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

[LuisDantas]

Omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent for starters and those aspects are built into nature.

I don't think those are constantly present even if we restrict ourselves to Abrahamic conceptions of deity.

 

[Muffled]

I believe a deity that is real will define Himself. Any deity defined by man can be arbitrary. I never did become an Elvis worshipper. He turned out to be a fallen idyll.

 

[Muffled]

I don't think those are constantly present even if we restrict ourselves to Abrahamic conceptions of deity.

I don't believe God defines Himself by popular demand.

 

[LuisDantas]

I don't believe God defines Himself by popular demand.

If you want to go there, it is apparent that God does not define himself at all.

That, or he is alarmingly callous to the chaotic situation of the opinions about his nature, purpose and goals. Which ends up being pretty much the same thing IMO.

 

[Willamena]

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?

Deity is like politics, yes.

 

[Muffled]

If you want to go there, it is apparent that God does not define himself at all.

That, or he is alarmingly callous to the chaotic situation of the opinions about his nature, purpose and goals. Which ends up being pretty much the same thing IMO.

I believe it may appear that way to you but then your view is an arbitrary one, is it not?

I beleive I would hardly call it callous when He is telling His disciples to spread the gospel to the ends of the earth.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

I don't believe God defines Himself by popular demand.

I think God is defined by popular demand.

 

[Muffled]

I think God is defined by popular demand.

I believe that then becomes a false image of God.

 

[Kirran]

dictionary definition of Arbitary ; Determined by chance, whim, or impulse, and not by necessity, reason, or principle:

This doesn't really ring true as how arbitrary's being used here, somehow.

I think arbitrary, as used here, refers to interchangeability of facts. So you can call God male, or call God sexless, but there's no real reason for or against, so it just depends what you believe.

 

[LuisDantas]

I believe it may appear that way to you but then your view is an arbitrary one, is it not?

Indeed! And that is my point. There is no evidence whatsoever that any view about God is even non-arbitrary.

I beleive I would hardly call it callous when He is telling His disciples to spread the gospel to the ends of the earth.

One has to ask why he made it so easy for people to develop such divergent views about his existence and nature. If that is not indication of callousness, it does at the very least hint of a very poor planning sense.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

I believe that then becomes a false image of God.

But how would you know? How do know what God is like?

 

[suncowiam]

Indeed! And that is my point. There is no evidence whatsoever that any view about God is even non-arbitrary.



One has to ask why he made it so easy for people to develop such divergent views about his existence and nature. If that is not indication of callousness, it does at the very least hint of a very poor planning sense.

When you say arbitrary, it could mean various things or imply various things.

To those that define God, it definitely not trivial or random.

To those that don't define God, it then becomes trivial and "arbitrary."

God is an abstract concept, like love.

Love can have many complexities that aren't shared by everyone yet still have common ground that connects people.

 

[jchristopher]

[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.701961)]

By that logic, god is false, or perhaps more accurately simply fictional.

Please explain.

its nature and reality will be very personal

Not sure I understand what you're saying

The plain fact that there is such a bewildering variety of understandings of what a deity would be, mean, want or do. Heck, even of which words should or should not be translated as "deity".

Let's see here. By logic, the only thing that this phenomenon proves is that there are many people who understand God differently. There is no possible way that God could be arbitrary or relative. The entire collection of scripture that we have today testifies otherwise. Neither is it possible that God, or his laws or teachings, could anything other than absolute and universal. If it were not so, no man could have faith in him[/COLOR]

 

[Cephus]

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?

Honestly, my question is how do these people actually get to know any of these supposed attributes are real? How did they discover these attributes were accurate without having a god to actually examine and test? But of course, bring this up and all you get are crickets.

 

[ratikala]

namaskaram Kirran ji

This doesn't really ring true as how arbitrary's being used here, somehow.

I am replying to the initial and simple question , ...
Is there anything in the concepts of deity that is not arbitrary?...

To which I am simply replying that there is nothing Arbitary about Deity

I think arbitrary, as used here, refers to interchangeability of facts.

the conversation may have digressesd in that direction , but I am not interested in the minutai of digression, ....I am refuting the OP's statement .because I veiw it to be contentious , ...this is afterall a debate section

and as this is a debate section so I am refutung the suggestion that there is anything Arbitrary about the Deity , or for that matter 'A Deity '

I am refuting the veiw supported by luis that the Deity is merly a ''concept'' , and am positing that God is a phnomena not some fancifull construct of the whimsical mind , .....

the theist beleives that there is inteligent intent and purpose behind all existance , the Anti theist beleives that we have merly dreampt this up to satisfy some inner emotional need , ....?

this universe is not a random occurance , it creation rests upon one single breath of the supreme , and although we may not see it there is order in everything within our comprehension and order in everything beyond our comprehension , ....everything is interrelated .

there is nothing Abitary about God and nothing random about existance and our relationship to all that exists , ...

So you can call God male, or call God sexless, but there's no real reason for or against, so it just depends what you believe.

one might beleive all kinds of things but eventualy beleif will be surpassed by knowledge , .....
and by knowledge I do not mean aquired knowledge , I mean experiencial knowledge

 

[ratikala]

namaskaram

And how would you describe the principle?

Sat Cit Ananda ; ...Truth Conciousness and Bliss , ...

or in the case of Buddha , ...Buddhi ; pure inteligence , all knowingnesss

Omnicient , Omnipresent and Omnipotent .

 

[LuisDantas]

Sat Cit Ananda ; ...Truth Conciousness and Bliss , ...

or in the case of Buddha , ...Buddhi ; pure inteligence , all knowingnesss

Omnicient , Omnipresent and Omnipotent .

You are aware that for many people that is just not what they mean by gods, right?

 

[LuisDantas]

Please explain.

You said

No, it is the natural consequence of believing truth is absolute. If truth is absolute, then all deviations to it are false. Holding that belief, completely different takes are less real in reality

Yet it is a plain fact that there is a very wide variation on what people mean by "god". Therefore, I concluded that...

By that logic, god is false, or perhaps more accurately simply fictional.

Edited to add: or maybe you just mean to say that its nature and reality will be very personal and it is no big deal if someone else has a completely different understanding?

Not sure I understand what you're saying

Perhaps because you are taking as a premise that there is some universal understanding of what a deity would be. Such is not the case.

The plain fact that there is such a bewildering variety of understandings of what a deity would be, mean, want or do. Heck, even of which words should or should not be translated as "deity".

Let's see here. By logic, the only thing that this phenomenon proves is that there are many people who understand God differently.

Actually that is the phenomenon itself.

There is no possible way that God could be arbitrary or relative.

If we take for granted that such is the case. The observable evidence denies that.

The entire collection of scripture that we have today testifies otherwise.

If we carefully restrict our sample and our interpretations to produce that effect first.

Neither is it possible that God, or his laws or teachings, could anything other than absolute and universal. If it were not so, no man could have faith in him

That is just not even approximately true, except if you take that as a premise and retrofit from there.

 

[ratikala]

luis ji

You are aware that for many people that is just not what they mean by gods, right?

spiny norman asked me a question , .....''And how would you describe the principle?'' .....I being the ''you '' refered to in Spinny ji's question , ....answered for My self as per My understanding , .....

whether other people have different Ideas about the allknowingness of God is another question , ...prehaps we should have a pole or at least a questionare addresed to theists , ...

do those who would identify as Theists beleibe in one supreme god or multiple gods ?

to you Is god omnipotent ?
is god omnipresent ?
is god omnicient ?

is god eternal ?
Blissfull ?
and full of Knowledge ?

is God a personification of love ?

please feel free to add other atributes that you feel it important to mention

 

[Kirran]

I am replying to the initial and simple question , ...
Is there anything in the concepts of deity that is not arbitrary?...

To which I am simply replying that there is nothing Arbitary about Deity

I was only disputing that definition, not what you were saying about it.

the theist beleives that there is inteligent intent and purpose behind all existance , the Anti theist beleives that we have merly dreampt this up to satisfy some inner emotional need , ....?

I'm a theist, but I'm an impersonal theist, so I don't believe that

It's maya we've dreampt (dreamt? dreamed?) up, constituting the illusion of separation.

this universe is not a random occurance , it creation rests upon one single breath of the supreme , and although we may not see it there is order in everything within our comprehension and order in everything beyond our comprehension , ....everything is interrelated

Yeah, I'm with you on this one. But it's hard to say whether it's random or not. Maybe the term random doesn't really work in this context, maybe it's neither random nor non-random.