What is a Deity?

[LiamOS]

For the purposes of this thread, let us assume the following:
-Existence outside the universe is not a meaningless concept and is equivalent to existence within it, but without restriction by the laws governing operation within the universe.
-There exists an entity other than the universe, and the universe's existence can be causally traced to this entity.(We are implicitly assuming determinism and causality, too.)

For debate:
-What constitutes a Deity in the most basic sense?
-Is our postulated entity a Deity in any sense of the word with only the property of being the cause of the universe's existence?

[fredonly]

-What constitutes a Deity in the most basic sense?

Any supernatural being worshipped as controlling some part of the world or some aspect of life or who is the personification of a force

-Is our postulated entity a Deity in any sense of the word with only the property of being the cause of the universe's existence?

No. There can be deities that are not the creator, they just need to have some element of control over the natural world. The creator (if there was one) needn't be a deity, because a creator that performs a single act of creation, but has no continuing interaction with the universe (for any reason) is not a deity (per the above definition).

[Murad]

-What constitutes a Deity in the most basic sense?

There is no blatent answer to that question; simply because it varies between religions.

If i dumb it down alot; so that it fits all religions; i would describe a 'deity' as a greater being than humans; with higher intelligence; with the ability to perform actions that go beyond human comprehension.

As i said; the definition of 'deity' is generally subjective.

-Is our postulated entity a Deity in any sense of the word with only the property of being the cause of the universe's existence?

No. There can be deities that are not the creator, they just need to have some element of control over the natural world. The creator (if there was one) needn't be a deity, because a creator that performs a single act of creation, but has no continuing interaction with the universe (for any reason) is not a deity (per the above definition).

I agree with fredonly; to a certain extent.
There "can" be numerous 'Powerful' beings; but only one 'All-Powerful'.

[LiamOS]

With such definitions having been given, it's hard to see why anybody uses the Cosmological Argument for their Deity.

[fredonly]

With such definitions having been given, it's hard to see why anybody uses the Cosmological Argument for their Deity.

You're right; the Cosmological argument doesn't get you very far. You may recall that I have repeatedly defended William Craig's Kalam argument; IMO, it does what it does - provide a plausible argument for a first cause. But it does no more than that.

William Craig recently posted a question of the week that challenged his contention that the first cause was a personal agent. IMO, Craig does not provide a good justification of it. (see: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/New ... le&id=8457)

2. Why could not the cause of the universe be indeterministic yet impersonal? Again, you need to recall what has already been established prior to this point. If the argument so far is correct, then we have proved that there exists an uncaused, beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless, enormously powerful, indeterministic cause of the universe. Now the question is, what is it? What entity fits this description? The answer, it seems to me, is clear: a person, an unembodied mind.

We can think of this conclusion as an inference to the best explanation. In inference to the best explanation, we ask ourselves, what hypothesis, if true, would provide the best explanation of the data? The hypothesis that there is a personal Creator of the universe explains wonderfully all the data.

The concept of an "unembodied mind" seems thoroughly implausible. He is basically saying, "God is the best explanation; no other hypotheses fit the facts." So for Craig, AN answer (regardless of whether or not it's true) trumps NO answer. This is exactly the same, irrational rationale theists use when they ask the purpose of the universe - God provides an answer, so it must be true!

....but I drone on.

[B-O-H]

Any charecture in a book, weather real or fiction, is a deity that can be taken to influence, or absorbed. Communion with Christ is absorbing the deity of Christ, or the idea of him. What he was and what he did contitutes the deity of him, or any other charecture real or imagined. The phenomenon the deity represents. The Rider in Revelations is a deity, or spiritual phenomenon we are supposed to absorb. Faithful and true..etc..

[LiamOS]

Any charecture in a book, weather real or fiction, is a deity that can be taken to influence, or absorbed. Communion with Christ is absorbing the deity of Christ, or the idea of him. What he was and what he did contitutes the deity of him, or any other charecture real or imagined. The phenomenon the deity represents. The Rider in Revelations is a deity, or spiritual phenomenon we are supposed to absorb. Faithful and true..etc..

Fantastic!

But is any of this relevant to the topic at hand?