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)

[joncash]

Hi JoeyKnothead,

As I think you confuse objective with some other meaning than what the rest of the planet's using.

You claim there's an objective moral. What is this strange tongue you speak?

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.

When I say objective morality, I mean as opposed to subjective. I mostly can't make heads or tails of the rest of your response because it sure seems like you're using "objective" as in "an objective that can be achieved". This misunderstanding reduces what I have said to nonsense.

I assure you my usage of the word "objective" isn't nearly as novel as you make it out to be. By the same token, when I say absolute morality, I mean as opposed to relative.

[joncash]

Some relevant information:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_(philosophy)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_universalism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_realism

While my view is well-covered by these articles, it bears mentioning that I do not agree with the wikipedia entries 100%.

[Goat]

Some relevant information:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_(philosophy)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_universalism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_realism

While my view is well-covered by these articles, it bears mentioning that I do not agree with the wikipedia entries 100%.

Yes, those are the definitions. Now, where is the evidence??? Those are the beliefs and the claims.., but word games are not evidence, and often aren't really even arguments.

You have defined the terms.. now.. show that they are truthful and accurate.

Show that morals are independent and separate from what people think about them.

[Goat]

Hi JoeyKnothead,

As I think you confuse objective with some other meaning than what the rest of the planet's using.

You claim there's an objective moral. What is this strange tongue you speak?

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.

When I say objective morality, I mean as opposed to subjective. I mostly can't make heads or tails of the rest of your response because it sure seems like you're using "objective" as in "an objective that can be achieved". This misunderstanding reduces what I have said to nonsense.

I assure you my usage of the word "objective" isn't nearly as novel as you make it out to be. By the same token, when I say absolute morality, I mean as opposed to relative.

I am using the term "objective" as something that exists independent of people's mind, and what they think of it... as defined in your wiki article number 1.

Now, can you show any moral that exists independent of the mind?

I just want you to back up your claims.. rather than avoid backing up your claims with making more and more definitions.

[AquinasD]

1. What traits/attributes/characteristics is a deity required to have?

2. If a deity is required to have certain attributes, why?

I have an answer that I think should serve to answer both of these questions.

Our ability to appreciate the significance, or meaning, of a proposition is innate. It is a natural power of the mind. There are two means for our ability to imbue a given proposition with meaning; reference to the world around us, or the innate sense that is itself the grounds of our ability to perform the act of referencing the world around us.

When I speak of referencing the world around us, this is easy to understand. I say "green," and you know what this refers to because you have seen 'green' in the world (unless you're blind or colorblind).

But what is prior to this happening is our ability to perceive the world and appreciate the meaningful relations between objects that are. This innate ability to perceive the significance of the world is itself a sort of knowledge, albeit one which is not inducted, but serves as a framework for induction.

This framework is what we otherwise call metaphysics. And metaphysics allows us to distinguish things that must be the case or not the case. For example, I know through observation and the application of my metaphysical knowledge that if a shape is a circle, it cannot be a square. But this is a sort of relative necessity; the necessity of that particular shape's not being a square holds so long as it is a circle.

We can abstract away all of these relative necessities and get to an absolute necessity, that which grounds all possibility.

That which grounds possibility must be a being, for only beings can serve to actualize, of which possibility is an actuality. (For example, the grounds of my possibly thinking are that I am a being which is a mind. But this is universal possibility; thus, we are looking for a universally necessary being.)

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

The attributes that we apply to God are just what we derive from understanding God as the necessary being.

My thesis is that coming up with a definition of God, or more specifically knowing what would be the case were God to exist, is to know that God exists. So the definition and God's existence are knowable at one and the same time.

1. Why do we use deities as a theory of everything? (Aren't other explanations more reasonable?)

If you mean to ask for a psychological answer, I don't think I can give that. But it should be apparent from my above answer about the definition of deity is that the concept of God is universally applicable to all possible beings. So this would be why, ultimately, God must serve as an explanation of the "universe of possibilities."

Though God doesn't serve as a good explanation of particulars; "why does lightning occur?" is better explained by more immediate causes. Though, I suppose, to any question of why something is, you will eventually have to answer with God, due to His being the grounds of all possibility. Usually, however, we find more relative explanations more useful for our purposes.

2. Can we explain the origin of a deity? (All things have an beginning and an end)

What do you even mean by this?

[EduChris]

...1. What traits/attributes/characteristics is a deity required to have?...

"God" is the ultimate, brute, logically necessary reality, on which all other contingent (non-necessary) reality depends.

...2. If a deity is required to have certain attributes, why?...

The only other attribute which is absolutely required is that "God" must involve some element of purpose or intentionality. Lacking this quality, we would not have the "God" of the major world theisms, but instead we would have something like the "god" (little "g") of scientism--and this really wouldn't be considered "God" (big "G") at all.

...1. Why do we use deities as a theory of everything? (Aren't other explanations more reasonable?)...

Whatever it is that stands (temporally and/or logically) at the base of your preferred TOE, this will serve as your ultimate, brute, logically necessary reality--your "God" (big "G," if purpose is involved) or your "god" (little "g," if only non-purpose is involved).

...2. Can we explain the origin of a deity?...

"God" or "god" is the ultimate, brute, logically necessary reality; by definition, there can be no further explanation of origin for "God" or "god."

...Do you think that the literalist/modern definition of a deity is logical or illogical? (In particular the fundamentalist-christian god)

The standard "fundamentalist-christian" definition of God probably does need some nuance and clarification. A good starting point is J.B. Phillips' book, Your God Is Too Small. But for most ordinary (non-scholarly) purposes, the standard definition is close enough.

[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

[joncash]

Hi Goat,

I made the case for moral realism in a post which I will quote now:

So it sounds like you're saying that moral realism is not true. There is no real right, no real wrong. There are merely sociological constructs which are mere conventions we might have made any way we pleased if it were more convenient to our survival as a race.

What moral obstacle is there, then, in your model of morality, to stop a man who wishes to modify these subjective sociological constructs? Adolf Hitler believed that his race as well as others possessed superior traits and thus, it was to the benefit of the human race for him to conquer the world and eliminate races he saw as inferior. What is sensibly looked at by most people as evil seems like it could be regarded as quite acceptable in your philosophy of morality. This proves nothing, but the point I've made at least supports natural inclination of beings to take moral realism for granted.

I agree highly with you about which traits are innate (the good ones), but with all respect, I think you have to be curious how exactly these traits were chosen as the innate ones instead of other traits which may well have done much more for a species' evolutionary viability. Adamoriens is pointing out the same weakness in your moral philosophy in different words. He is quite right. Innate and taught apply much better to moral realism. If morals were a mere convention that could have been made any other way, I believe we would indeed find bigotry and a lot of other ugly things buried there in that subjective place we call morality.

When I was being indoctrinated in church school, I was taught that Voltaire was an avowed atheist and he was properly vilified for it. As it turns out, he knew God in much the same way I know God today. One of his most remembered quotes has stuck with me: "If we believe absurdities, we shall commit atrocities." Further thought of this truth led me to realize that the absurdity of a belief can be measured the the depth of atrocity it can be used to excuse.

I used your belief to excuse the Holocaust.

[AquinasD]

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

Why do you even come around here?

[EduChris]

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

Why do you even come around here?

Without folks like him, there would be no need for my "Ignores the Uncivil" usergroup...