Is there anything in the concepts of deity that is not arbitrary?

[LuisDantas]

Yes I got passed that whole 10 percent business and I dont think it requires 100 percent capacity to tap into the source. The source is literally everything. The qualifications for deity can and do exist. Existence wins.

How is tapping into the source different from just existing?

Also:

snopes.com: Do We Only Use Ten Percent of our Brains?

 

[idav]

How is tapping into the source different from just existing?

Also:

snopes.com: Do We Only Use Ten Percent of our Brains?

We are trapped time and decay and die, that is a significant difference.

 

[idav]

Well the universe does decay but very slowly, almost to the point of time standing still.

 

[Willamena]

We are trapped time and decay and die, that is a significant difference.

Or we are time and decay, that's a significant difference.

 

[LuisDantas]

It seems to me that if there is a source of existence, it would follow that existing is in some way tapping such a source.

Whether we are trapped in time is, perhaps, just a matter of expectation and perception. I'm not sure a clear delimitation might be made. I don't think it can, nor that it is needed.

 

[idav]

It seems to me that if there is a source of existence, it would follow that existing is in some way tapping such a source.

Whether we are trapped in time is, perhaps, just a matter of expectation and perception. I'm not sure a clear delimitation might be made. I don't think it can, nor that it is needed.

It matters because it is why we are stuck in the cycle that is matter and samsura. Yet of stuff that never ends.

 

[Willamena]

It matters because it is why we are stuck in the cycle that is matter and samsura. Yet of stuff that never ends.

The cycle describes reality. It's only a trap if you make that real.

 

[LuisDantas]

It matters because it is why we are stuck in the cycle that is matter and samsura. Yet of stuff that never ends.

Sorry, but... I have no idea of what you mean.

 

[idav]

The cycle describes reality. It's only a trap if you make that real.

That is one way to escape. There is also a real thing to escape.

Sorry, but... I have no idea of what you mean.

It's the point of Buddhism to escape the cycle.

 

[LuisDantas]

That is one way to escape. There is also a real thing to escape.

It's the point of Buddhism to escape the cycle.

Buddhism has among its core concepts anatta, anicca and sunyata. By my understanding, it does not teach that we are trapped, but rather that we lack enough substance for trapping to make sense as an idea.

We do not need to tap the source, because we are already doing so, and always have.

 

[idav]

Buddhism has among its core concepts anatta, anicca and sunyata. By my understanding, it does not teach that we are trapped, but rather that we lack enough substance for trapping to make sense as an idea.

We do not need to tap the source, because we are already doing so, and always have.

Knowing that stuff isn't enough to be free from the suffering.

 

[Willamena]

That is one way to escape. There is also a real thing to escape.

I wasn't talking of escape.

 

[idav]

I wasn't talking of escape.

Freedom from the illusion is one thing but there is still the real physical aspects.

 

[Muffled]

Sorry to say, but that is just not at all convincing. I'm actually surprised that believers in the Bible exist in any meaningful numbers.

I believe I am having difficulty imagining what you are not convinced about any why.

I believe there are many people who have a superficial belief in the Bible but you may be right that there are few who have an in depth belief in the Bible. However that matters not if no-one believes in it because God is able to cause the rocks to proclaim His word.

Lu 19:40 And he answered and said, I tell you that, if these shall hold their peace, the stones will cry out.

 

[asier9]

You can not define a being into existence by the properties it has. No more than one being tall, fat, etc defines a person as human. You invoke causality then via special pleading remove it after it has suited the purpose you want. Anything that causes an effect is subject to causality. If God created anything, which most religion claim God has done, then it is part of causality

Explain how this is special pleading? It is not of course, but I am interested in why you believe it is.... I will tell you this I believe your confusion stems from the fact that we begin with different presuppositions and it exactly these extra-scientific presuppositions, both the ones you begin with and ours, about which we disagree. Part of the problem is that you largely deny that hold extra-scientific presuppositions at all, which of course you must because they are a necessary part of every belief system. This disingenuous attitude is largely I believe why you don't recognize your own fallacious reasoning even while erroneously ascribing such failure to reason consistently to us. It is the very things you are guilty. Along these line is something that has become more and more evident to me is that your rationalizations stem completely from your failure to acknowledge, in any way, shape or form the power your desires (which are--and in oppositions to wants which are conscious--always unconscious) have in swaying your conscious perception of reality. You have this big blind spot in which you attempt to fill with projections. With that being said, again please explain your case for how this is special pleading--and do try to present your own presuppositions do the degree you are able and as clearly as you can? Then I will begin the process of teasing out the presuppositions in which you are appealing but have failed to acknowledge, and we can together discover how this fuels your fallacious conclusions.

Also it would be helpful if you explain what you believe special pleading to be so that we might be sure your confusion isn't even more basic, i.e. that you just don't really understand what the fallacy actually is.

 

[Tumah]

I don't think so.

We may and often have to choose to restrict ourselves to some family of conceptions of deities in order to even meaningfully talk about them.

But when push comes to shove, deities may or may not have some sort of humanly understandable attributes; may have or lack a role in the creation of existence; may have or lack a plan for it; may be symbolic or literal; may be finite or infinite; natural or supernatural; mundane or cosmic.

In short, there is no clear requisite or restriction for anything at all being considered a deity, except perhaps that someone must raise the matter and declare whatever a deity.

What do you think?

I don't really understand the question. It sounds like you are saying: a deity of this world is likely to have any of an infinite number of attributes. Yes, and then what?

 

[LuisDantas]

I don't really understand the question. It sounds like you are saying: a deity of this world is likely to have any of an infinite number of attributes. Yes, and then what?

No, I am saying that whether there are actual deities or not, our concepts and expectations of those are much too assorted for the word to be useful without a lot of previous clarification or context.

So much so that I actually propose that the concept should be avoided entirely.

 

[Tumah]

No, I am saying that whether there are actual deities or not, our concepts and expectations of those are much too assorted for the word to be useful without a lot of previous clarification or context.

So much so that I actually propose that the concept should be avoided entirely.

So you are saying that the word "deity" is too vague to communicate any useful information that wasn't already communicated to give said deity a frame of reference.

 

[LuisDantas]

So you are saying that the word "deity" is too vague to communicate any useful information that wasn't already communicated to give said deity a frame of reference.

Just about right. Except that its use suggests some degree of appreciation for the concept itself as well. It is not even always a supernatural concept as such.

 

[Shad]

Explain how this is special pleading? It is not of course, but I am interested in why you believe it is.... I will tell you this I believe your confusion stems from the fact that we begin with different presuppositions and it exactly these extra-scientific presuppositions, both the ones you begin with and ours, about which we disagree. Part of the problem is that you largely deny that hold extra-scientific presuppositions at all, which of course you must because they are a necessary part of every belief system. This disingenuous attitude is largely I believe why you don't recognize your own fallacious reasoning even while erroneously ascribing such failure to reason consistently to us. It is the very things you are guilty. Along these line is something that has become more and more evident to me is that your rationalizations stem completely from your failure to acknowledge, in any way, shape or form the power your desires (which are--and in oppositions to wants which are conscious--always unconscious) have in swaying your conscious perception of reality. You have this big blind spot in which you attempt to fill with projections. With that being said, again please explain your case for how this is special pleading--and do try to present your own presuppositions do the degree you are able and as clearly as you can? Then I will begin the process of teasing out the presuppositions in which you are appealing but have failed to acknowledge, and we can together discover how this fuels your fallacious conclusions.

Also it would be helpful if you explain what you believe special pleading to be so that we might be sure your confusion isn't even more basic, i.e. that you just don't really understand what the fallacy actually is.

Distinguish the properties things are conceived to have vs. those they really do have. Santa is fat flesh and blood person that can visit every single home during one night using Santa powers which are part of his nature. These properties do not make Santa exist no more than properties given to God. Otherwise people can define aliens into existence by describing little gray aliens. Just because you can conceive of this hypothetical being or aliens does not mean it must exist. The special pleading is that any number of theist reject the properties described by other religion's god(s) following only their own description. Another form of special pleading would be to reject aliens exist due to conceived properties one can apply. Another example would be conceiving of the greatest possible unicorn thus it must exist. If you reject any of the alternatives but accept the one for God this special pleading. This is why conceiving of objects and putting forward this conception means the object exist is flawed.

I do not deny I hold presupposition. These are based on philosophy and science. The comment above describes my philosophical presupposition. Part of my presupposition is people understand the argument they use rather than parroting the arguments they hear without understanding the argument itself. I could likewise level a charge at you for following your own presuppositions, which you have omitted. Thus you provide another example of special pleading in which my "identified" presuppositions are targeted but there is no acknowledgement of your own and that these could be blinding you.

Read Kant's "Critique of Pure Reason"