That's the thing though. Think about what questions you would ask that would clearly tell you the difference. Then build the parameters so you can apply it to *any* god.

So if it's :

Must be worshipped by a group

Someone can get semantic-y with the concept of 'worship'. So let's say we decided to narrow that down further so that 'worship' means: a ritual done by a person or persons specifically for the god in order to gain a benefit. Does that definition fit?

If so...then whenever Com. Gordon uses the Bat Signal, he's "worshipping" Batman, and now I'd have to say Batman was worshipped (in a fictional context obviously) and that might cause his erronous inclusion into the list...even though no one would include Batman as a 'god'.

So do we need to better define 'worship'? Or is there something that must also exist with the worship (If X AND Y, then god, if X and no Y, not a god?)?

What I'm trying to do is rather than questioning each diety concept (whether we're familiar with them or not) to come to our conclusion of 'god' or 'not a god' (like Superman or Zeus) is come up with a set of things that we can use as a yardstick which would work irregardless of what god we measured them against. And since I think we can determine inclusion even of gods we're not familiar with (we would recognize it and say 'oh sure, yeah Zeus would be a god, Superman not' if we just heard of them) there has to be a means by which we're doing so that can be extracted and used for *any* of them.

It's a bitch, but I think it's possible because we are able to make the determination. We just need to identify what factors we're using. Then once we identify the factors we're using, we can then see if it's purely subjective (as obscenity is) or culturally blind (works only for western concepts not eastern), etc. But until we pull out what we're using, we can't examine it for those things.

_________________

Hmmmm fun topic. Then what about the addition that gods were either belived to be the creators or direct decendants of those that created the universe/earth.

We consider Zeus a god but he didn't create the earth. He was the son of Chronus, who was the son of Uranus (the sky), who was created by Gaia (the earth).

Children sired by having both divine parents we consider gods, Ares, and Aphrodite, for example.

While children sired by a god and a mortal are not considered gods. Hercules for example.

Why should the superman test be a definitive answer on what is not a god? I submit:

http://content.answers.com/main/content ... 3/Thor.jpg

Thor the god

http://entertainment.upperdeck.com/marv ... y/thor.jpg

Thor the Marvel superhero

If someone did come to us displaying the gifts Superman is thought to possess, that person would be worshiped as a god. I mean heck, all Jesus mostly did was make some booze, whistle up a few fish, and die spectacularly. Imagine someone who could fly, shoot lazer beams out of their eyes and was impervious to harm by most known weapons?

I will also submit that Superman died

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Death_of_Superman

*and* he came back to life.

I think Superman is used because if you ask an average person on the street, "would you consider Superman a god?" most people would say no.

rational discussion != making fun of christians

The "poor abused christian victim" stance is highly entertaining, but more than slightly pathetic.

_________________

You of all people must know that this cannot be a controlling point in defining a god.

Unless you are conducting a worldwide survey this aspect has no bearing imo... Humans are fickle, using your theories here, one could be a god one day(Brad McQuad) and not a god/scum the next........

I think your biggest problem with this entire debate is going to be human nature, free will, and free thought... I will not submit you an answer, unless you will accept, 'what anything believes is a god, is a god'.

Otherwise youre just doing a statistical survey, nothing more, nothing less. And definately not scientific in the sense to prove a fact(such as create a definition).

OK, then using the critera we've been discussing, please show me how Brad McQuad would be considered a god.

would have been... say pre vanguard?

We could find cases where humans have ceased believing in gods and post them here, but I thought that was a good enough comparison to make my point of humans being fickle enough to not have the ability to necessarily maintain a referenced god. Meaning that no matter 1 or 100 a definition of a God can be created or destroyed at the will of man.

If we're waxing philosophical instead of approaching this with proofs, then you could claim that a god begins when his existence becomes accepted as a truth, and ends when his name is forgotten.

Again using the critera tarot is compiling, please show us how he would have been considered a god.

The discussion here isn't about who belived and when man stopped worshiping in any gods. Let's try 2 questions.



1) Is Zues a god? yes or no?

2) Is a rose a god? yes or no?



If we ask this to say 1000 people in a survey as you suggested how many do you think would would answer yes to question 1, and how many would answer yes to question 2?

We're trying to track down the thinking behind more people answering yes to question 1 rather than question 2.

Well using Tarots initial post as a better example:
D&D Comic character creates a hand-pupped 'god' and calls it Banjo. He really did get other people to believe in it as a god at one point (if i remember correctly)...

Anywho, Banjo is now a god...

What happens when everyone leaves and goes home, they forget about poor ol' banjo the hand-puppet god? Maybe the character loses him and he ends up on a shore on a different continent.

Everyone has forgotten about Banjo the hand-puppet god(with the assumption they no longer believe as well), and someone on another continent picks up the puppet and sees it as a toy(not a god).

Is banjo no longer a god? My answer is: Banjo is no longer a god.

Thus comes to my point that i made earlier. A god is what is believed to be a god by (something-anything), and also can CEASE to be a god when it is no longer believed by (anything).

So theres my answer, Tarot had it all along, I dont think youre going to get better than that. And, no, I do not think there is a prerequisite to how many must worship these gods.

If youre doing that it is not the definition of a diety, rather a diety popularity contest, if you get what im suggesting... Its not what creates a diety, thats just a standard, 'what dieties are most well known?' type of question, rather than 'what makes a god a god'.

I understand your point of view, but it's still not what Tarot is trying to define. By the terms that you are using then zues wouldn't be a god because he no longer has any worshipers. But if you asked people if he was a god then many would answer "yes".

It's not about if the god was real or not. Just trying to create a list of general critera that could be used to define a god. Yes people can name any idea or concept as a god and believe in it but would others?

To help explain I'll apply what we are discussing to greek mythology only.

According to Hesiod's Theogonia (The origin of the Gods), Chaos was the nothingness out of which the first objects of existence appeared. These first beings, described as children of Chaos alone, were Gaia (the Earth), Tartarus (the Underworld), Nyx (the darkness of the night), Erebus (the darkness of the Underworld), and Eros (sexual love). From these beings and the first generation of beings created by them, Hesiod establishes the deities related to each element known to early Greeks, beginning with the primordial elements: the Earth, the starry Sky (Ouranos), and the Sea (Pontus).

Theogonia presents two ways to come to life: division (Gaia, Nyx) and mating. After Gaia, almost all deities brought to life by division are negative concepts (Death, Distress, Sarcasm, Deception, and so on) and for the most part are produced by the goddess Nyx. From this point on is set the model for reproduction, from the action of two entities, male and female, as it appears in the divine world in response to human society. So the first answer by the myth to the question "What is the cause of this?" becomes "This is the father and this is the mother". Wikipedia under Chaos.

Zeus had many children. Some with a goddess and others with a mortal woman. Those with mortal mothers were not considered gods. But they could still be raised to live with the other gods in olympus. Hercules is an examples of this. It's been to long since I studied greek mythology. To my memory I can't remember any children of two mortal parents being taken up to Olympus to live with the gods.

In this case it's the family tree that was the criteria for the definition of a god in greek mythology.


This discussion is just one of trying to come up with critera that will fit all mythologies. Which in many other mythologies the gods were related as well. Egyptian and Norse just to name a couple off the top of my head.

Neil Gaimain would agree with you. In his Sandman comics, the Babylonian god of travel becomes a modern day travel agent. Ishtar becomes a stripper. To quote Ishtar: "Any bit of worship will do."

I was going to make a post earlier about why/why not Fear could be considered a divine presence. But I do think that worship is a key point. I don't know anyone that worships fear. They are ruled by it. Oh so very ruled by it. But I can't think of an example of worship of it.

_________________

And this line is continued in American Gods.

_________________

World of Warcraft: Kallaystra, Gweila, Steakumn, Tarathia [ Feathermoon/Horde ]

I quite enjoyed that book.

To be responsible we would need to ask these people "Why? Why did you include Zeus and not Superman?"

I don't think the majority of people being stupid about their own definitions is necessarily justification for defining it based on what the general public says. If a populous indicates the Christian God is a god, we cannot then take a completely unworshipped god with the EXACT same attributes and not call it a god simply because it is not worshipped. What else would you call it without this factor? A semi-god? An unworshipped god?

What of people who suggest "I think a powerful being is out there that has significant influence on mankind". The being is essemtially unworshipped, supposedly exists, but is not pinned down at all in terms of what it is.

From what I have seen being worshipped usually isn't the most important defining point of a god for a lot of people, especially for a god to exist. How many believers would say "God would not exist without us worshipping him"? We have to decide what an unworshipped god with all of the ascribed attributes is if we are going to say "it has to be worshipped by multiple people".

I'm a little surprised that noone has brought up the issue of pleasing the god. The sun is unhappy and poor harvests follow, so you vivisect some children. You are found to be a good warrior, after your death off to Valhalla with you, because Odins decrees it so. How many gods can we think of that don't have some sort of reward system for pleasing them built in?

Note the tense change in your statement.

Is Zeus a god -now- should be your question. I suggest that he is not, and is now relegated to history and mythology.

Only because he's in a comic book. If Superman were real and living in society he would be worshipped as a god.
(if the government didn't grab him first and viviscect him in some secret laboratory)

Exactly. If you asked me if Zeus was a god, i would tell you no...


The main reason people would tell you superman is not a god, is because he was labeled as FICTION from the very start. Had someone started a church of superman and subsequently made those movies, I have a feeling there would be a very different view of him today.

Zeus still maintains a not insignificant following among pagans.

Then I amend my statement to state that some believe he is a god. Thus, he is a god. This goes back to an earlier statement; In my opinion, a god cannot exist outside its realm of worship. Similarly, veneration renders godhood.

Cthulu doesn't want to be pleased. You will be eaten.

Okay, obviously a fictional god (in that the existence is from Lovecraft's books), but I think anyone who knows of him might include him on the 'is a god' list, even though the elder god is a fictional work. I know I would if presented with a list of names and asked to circle which ones are considered gods.

I think trying to make the god happy is a factor with most dieties, but I'm not sure it is with all of them. I think Gaiman's suggestion that they end when their names are forgotten (no longer a god) is accurate since if no one knew of Banjo (the puppet god in OOTS) no one would know he was a god, or might be a god. Pretending that Banjo was real for a moment, if we uncovered evidence that Banjo was once treated as a god by a people...then we 'know' the name, and I think then it would be considered a god.

So we're kinda back to the beginning of: a god is what we all agree was once treated as a god by a group (more than a handful, no hard number), etc.

And I think I elaborated but the more than a handful is necessary, and it has to exist over time. I'd say more than one generation perhaps. David Koresh (Waco) may have been considered 'a god' by some followers, but outside those few, no one would circle his name on the list. Same with the Heaven's Gate cult, Jim Jones and many others. It's not just that those events are seen as negative (we have negative beliefs that exist...such as Kali) but because they weren't sustained, and the belief was limited to a relatively small group.

Again imagining for a moment that Jim Jones was not utterly batshit insane, and had maintained his cult. And 3-4 generations later...it's still going and they venerate him as a god (not a prophet, but a god). And the belief has grown in that time, though the numbers are still relatively small in the big scheme of things (let's say 20k believers). I think at that point we'd have to include him in the list...even though only those people 'believe' in it.

I think the more time away from the 'god' beginning the more "legitimate" the god is treated, even by those who do not share the belief. So I think time is one of the key factors in our discernment of who we would include, as well as number of believers, and how they practiced their beliefs.

_________________

So then Kim Il Song and Kim Il Jung could be considered gods.

The pharoahs of Egypt were considered gods, so yes...potentially.

Would you or I consider them such? Unlikely. Would people a few generations from now assuming they met the basic ideas we've sorta been coming up with...maybe.

I almost think one could make an argument that Elvis could eventually be considered a god, but it would probably take a few hundred years, and maintaining the level of devotion (and increasing the level of idolization). But in order for it to happen, there would have to be a step up into worshipping him as a god. Elvis as he was (and as he's treated) is a legend blah blah blah, but not a god. I think you'd have to throw in some supernatural claims, among other things.

Cult of Elvis. Heh, I could see it happening.

_________________

Well yeah I don't think people outside of North Korea would worship the Kims anymore than the Hittites would've worshiped the Pharaohs.

I saw a documentary once on some doctors that travelled to NK to do cataract surgery, and at the end all the patients were in a room with portraits of both Kims at the front of the room. They were taken in front of the icons, then their bandages were removed, and from their reactions you'd think they were a Catholic that just saw an image of the Virgin Mary. Not one of them thanked the doctors, all of them thanked the images of their dear leaders, many with tears, and lots of bowing, kneeling, and prostrating. It was kind of creepy and sad. Maybe it's more of a cult of personality, but they might as well have been worshiping/praying to any other religious icon.

But was it sincere?

It's getting slightly OT...but there are certainly people who act one way in public and another way in private. There are many people who find it beneficial to appear to be 'good upstanding members' of whatever church or group...but privately don't hold to it. Sometimes it's difficult to discern whether someone actually believes or not when they preach "NO A" but then indulge in "A" privately. Do they really believe "No A" and can't control themselves? Or hold themselves to another standard? Or simply find it profitible to say one thing, but do what they want? Dunno.

But that's just where it's profitible. Where there's a threat to you and your family if you don't act a certain way...well you'll see far more hypocrisy I think. Though I think calling it hypocrisy is a stretch, prudence perhaps fits better. I'm sure that if I knew my family would be imprisoned and tortured if I didn't put on a show about the two Kims...I'd be weeping and rending my garments with the best of them.

Another analogy is slavery. There's many documents which clearly state that when asked slaves insisted they were happy as could be, and didn't want to be free. Nope, couldn't imagine a better master. Of course, most of the time this was asked in front of their masters. Or if not...would you risk everything including your life to someone merely to voice your discontent? Especially when no possible benefit could come of it? Of course not. So it was held up as proof that slaves were happy as could be. Of course any slave who'd earned their freedom or escaped to freedom voiced something different...but proponents of slavery merely dismissed them as the malcontented minority. A true test would be to take them all to a free state, tell them they could be free (along with all their relatives, no chance of retribution on them or those they love) and then ask if they want to accompany the 'master' back down to the south.

I'm betting had such a thing been done...there'd have been no takers, or damned few.

As such, anyone in NK is hardly 'free', and so cannot give a really honest answer. I'm certain some of them do believe good things about the Kims (and perhaps venerate them truly), but then it begs the question how much of that is a product of ignorance and misinformation? Fredrick Douglass in his narratives talks about the importance (the essentialness) of keeping a slave ignorant. Because once they're are not ignorant, it's almost impossible to keep them enslaved. The people of NK, afaik from all I've read, are woefully ignorant not by choice, but by circumstance.

_________________

Lovecrafts beings never struck me as gods even though they were treated as such. People whom subjects bow down to like gods doesn't make them gods imo. The actions of people aren't what seems to separate Superman from god. In fact I only think it muddles the issue.

What being that was ever written about as a god had no power beyond what any person, even a super one, could do. No, Pharaohs don't count. Even the sun was considered able to change the weather (must ...resist ...global warming comments). I do concede that worship seems only slightly important. Tree in the woods thing there. Maybe something along the lines of worshipers hope that devotion (prayer, indulgences ,vivisection of children, dancing around rocks) will make the god intercede for them or at the very least look favorably on them should be part of it.


Still waiting for the, what occurance would make you believe something is a god, thread.

It's a good question. I think narrowing down what we consider a god would help to answer it...but for myself, I'm not sure.




Pharoahs don't count...why?

_________________

I guess I don't count them because they were obviously just people with no special abilities. They got diseases, worshipped other gods, and had typically human failings.

I think the Superman question is easily countered. Using my earlier definition (gods are those things which can explain the unexplainable). Superman doesn't fit into that definition at all. He has unexplainable powers but he doesn't explain anything. And, to be clear, by 'explain' I mean 'allow humans to stop trying to explain'.

Right, but we're not concerned with whether or not they were really gods. People believed they were. Though not all pharoahs or anything, we're just talking in generalities. And they did have 'special powers', just most of it was centered around the afterlife. Anyway was trying to find a decent link about what the pharoahs were considered but the 'best' one I found looked like an essay written by a 3rd grader. >< Egypt was also ruled by pharoahs for over 2k years, so there's certainly some changes in that time. (And new gods introduced, political struggles with priests etc). But the jist is, he did have powers, and it was essentially for people to serve him well (in their beliefs) both so that good things would happen NOW (such as the Nile flooding which helped their crops) and in the afterlife.

Now, if you take all that and say, "Yeah...but I wouldn't include them on my 'is a god' list because they're human beings. Anything that was or is a real human being gets put on the 'not a god' list...then you exclude a lot of dieities, some of which I think you'd be hard pressed to defend as a 'not a god' (not by whether or not they REALLY are, but simply because they're considered as such by most regardless of 'belief').

I'm not saying you're wrong or anything, I'm just wondering where the line is for you where you'd say 'nah not this', or 'yeah this would be'.

_________________

Oh, you want me to post an inline version? Alright, I can do that for you.



However, I originally did not post it inline because it makes the page load slower for people that may not have wanted to see the lols. So, if anyone has an issue with me posting this inline, feel free to direct all your complaints to Syuni D'zpecyzczn. Much love to all, and enjoy your serious argument/discussion. ;3

It would have been more amusing as a Venn diagram.

_________________

Reading through this thread I can only think of the Futurama episode where Bender finds god and god says, "If you do it right, nobody will know you've done anything at all."

So when you see wrong everywhere?

--J.D.

WE CALL YOU DOCTOR X, BECAUSE WE KNOW YOU CAN SET EVERYTHING RIGHT (or at least you can tell us what book by what dead scholar can help us set everything right)!!!!!!

ps...Does your pink name tag make you feel like a pretty pretty princess?

_________________

I think a part of it involves a belief of consequence of worship.

i.e. The being has an ultimate effect on your life and others (for good or bad), which you cannot control, but can attempt to appease or curry favor via worship/belief/recognition.

Indeed. I forget who said/wrote this, but he considered prayer "pleading" or "negotiating with thunderstorms."

--J.D.

Did you learn anything? (other than we have too long of a time restriction between posts)

Reflecting on this thread a bit more after it was bumped -



No offense and I know these terms are relatively commonly used, but these variations seem a bit silly to me.

a·the·ist /ˈeɪθiɪst/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[ey-thee-ist] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.

Why don't these people just claim agnostic? Is it because, as I thoroughly suspect, the negative connotation associated with atheists in order for such people to grab some attention?



Popular definitions too often seem hypocritical, I think this is one such example. We can't say a cat is defined as having 5 eyes just because the public decrees it so. I would again ask why there is such a requirement for multiple followers when considering the actual entity itself. Devyn suggested that we create gods and not the other way around. If we create them in our own creative minds, then they simply do not exist with or without followers. If, on the other hand, they exist outside of human influence then it is only logical to assume a being of such power has indepedence and does not require followers to exist.

Per what I said above, to suggest that a god or diety cannot exist without worshippers effectively requires a change of definition: a god is a fictional creation of man which does not exist. Which obviously requires a big assumption.

Did the Christian God, per their beliefs, exist before he created men to worship him?

Thus, we are still left with no definition.

DoctorX, you originally stated that a god(generic) can be defined. I would ask that you submit proof or evidence of that via your own suggested definition.

You have no idea how much paper and bandwidth is wasted on that definition, and not just "religious versus Atheist," but amongst Atheists. In some cases it is as you state. Some get caught up in the whole, "if you cannot 100.0000000000000000% KNOW, then how can you be an Atheist?"

"No way, dude! I am simply not believing."

Blah . . . blah . . . blah.



Once you make a claim concerning such, you have defined it.

--J.D.

If we're talking about something particularly generic or abstract though, it's hard to define much unless the claim is very specific.

A "thing" might exist in outer space. What is it? Could be a spaceship, a zebra, a molecule. How did I define it?

"You" more as in a general "you" rather than you specifically. Once you state what something can do, you have defined it in such a way it may be tested. So if you say a deity "exists in outer space" you have defined a testable attribute.

So, when someone claims that a deity is "relevant" to our lives, then one can test that relevance. If someone says a deity is "all knowing" then that becomes testable.

--J.D.

And if you define it as untestable by its very nature? Example: a ghost made of unknown material is 4 feet in front of you. It cannot be detected by sight, smell, sound, etc or any technology we have available.

With that in mind, how would you have a "testable" attribute if I said a deity existed in outer space?

Or when I define it as untestable, how is that testable? =p Say our particular deity has a mechanism that automatically deflects or avoids any type of test rendered on it.

Mind you this is only one potential definition in an ocean of many. If I define it as untestable, that is the only attribute we can go with for our definition. Any further attributes I define are untestable. Therefore, in essence, we're still left with no real definition as there are infinite possibilities for those additional defining attributes.

You cannot define anything as untestable, because I can test that definition, thereby invalidating it.

If an entity is untestable then the entity is irrelevant. In order for an entity to influence the world it must have testable results - or there is no influence. An untestable entity can be safely said not to exist.

Then how would it be relevant to your existence, assuming every thing you wrote is true?



We can detect a lot of things in space.



Then such would become . . . Irrelevant!

--J.D.

I'd like to see an example of such an invalidation!



"With that in mind", meaning the untestable nature of the aforementioned ghost.

Where does it say relevance is required for the existence of a god/diety? So it's irrelevant to our lives/world.... and?
Why would it be "safe" to suggest that an untestable diety cannot exist? Why is influence necessary for such a being to exist?

Considering how much of the universe we have explored and know much about, for all intents and purposes a lot of stuff "doesn't exist". That would be rather silly though, since we know there are always possibilities. To unilaterally dismiss it as not existing would be nothing more than leaping to conclusions out of the sheer fact that we haven't seen it.




That being said, I'd like to go back to the "relevance" part because previously I didn't have a lot of time to thoroughly respond to it in the other thread. I'd again bring up the possibility that such a being interferes via human actions and natural phenomena.

Your last response was a mix of declarations of either incompetence or irrelevence.

I will concede that incompetence is a possibility if you somehow manage to confine the definition of incompetence to "anything except all-powerful".
But irrelevant? Absolutely not, given the scenario above. Whether he alleviates some suffering or not, if he does make an impact in some form, he is obviously not irrelevant.

Had to quote this because it makes no sense whatsoever to me. Why must something have testable results to have an influence? Things we cannot detect innately have no impact? What leads you to that conclusion?

You're invalidating your previous claim of an untestable entity.

If X accomplishes Y, then we can test Y. Thus, X is testable.

An untestable entity leaves nothing changed, leaves no evidence, and thus accomplishes nothing. Therefore, it is irrelevant.

Relevance requires a measurable, quantifiable influence in a given realm.



Influence is the alteration of a realm by an entity. I influence my children by teaching them ethical behavior. The lessons, the resulting behavior, and the teaching itself, are testable. If I had no influence with my children, then for their realm I would for all intents and purposes not exist.

Where is the connection between nothing having changed and being untestable? Again going by the description I gave above, a god would have changed much without leaving evidence.



Say for example I stealthily come into your room and open one of your books. I do it in a way where there's no way you can test that I've been there. I had an influence, and altered something, but there's nothing testable about it. You could say that the wind through the window blew the book open, and that might be an adequate explanation. For all intents and purposes, I might not have existed, but obviously I did exist and changed something. That's why I see no logical connection between being untestable and not being able to have an influence. There's no reason being untestable should lead to that inability.

An open book is testable. It is an alteration. Let's review the physical evidence for a moment.

Did you leave epithelials? Did you compress the carpeting during your journey? A fingerprint on the doorknob? Altered the O2 content in the room? Did your sweat stain a page? Was there a crystalline structure change as result of the heat of your touch? Could a wind strong enough to open a book be focused in this enclosed space as to alter no other object? And so on, and so forth.

Even if there is NO physical evidence of your journey, the fact that the book is now open -is- an external and testable event. This is where testable events and evidence diverge.

"X = Y because Z" is testable. It may be FALSE, but it is testable.

"Venen exists" is untestable, and thus irrelevant.
"Venen exists because he opened my book" IS testable. The accuracy of the statement, the test, and the evidence are -secondary- the the nature of the claim of testability.

Google Sagan's invisible dragon argument/discussion, it's almost exactly what you two are talking about (Venen & Syuni). Most of us reach the same results independantly when we think about it, but Sagan laid it out in a good format. So good that I usually use his analogy when discussing "untestable" v. "testable".

Also if either of you haven't yet, please pick up Demon Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark, by Sagan. I really think both of you will love it. (Actually I think everyone should read it, it's amazing stuff, I keep losing my copy to people ).

_________________

Then it ceases to be relevant and some would argue ceases to be a ghost.



Never said it did, but you have just defined an attribute to the deity:



My compliments.

"And" it would upset many people who want a deity to be a Personal Friend and Wish-Granter as some HERE seem to want.



Depends. A deity could also be stupid. The "vernacular understanding" of "incompetent."



Then he becomes Evil and/or Incompetent.

--J.D.

"Evil" makes no sense any more than "Good" makes sense. You rule out "Good" because you insist that the god must carry out "Good" in every possible instance otherwise he is not "Good." You also in these arguments assume "all powerful," something which we have not yet established as a concept of a deity in this thread. Nevertheless, if one holds this view for "Good," than one must also hold this view for "Evil"-- an all powerful "Evil" god that misses a chance to do evil is not "evil," but incompetant.

I made this point in the last thread, and you completely ignored it. I believe I am on total ignore at this point, so I guess this point is more for everyone else, rather than Doctor fool.

Of course, none of this is relevant to the topic at hand, which is, "how do we in society define a deity?" It's the other thread, v2.0.


There's more more lines for you, baby!

Good read Tarot, thanks, but I don't quite buy it.



He goes with the above quote, then after a couple more examples he goes on to say:



He says "once again", as if that was the exact same thing he said. But it's not. Putting it on hold and not "outright rejecting" the notion is a bit different than rejecting the hypothesis altogether. After reading it several times I really don't see how he came to the conclusion that the hypothesis should be rejected outright.


Syuni:



We're assuming here that I found a way to leave no physical evidence. Maybe I floated(or smoothed the carpet), wore gloves, etc etc.

The problem with the book being open is that there's no way to know HOW it opened, ESPECIALLY if there's an easy alternative explanation. IF a god somehow does his stuff via the actions of humans, HOW would that be testable assuming he did it through a stealthy undetectable means? He obviously left something changed, but that can easily be explained away by the human merely performing an action on his/her own will.

The problem is with alternative explanations. The book could have been blown open by the wind, OR opened by me. Both are, in this instance, completely valid explanations(though less evidence of me opening it). Despite lack of evidence, there is a possibility I opened it. It remains untestable, and even though I really did do it, for all intents and purposes I still don't exist?


DoctorX:



Yet again, if it does something that leaves an impact, it is relevant - because without that action something changed.

That impact may or may not be detectable, and may not be attributable to the correct source.



I'm submitting that as a hypothetical, that's not something I believe is a defining attribute. Irrelevance is simply one potential defining attribute that may or may not be the case. I think this may have been more in response to Syuni's statement.



I will agree that may well be the case.



That would fall within the boundaries of being "anything except all-powerful and all-knowing". How far can we take his fallibility before we accept it as falling within the definition of incompetent?



Let's say that evil is out of the picture, that would leave incompetence. So if you accept an extremely broad definition of incompetence which is "anything except all-powerful and all-knowing", then yes it fits. Otherwise, there's nothing that would suggest God would be incompetent by our standards assuming he still retains supernatural ability far beyond humans. If he, for example, played a critical role in stopping the Nazis by influence or taking control of human actions, he would have saved many lives.. but he failed to save many. If such a case was true, he did much good for the world by eliminating them, but also failed to save many. Still qualifies as supernatural ability.

Yea, Godwin etc, but it works =)

THEN you have do explain why it did not have an impact on other things, like childhood cancer and the fact Celine Dion has a career.



It then becomes as Irrelevant as, say, a butterfly sneezing in Megiddo [Stop that.--Ed.] to you or I.



No! You cannot agree! Then there is no conflict!!!111!!





It is a broad definition that can cover many degrees of failure.



I understand now what you mean by "anything except all-powerful and all-knowing."



But Incompetent! Why did he fail to save "Lil Suzie?" Et cetera. The "answer" to that can be many things under the rubric of Evil, Incompetent, Irrelevant, and/or Some Combination of those. What I mean is if he wants "Lil Suzie" to die in an oven then he becomes Evil. If you remove Evil, then you are left with realizing he is unable to save such for reasons of either/and the other two. As you agree above, pray all you want to it, it will not help.



Ah! Not really a "Godwin!", but you gave me the excuse to use something a friend made for me when someone does play the "A NAZI would agree with you!!" fallacy in a discussion:



Courtesy of The Saint.



Anyways, awhile ago on ANOTHER BOARD [Boo! Hiss!--Ed.] there was this guy who would scream "Godwin" in a discussion on Nazi Germany!!!

--J.D.