| Wikipedia defines a deity as: "a being, natural, supernatural or preternatural, with superhuman powers or qualities, and who may be thought of as holy, divine, or sacred." Since there are several threads about religion here on MAL, but no one has yet solidly defined what a deity should be, I figured, being the trailblazer that I am that I would be the first to do so. First, there is a lot of sophistry that is employed by believers that work by defining "God" as loosely as possible, so to cast the net so wide that it cannot be easily rebuked; yet in reality most believers believe in a very specific God. The best way to start is to ascertain what a deity is not (or what should not be referred to as a deity): A natural being, no matter how great, should not be referred to as a deity, because there would be no property to distinguish it from any other thing, nor does any natural being need to be categorically worshiped or respected. By Occam's Razor we could just discard the mysticism mumbo-jumbo and call for what it is. Please use this thread for 2 purposes 1. Specifically describe what you think deities (or God) are. 2. Explain why you think the description of anything, whether natural or supernatural, should compel a person to act morally in any particular way, where a moral action is defined as an action "in virtue of applying to us unconditionally, or simply because we possesses rational wills, without reference to any ends that we might or might not have; it does not, in other words, apply to us on the condition that we have antecedently adopted some goal for ourselves." (Kant's Categorical Imperative) |
| My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
| What are we playing DotA here or what? GAGAHAHAHAHAHAGAHGAHAHAHHAAH ohh god, I'm so funny Edit: Sorry for littering the thread. On-Topic: -monogatari explains this very well. |
PetterssonJan 5, 2013 6:43 PM
| Maybe I missed something, but I missed the part where you defined what a deity was (Other than the fact it cannot be a natural being, or not necessarily needing worship etc)? At least, by saying you 'would be the first to do so', I got the impression you would try to - I agree that defining it negatively (i.e. what it isn't) is the only way to get anything approaching a solid definition. - To add something constructive to the topic, well something for to possibly respond to, although it's not defining deities, per se, (because a definition is really, really impossible and you must know this) I'm afraid I engage in the 'sophistry' of defining religion extremely broadly. This is because whilst one set of believers may believe in one thing, another set believe in something vastly different etc and show that belief in vastly different ways. I believe a "set of beliefs" can be defined as a religion when the adherent(s) sincerely believe that the "set of beliefs" act as a religion for them. Exceptionally broad, yes, but I feel it addresses the 'point' of religion which is what it does for the individual rather than there being any real component which is true of all religions (as I said above, a definition in the conventional sense of the word is simply not possible). |
 |
| Well a deity doesn't have to be godly does it? |
Jack_Rav said: Believers that seek to convince people of God want to convince them on their version of God, but at the same time use the widest definition of God to get their foot in the door, so to speak. A discussion about God or deities is only possible once we understand exactly within the context of that discussion which God we are talking about.This is because whilst one set of believers may believe in one thing, another set believe in something vastly different etc and show that belief in vastly different ways. I agree that I didn't successfully define a deity, perhaps I should put more thought into it. But I also wanted to eliminate "natural deities" for the reason stated above: it is unnecessary to describe any natural phenomenon as a deity when it could be best understood identifying what it is in terms of nature. Calling a natural phenomenon a deity adds a layer of mysticism that wouldn't benefit any discussion whatsoever. |
| My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
| Nice topic but too many variables when it comes to the definition. 'God' but not 'god'? Your version as opposed to theirs? A consensus as to the definition of god? ( I know that this is the current modus of religious organization.) and this: "A discussion about God or deities is only possible once we understand exactly within the context of that discussion which God we are talking about." That is mind boggling but very interesting. No one in known civilization has anyone done that simply because I think then the definition for god would not make him god-like at all. But I'd like to see the result. I'm looking forward to this thread. Paging Kaiserpingvin |
| 1. deities =/= gods, a demon can be a deity too, no? 2. not exactly sure how to tackle this, but i think the reason why people in the old days act "rationally" just because of some otherworldly description is because they lack science which we use to explain things nowadays |
| kek |
| Invoking is an excellent word. And there's nothing more I'd like to add beyond that. |
| 1. I'd say a deity is a "thing" (animal, person. object, thought, way of lile, feeling) that someone or a group of people deem a perfect thing. 2. I'd say people act rationally if something around them happens that is "in tune" with what their morals are. |
| "He's not dead, he's Katsura." |
| If it can break the laws of physics then I'd be impressed enough by that. |
| A deity must be omnipotent and omniscient, a being that for all intents and purposes is unmatchable by anything else and can enforce it's will limitlessly. If any of these criteria are not true, then it's simply a relative god, and thus the whole term becomes pretty pointless. |
Baman said: I think that's a god, right? (Actually, I think they're practically synonyms.)A deity must be omnipotent and omniscient, a being that for all intents and purposes is unmatchable by anything else and can enforce it's will limitlessly. If any of these criteria are not true, then it's simply a relative god, and thus the whole term becomes pretty pointless. A god must be a creator or overseer of some aspect of human life and, if not "omnipotent", then at least pretty damn powerful. I'd agree that a god that lacks power cannot really be considered a god. |
| My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
| You know what makes more sense than an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, and omnibenevolence god? A pantheon of gods......like the Greek Gods. They were NOT all powerful, they each controlled their own thing and they were very different from each other. It's like I said in the other thread.... The desert goat herding nomads that wrote the highly flawed bible decided to make the ULTIMATE "superhero" and it probably went like this: "Hey, let's make this guy all powerful!" "WAIT....he also KNOWS everything!" "Also, he is EVERYWHERE!".....and so on. What resulted is the most supreme god ever conceived in the history of humanity. And yet this guy still has troubles at simple tasks! What kind of all-powerful, ultimate, supreme, super awesome God is this?!?!?!? |
JustALEX said: I'm going to disagree with this part, strictly speaking, a powerful god does not need to exercise that power, nor should it be held to the expectation to improve the lives of mankind.And yet this guy still has troubles at simple tasks! |
| My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
katsucats said: JustALEX said: I'm going to disagree with this part, strictly speaking, a powerful god does not need to exercise that power, nor should it be held to the expectation to improve the lives of mankind.And yet this guy still has troubles at simple tasks! He made humans AND FAILED! He destroys humans, only to FAIL once more. His #2 man (Lucifer) rebels and becomes his arch nemesis??? WHAT?!? Anyways, then he has to sacrifice himself to himself in order to save his failed product (Humans) from torture which he himself invented and all of this is because he has set up rules which he himself can't bypass?!?! WHAT?!?!?! Furthermore, he created plants before the sun, and the earth before the universe, his holy book calls a bat a bird, and tells his followers that diseases are the result of curses/demons! WHAT!?!??! This guy FAILS horribly at simple stuff, I'm not talking about other gods, only the christian god. |
JustALEX said: Define failure.katsucats said: JustALEX said: I'm going to disagree with this part, strictly speaking, a powerful god does not need to exercise that power, nor should it be held to the expectation to improve the lives of mankind.And yet this guy still has troubles at simple tasks! He made humans AND FAILED! JustALEX said: You're assuming the confines of a Christian God. This thread is beyond that scope. Lucifer does not even need to exist for deities to exist.His #2 man (Lucifer) rebels and becomes his arch nemesis??? JustALEX said: You've defined a moral ideal, and you project that moral ideal onto this figure called "God", which is odd because if God is anywhere near all-powerful, then he does not need to be subject to your personal ideals.Anyways, then he has to sacrifice himself to himself in order to save his failed product (Humans) from torture which he himself invented and all of this is because he has set up rules which he himself can't bypass?!?! Your logic is like: 1. Half-finished pottery takes no skill. 2. A master craftsman creates a half-finished pottery (for whatever unknown reason). 3. Therefore the master craftsman is no master. |
| My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
katsucats said: Your logic is like: 1. Half-finished pottery takes no skill. 2. A master craftsman creates a half-finished pottery (for whatever unknown reason). 3. Therefore the master craftsman is no master. The problem is that we DO know why he did what he did! >Creates Lucifer.....He rebels! (this is a failed creation) >Sends Lucifer to hell....that gives him domain of earth (originally god's creation!) >Creates humans.....they are flawed.....OK, why not destroy them and start all over??!?!? >Destroys humans (OK, here we go!).....WOOPS, that fails too since they continue to be "wicked". LOLOLOLOLOLOL! >Humans go to the hell he created for lucifer......HURR DURR, why not simply DESTROY Lucifer?!?! >OK, he comes up with a *Brilliant plan* sacrifice myself to myself in order to bypass my own rules! LOL, why not change the rules.....you are supposed to be all powerful are you not? |
JustALEX said: No, you know what he did, you think you know why he did what he did, but do you know why he did why he did what you did? You don't, because you don't have 9999999 IQ.katsucats said: Your logic is like: 1. Half-finished pottery takes no skill. 2. A master craftsman creates a half-finished pottery (for whatever unknown reason). 3. Therefore the master craftsman is no master. The problem is that we DO know why he did what he did! >Creates Lucifer.....He rebels! (this is a failed creation) >Sends Lucifer to hell....that gives him domain of earth (originally god's creation!) >Creates humans.....they are flawed.....OK, why not destroy them and start all over??!?!? >Destroys humans (OK, here we go!).....WOOPS, that fails too since they continue to be "wicked". LOLOLOLOLOLOL! >Humans go to the hell he created for lucifer......HURR DURR, why not simply DESTROY Lucifer?!?! >OK, he comes up with a *Brilliant plan* sacrifice myself to myself in order to bypass my own rules! JustALEX said: Why not? But then again, why not not change the rules?LOL, why not change the rules.....you are supposed to be all powerful are you not? All this is still irrelevant because we are interested in defining God or deities as the semantic concept when people refer to the words, not the Christian God in particular. |
| My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
| ^So your argument is that we can't absolutely know why the christian god did what he did. Basically, you're making an argument from ignorance? I'm not sure if you're doing this so forgive me if I'm calling you out like this. But if you are, then logically why even discuss god at all if we can't know anything? BTW, you told me you were a Gnostic Atheist, so isn't it ridiculous to say that we don't know why the christian god did what he did if you KNOW that this god doesn't even exists in the first place? Or are you simply playing "God's advocate" in all of this just for argument's sake? And if you are doing this, why should I comply If I'm playing "devil's advocate"? |
JustALEX said: Yes in this case it is an argument from ignorance, but it's not a fallacy, because it is epistemologically impossible to know the motivations of a supernatural being, even if he appears in front of you and tells you.^So your argument is that we can't absolutely know why the christian god did what he did. Basically, you're making an argument from ignorance? JustALEX said: I want to know what God can't be for the purposes of useful discussion. People have often said that God can be anything. Well, it can't quite be anything. For example, if God were a tree, then we wouldn't call it God, we would just call it a tree. The word "God" must evoke a specific meaning -- not that specific, but it can't just be anything, like when some religious people try to argue some overly broad definition of God just to get their foot in the door to prove that it exists.But if you are, then logically why even discuss god at all if we can't know anything? JustALEX said: It's a hypothetical. I also know Harry Potter doesn't exist, yet if you told me he was a girl, you'd be wrong.BTW, you told me you were a Gnostic Atheist, so isn't it ridiculous to say that we don't know why the christian god did what he did if you KNOW that this god doesn't even exists in the first place? JustALEX said: Nope, not devil's advocate, just pure logic baby. When you say, "God should do this", or "Why doesn't God do that?", you are putting yourself in a position above God, and it would be apparent to anyone why that's an odd assumption even if they don't believe in God.Or are you simply playing "God's advocate" in all of this just for argument's sake? And if you are doing this, why should I comply If I'm playing "devil's advocate"? |
| My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
katsucats said: Nope, not devil's advocate, just pure logic baby. When you say, "God should do this", or "Why doesn't God do that?", you are putting yourself in a position above God, and it would be apparent to anyone why that's an odd assumption even if they don't believe in God. I've learned a lot about logic ever since I started down my path of deconverting from theism to atheism. So, if someone says that god is omnipotent then I will naturally challenge that claim. How can he be omnipotent if he makes all the mistakes that I posted? So you tell me that we don't know why god did what he did (this is an implication that there COULD be a bigger reason and we simply don't know it yet). I assume that this is the root of your argument? Correct? If so, Neither do the theists know why god did what he did and in their minds they might be blindly following the bible falsely since it does NOT contain the full reasoning behind god's action. In other words....neither theist or atheist can KNOW why god did what he did (of course all of this is hypothetical as you say). But what we DO KNOW, is that god's action contradict the laws of logic, nature and physics. Correct? Or am I missing something??? I'd be very interested in your opinion since from the last time we talked about these subjects, I will happily admit I was very intrigued by your arguments. |
JustALEX said: As will I, but for different reasons than you.katsucats said: Nope, not devil's advocate, just pure logic baby. When you say, "God should do this", or "Why doesn't God do that?", you are putting yourself in a position above God, and it would be apparent to anyone why that's an odd assumption even if they don't believe in God. So, if someone says that god is omnipotent then I will naturally challenge that claim. JustALEX said: To call something a mistake requires that you know what's right, and since rightness is either subjective, or subject to God's will, what you call a "mistake" is just your opinion and inapplicable to God. How can be omnipotent if he makes all the mistakes that I posted? JustALEX said: Could be. They assume the Bible tells the truth, and it may or may not be. But God's motivations does not have to contradict the Bible like you are assuming. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Bible never said that we should enjoy perfect lives here on Earth, only that we should do good deeds and enjoy perfect lives in Heaven. After all, Jesus himself was ascetic (starving) and broke.So you tell me that we don't know why god did what he did (this is an implication that there COULD be a bigger reason and we simply don't know it yet). I assume that this is the root of your argument? Correct? If so, Neither do the theists know why god did what he did and in their minds they might be blindly following the bible falsely since it does NOT contain the full reasoning behind god's action. JustALEX said: Logic is rational, not empirical. We employ logic by reaching for conclusions based on premises. God's action does not have to contradict logic, and I will say that it cannot contradict logic, but it can supposedly contradict physics -- after all, science is partially descriptive, not prescriptive. Science tells us what we know based on what we've observed so far; it does not tell us what should be.But what we DO KNOW, is that god's action contradict the laws of logic, nature and physics. Correct? JustALEX said: You're primarily missing, in my opinion, that human suffering is subjective.Or am I missing something??? |
| My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
katsucats said: But if it is not omnipotent, then it is just a relative god, as there are still forces over which it does not rule. Thus there is no point calling it a god, as it is simply a very powerful being.A god must be a creator or overseer of some aspect of human life and, if not "omnipotent", then at least pretty damn powerful. |
| I find it appropriate to use what I previously posted in "Theism" to begin my deconstruction of God, especially in the context of apophatic theology. If we start with the basal assumption that God is the divine, or a being above the natural then we have to conceit a few conclusions. P1. God refers to something that is above the physical P2. The physical is exactly our world and our universe P3. The definition of a place denotes something existing within the physical realm of the universe C1. Therefore, God "exists" nowhere With the same format of argumentation we can deduce that God refers to nothing within reality. Examining the phenomena that is belief in God 1. Begin the process of enculturation 2. Derive a concept "God" a priori 3. Explain X events that are inexplicable, usually emotions of immensity which are reinforced communally 4: Attribute the concept of "God" to be the cause of immensity or any unexplained phenomena C: God refers to the immense, it refers to the consequences of the rise of sentience in homo-sapiens. 1. As far as the triple omni "God" is concerned, that definition of God is incomprehensible. I always see these words thrown about, but have we truly investigated the implications of such definitions? How do we identify all knowing? How do we differentiate it from really fucking wise? How do we identify all powerful? How do we distinguish all powerful from just really powerful? If we died and were faced with a being, how do we know it is the all knowing God in the bible, instead of just a transcendent alien fucking with us? Again to play with christian theology, if we meet a being in a "heavenly place" how do we not know its Satan? Just with "God", the omni's refer to the immense, a mere concept in the brain of a sentient being trying to identify a purpose, grabbing at straws. |
katsucats said: As will I, but for different reasons than you. Ok...I decided to question omnipotence of god by saying that #1 It is impossible to be omnipotent since it leads to an inevitable paradox. ....and #2 God's actions don't show that he is indeed omnipotent (from what we CAN know). May I ask you....if this is not the correct way in questioning the Omnipotent claim about god, then what is? |
Citizeninsane said: We don't. We'll just have to take it's word for it.1. As far as the triple omni "God" is concerned, that definition of God is incomprehensible. I always see these words thrown about, but have we truly investigated the implications of such definitions? How do we identify all knowing? How do we differentiate it from really fucking wise? How do we identify all powerful? How do we distinguish all powerful from just really powerful? Or we could unleash the glorious, righteous fury of mankind, punch it till it dies and take it's throne. |
JustALEX said: This is true.katsucats said: As will I, but for different reasons than you. Ok...I decided to question omnipotence of god by saying that #1 It is impossible to be omnipotent since it leads to an inevitable paradox. JustALEX said: This may be true, but not in the way you meant it. God's action does not show that he is omnipotent (no action can), but it also does not show that he is not omnipotent.....and #2 God's actions don't show that he is indeed omnipotent (from what we CAN know). |
| My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
Citizeninsane said: This, definitely, especially it being causeless. A God that is caused is meaningless.God would have to be aspatial, atemporal, immaterial and causeless. Citizeninsane said: I would say that is either tautology or a direct antecedent to special pleading. God must already be a special case as the cause of the Universe if we were to apply the cosmological argument, unless we also apply the cosmological argument to God.We cannot commit a case of special pleading by saying God is a unique case. If I were a theist, I would just say God is. Citizeninsane said: I think that is somewhat reductive. We could also say that's what art, morality, meaning, etc., given the same logic.C: God refers to the immense, it refers to the consequences of the rise of sentience in homo-sapiens. Citizeninsane said: I agree. The omni- are incomprehensible, and I would go further to say that they are logically impossible. They also contradict each other.1. As far as the triple omni "God" is concerned, that definition of God is incomprehensible. I always see these words thrown about, but have we truly investigated the implications of such definitions? How do we identify all knowing? How do we differentiate it from really fucking wise? How do we identify all powerful? P1: An all-knowing God would know what he is about to commit next. P2: An all-powerful God is not predetermined (it has the ability to change its course of actions). C1: Therefore, an all-knowing God cannot be all-powerful, or vice versa. |
| My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
Baman said: How about that it has to be the most powerful being that is responsible for the Universe? Since as JustALEX says, I think "omnipotence" leads to a paradox.katsucats said: But if it is not omnipotent, then it is just a relative god, as there are still forces over which it does not rule. Thus there is no point calling it a god, as it is simply a very powerful being.A god must be a creator or overseer of some aspect of human life and, if not "omnipotent", then at least pretty damn powerful. |
| My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
katsucats said: I would say that is either tautology or a direct antecedent to special pleading. God must already be a special case as the cause of the Universe if we were to apply the cosmological argument, unless we also apply the cosmological argument to God. The purposes of employing the Kalam Cosmological argument was for the purposes of a reductio ad absurdum. Treating the conclusion of the Kalam Cosmological argument as a premise to derive an absurd conclusion if we say God does in fact "exist", in the same sense that other spatial, temporal, entities exist. I would agree that "God" in this context is a special case in regards to being the cause of the universe, but that doesn't dismiss the actual procedure of deducing anything about the ontology of such a being to be utterly futile if we cannot differentiate God from non-existence. katsucats said: I think that is somewhat reductive. We could also say that's what art, morality, meaning, etc., given the same logic. This is intentional. God is nothing, but a mere human concept that does not actually refer to anything in reality. katsucats said: I agree. The omni- are incomprehensible, and I would go further to say that they are logically impossible. They also contradict each other. P1: An all-knowing God would know what he is about to commit next. P2: An all-powerful God is not predetermined (it has the ability to change its course of actions). C1: Therefore, an all-knowing God cannot be all-powerful, or vice versa. I agree. You can also factor in this being would not have free will. Would either be eternal or omnipotent, but not both. It also could not be both perfectly just and all merciful etc. |
CitizeninsaneJan 7, 2013 6:34 PM
katsucats said: Well duh, we wouldn't get anything done with such an attitude. How about that it has to be the most powerful being that is responsible for the Universe? Since as JustALEX says, I think "omnipotence" leads to a paradox. Who cares if it is omnipotent, just man up, quit whining, and fucking SCREAM AND PUNCH IT TILL IT DIES. |
Baman said: Who cares if it is omnipotent, just man up, quit whining, and fucking SCREAM AND PUNCH IT TILL IT DIES. Tell me where to punch and I WILL! |
Citizeninsane said: Since it doesn't exist in physical space, you have to dismember your arm so that it no longer exist in physical space before you could achieve it.Baman said: Tell me where to punch and I WILL!Who cares if it is omnipotent, just man up, quit whining, and fucking SCREAM AND PUNCH IT TILL IT DIES. |
| My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
katsucats said: Citizeninsane said: Since it doesn't exist in physical space, you have to dismember your arm so that it no longer exist in physical space before you could achieve it.Baman said: Tell me where to punch and I WILL!Who cares if it is omnipotent, just man up, quit whining, and fucking SCREAM AND PUNCH IT TILL IT DIES. Brb going to go deduce an argument for the transcendent arm that is a necessary entity to dethrone God. |
More topics from this board
» スキンケア事は男性にとって必要でしょうか？ is skin care necessary for men ?ISeeLifePeople - 6 hours ago |
10 |
by JaniSIr
»»
3 hours ago |
|
» The Proust phenomenonRobertBobert - Today |
8 |
by Stavrogin_
»»
3 hours ago |
|
» "Connoisseurs" of MAL, what are your thoughts on ART NOUVEAU? ( 1 2 3 )Fario-P - Mar 11, 2021 |
129 |
by Fario-P
»»
4 hours ago |
|
» Is it easy to detect fictional drawings from real photographs?DesuMaiden - Yesterday |
18 |
by DesuMaiden
»»
4 hours ago |
|
» About MBTI ミビチアイの事ISeeLifePeople - Yesterday |
7 |
by Auron_
»»
4 hours ago |