of demanding evidence. I am highly interested in your explanation of exactly how a lack of scientific evidence for the existence of God or morality has anything to do with my thought experiment which had zero to do with evidence and everything to do with exposing your assumption.

Apparently saying Janice = objective morality doesn't cut it. Evidence your way out of this:

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

This argument is so obviously airtight that you can substitute literally any concept whose existence is to be debated for the bolded part and it holds true. The validity of the argument has nothing to do with a position on God or morality or any evidence you can present for or against anything.

If you accept circular reasoning as proof for your own position, we frankly have nothing to debate.