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

[Desert Snake]

Thor-believers aren't monotheists. Well, I suppose there might be an odd duck out there.

No, it is your description of ''monotheist'', that I don't share. monotheism, to me, just means worship of one deity, nothing beyond that.

 

[LuisDantas]

No, it is your description of ''monotheist'', that I don't share. monotheism, to me, just means worship of one deity, nothing beyond that.

So you are calling monolatry (the worship of one deity coupled with the belief in the existence of others) monotheism as well?

 

[Desert Snake]

So you are calling monolatry (the worship of one deity coupled with the belief in the existence of others) monotheism as well?

Sure. Why?

 

[LuisDantas]

Well, monotheism is not the most rigorously defined of concepts, but general understanding is that it is not the same thing as monolatry.

A strict or extreme monotheist will actively disbelieve in the existence in any deities except the one he or she worships.

A monolatrist by definition does not.

 

[Desert Snake]

Well, monotheism is not the most rigorously defined of concepts, but general understanding is that it is not the same thing as monolatry.

A strict or extreme monotheist will actively disbelieve in the existence in any deities except the one he or she worships.

A monolatrist by definition does not.

If Jesus literally is the ''son of G-d'', *and a separate entity, isn't this not monotheism?


*I don't believe that btw/

 

[paarsurrey]

paarsurrey said: ↑
One-True-God is not a human construct.

I see no evidence whatsoever that it is not.

And your evidences that One-True-God is a human construct, please

Regards

 

[LuisDantas]

If Jesus literally is the ''son of G-d'', *and a separate entity, isn't this not monotheism?


*I don't believe that btw/

Who can possibly know for sure? Not me.

I can see valid arguments for pantheism, strict monotheism, monolatry and henotheism fitting well with the Christian conception of deity.

I can even see legitimaly switching from one to the other at a moment's notice, in a whim. Such a god is supposedly far beyond our poor, limited conceptions of quantity and our sorry expectations of stability and predictability.

Of course, I see better arguments for disbelieving the whole package lock stock and barrel, so make of that what you will.

 

[LuisDantas]

paarsurrey said: ↑
One-True-God is not a human construct.



And your evidences that One-True-God is a human construct, please

Regards

My testimonial, for one. I can tell for a fact that there are diverse, mutually exclusive accounts of how and who the One True God is supposed to be.

That alone is basically conclusive evidence.

 

[paarsurrey]

My testimonial, for one. I can tell for a fact that there are diverse, mutually exclusive accounts of how and who the One True God is supposed to be.

That alone is basically conclusive evidence.

Please elaborate.

Regards

 

[LuisDantas]

Please elaborate.

Regards

Another way of putting it - the correct way, IMO - is that I do not need to provide any evidence that god is a human creation.

Instead, those who have a problem with my saying so ought instead to give me any reason not to.

I can no more prove that god does not exist beyond human conceptions of same than I can prove that Scooby Doo is not real. And there is really no reason to be bothered by either of the two impossibilities.

For another way of putting it, google for Russell's Teapot.

 

[paarsurrey]

Another way of putting it - the correct way, IMO - is that I do not need to provide any evidence that god is a human creation.

Instead, those who have a problem with my saying so ought instead to give me any reason not to.

I can no more prove that god does not exist beyond human conceptions of same than I can prove that Scooby Doo is not real. And there is really no reason to be bothered by either of the two impossibilities.

For another way of putting it, google for Russell's Teapot.

Do you think that if you don't believe in something or some person, the thing or the person does not or cannot exist in reality?

Regards

 

[LuisDantas]

Do you think that if you don't believe in something or some person, the thing or the person does not or cannot exist in reality?

Regards

Of course not. But I do know that there is madness and little benefit in attempting to live as if everything that some people believe to be real is indeed real, regardless of actual evidence or lack thereof.

 

[Nakosis]

paarsurrey said: ↑
One-True-God is not a human construct.

And your evidences that One-True-God is a human construct, please

Regards

For me it is understanding the ability of man to construct Gods. It is possible for man to construct a God. I know this is true. Man can also experience the apparent reality of this God he has constructed.

Since man is capable of this, this is the simplest explanation. We have a working explanation which hasn't been dis-proven. One which makes a lot more rational sense then a supernatural explanation.

So I would need something, some evidence which disproves this explanation. Otherwise why should I toss it out? You'd have to show me something which cannot be explained by this.

I'm not above accepting evidence which I find credible. In fact I'm looking for it. I'm happy to correct or disregard this explanation if it can be shown to be false.

 

[paarsurrey]

It is possible for man to construct a God. I know this is true.

And your facts for believing this true?

Regards

 

[Nakosis]

And your facts for believing this true?

Regards

Because I've created my own God and experience the reality of God's existence. I know it is possible because I have done it.

 

[`mud]

Soooooo many adjectivally religious theologies refering to soooooo many gods.
I'll stay with zero reception of any worshipping from me,
there are no gods, except maybe Wind's gods, that he doesn't believe in.
~
'mud

 

[Muffled]

And what does that have to do with the subject matter?

What I am saying is that I believe among all the gods and religions, God and Christianity shine with worth and are most helpful.

 

[Muffled]

Even from person to person within the same religion there is not consistency - and truly cannot be for 100% of aspects each tends to apply to his/her God. This points to everything about a deity being subjective and therefore unknowable for certain by any given person of that faith - meaning of any faith. And for that reason, even within a religious group it does, indeed, seem very arbitrary.

"My God loves everyone." - How do you know this? Isn't this really just a guess or your opinion?
"He told me." - How do you know He didn't lie?
"He's not capable of lying." - How do you know?
"He told me." - Hmmm...

No, I believe that only means that people are as dumb as rocks.

 

[Muffled]

Deities are cultural, and then, they are personal, as well. This is going to depend on the person, and how they relate to a religion they are brought up with, etc. A statement, like, ''I believe in such and such deity'', etc., yes, pretty much tells you nothing. In that sense, the names of deities, and even denominational adherence, is arbitrary, until one further figures out what the person means by their statements.

I believe Jehovah is not cultural but He does address the culture of people. So the Arabs had a culture of stealing which required a law to cut off a person's hand which is better than being killed for it I suppose.

 

[LuisDantas]

What I am saying is that I believe among all the gods and religions, God and Christianity shine with worth and are most helpful.

Still not seeing how that evidences that deities aren't ultimately entirely arbitrary, but if you say so.