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

[LuisDantas]

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?

 

[jchristopher]

Sure. Everything.

 

[Sees]

I think plucking religious, spiritual, etc. words, names, terminology out of specific worldviews that they "grew up with" is starting with a foundation of sand.

We like to mistranslate ideas and concepts - treat them as if they are as universal as apple, tree, strike, chair, sleep, etc.

"God" is probably the worse off in this area...absolutely butchered.

 

[LuisDantas]

Sure. Everything.

I take it you are kidding? Or, perhaps, you can just elaborate?

 

[jchristopher]

I take it you are kidding? Or, perhaps, you can just elaborate?

No, I'm not kidding. God is deliberate in all He does.

 

[LuisDantas]

No, I'm not kidding. God is deliberate in all He does.

Your conception of God might perhaps be. But I don't think you will find much, or even anything at all, that is consistent among all the various things that are called deities at one point or another.

The Deva, the Aesir, the Kami, the Greek Gods, the Demiurge, the Orisha, John Frum, the Native American totems... heck, there are even those who insist that in some sense the Theory of Evolution is a deity, albeit pejoratively.

 

[idav]

I can think of very specific qualities needed. If you've seen the new movie Lucy, that qualifies.

 

[LuisDantas]

I can think of very specific qualities needed. If you've seen the new movie Lucy, that qualifies.

I did not. May you elaborate?

 

[Quintessence]

I think calling the concepts of deity "arbitrary" is misleading. What people deify is an expression of their values, their culture, and how they see the world. There's nothing arbitrary about that.

 

[jchristopher]

Your conception of God might perhaps be. But I don't think you will find much, or even anything at all, that is consistent among all the various things that are called deities at one point or another.

The Deva, the Aesir, the Kami, the Greek Gods, the Demiurge, the Orisha, John Frum, the Native American totems... heck, there are even those who insist that in some sense the Theory of Evolution is a deity, albeit pejoratively.

And that might be the difference between you and me, that I believe the laws and teachings of God to be absolute and unchanging. My belief in God's deliberativeness is not affected by the fact that in no point in history has man been in consensus as to the true nature and teachings of God.

 

[LuisDantas]

I think calling the concepts of deity "arbitrary" is misleading. What people deify is an expression of their values, their culture, and how they see the world. There's nothing arbitrary about that.

It seems to me that to express ones values, culture and perception of the world is either the very definition of "to arbitrate" or something closely related to it.

 

[LuisDantas]

And that might be the difference between you and me, that I believe the laws and teachings of God to be absolute and unchanging. My belief in God's deliberativeness is not affected by the fact that in no point in history has man been in consensus as to the true nature and teachings of God.

The difference seems to be more specifically that you chose a specific conception of God and decided that the competing ones are not to be considered.

Your right, of course. But it does not render the fact there are so many completely different takes any less real.


Myself, I see them all as arbitrary, because that is what the available evidence implies.

 

[psychoslice]

It seems to me that to express ones values, culture and perception of the world is either the very definition of "to arbitrate" or something closely related to it.

Just what I thought.

 

[Quintessence]

It seems to me that to express ones values, culture and perception of the world is either the very definition of "to arbitrate" or something closely related to it.

That's not the definition of arbitrary I was assuming. I was assuming arbitrary as meaning "it is random and an act of whimsy rather than for good reason." Or something along those lines. Basically it suggested to me one could draw god-concepts out of a hat and be good with it. That's not how it works.

 

[LuisDantas]

Just what I thought.

As in "I knew that fellow would say something like that", or as in "I happen to agree"?

 

[LuisDantas]

That's not the definition of arbitrary I was assuming. I was assuming arbitrary as meaning "it is random and an act of whimsy rather than for good reason." Or something along those lines. Basically it suggested to me one could draw god-concepts out of a hat and be good with it. That's not how it works.

Just to clarify, when I say it is arbitrary I by no means imply that it is not justified or legitimate.

That said, in a way god-concepts sure seem to have to be taken out of a hat, so to speak. They are at their very best when they are custom-tailored to the actual psychological structure of the believer.

 

[jchristopher]

The difference seems to be more specifically that you chose a specific conception of God and decided that the competing ones are not to be considered.

Your right, of course. But it does not render the fact there are so many completely different takes any less real.


Myself, I see them all as arbitrary, because that is what the available evidence implies.

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

What "evidence implies" arbitrary action by deity?

 

[Quintessence]

Just to clarify, when I say it is arbitrary I by no means imply that it is not justified or legitimate.

That said, in a way god-concepts sure seem to have to be taken out of a hat, so to speak. They are at their very best when they are custom-tailored to the actual psychological structure of the believer.

That's fair. I pretty much agree with you. Gods are that which are deemed worthy of worship; they hold nothing else in common. What people deem worthy of worship - what people respect, value, and wish to give thanks to - should be expected to vary, along with the natures of those objects of worship. If they didn't vary, well... it would very strange to say the least. If one's gods are not an expression of one's values, well... it is worth asking whether or not they are truly one's gods. Trying to pretend you value something is very hard and does not work very well.

 

[LuisDantas]

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

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?

What "evidence implies" arbitrary action by deity?

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".

 

[psychoslice]

As in "I knew that fellow would say something like that", or as in "I happen to agree"?

Sorry, in what you said I agree, ...I still don't quit get what the question is, I'm a bit slow I suppose lol.