What is a deity?

[Original Poster]

Okay, okay I know this is more semantics and I'm sorry but with all these threads about defining things and challenging each other as theists and atheists I need to ask a very important question! If a theist is defined as someone who believes in a deity, and an atheist is therefore defined as someone who does not believe in a deity, then what in the first place is a deity? In order to define yourself as an atheist you first have to tell me what exactly you don't believe in! We can assume with the destruction of Sodom and Gamorrah, and the Tower of Babel, that the almighty, perfect God described in the Bible is far from perfect. We can also assume with the Crusades, Witch Trials, the entire history of the Papacy, the devastation of the New World, Manifest Destiny, etcetera etcetera, that practicing followship of this almighty deity has absolutely no relevance whatsoever when it comes to whether or not you are a "good person." But it's EASY to criticize the Church and their mockery of this idea of a "deity." However, how does that rule out the idea of a deity altogether? The next argument in course is that existence is plainly unnecessary with a deity. The idea that the universe was created by a being who simply "is" is no more logical than the idea that the universe simply "is." But if you ignore the inheritance the word "deity" brings with it, is it really such an illogical concept? Firstly, whether you're theist or atheist or something else entirely, what does the word "deity" mean to you? Does it imply a seperate being that watches us, or a being that is connected to us? Does it imply a creator? Every good video game needs a coder, but who coded the coder? Was the coder simply there? Then how did he know how to code? Secondly, in what way is a deity necessary, unnecessary, or at least "includable" in a logical concept of reality?

[tkdyo]

since no one else has tackled this, Im going to take a swing at it. To me, a deity is something that is not made of physical molecules, yet still has sway over physical things. This to me is where the perception that they are all powerful comes from. If they are not physical, they dont age and seem invisible. Of course, this does not mean they are perfect because if they are beings at all then they will still have emotions. Also, if they hold sway on physical things, then that means they must become physical at some point...so it might age them a little each time they do create a miracle. Thus, they (or it) has things set up so they all operate on their own so they dont have to interfere. I dont think the idea of a deity is necessary, but not logically implausible either its just comforting for people I guess. edit: The other idea I have mulled over is that the deities slowly gave their own energy in to creation until they finally lost all form of consciousness and simply became pure matter. Its a fun idea to play with.

[Rakjavik]

A deity is not implausible. Even the most militant atheists still hold the possibility that their is something greater. I mean, that everyone, wants to believe that something is out there. There is so much hope. There is so much potential. What most people don't understand is that atheists have faith in humanity. In Me and You! Our connections, our interactions. We have the potential. We have the hope. Without a deity. It doesn't have to be discluded. But maybe, we can still live our potential, without a supernatural presence. We still can tap into our empathy and sympathy, and everything else that makes us human. So to those religious, we can still be human. Give us the chance. We have fucked most of it, but we can be better. That is what is going to push us into the reality of our future. Stop having faith in things unseen, start having faith in your neighbor. Start having faith in what we can be. Because we do have the potential. Beyond belief we do.

[Sandform]

Okay, okay I know this is more semantics and I'm sorry but with all these threads about defining things and challenging each other as theists and atheists I need to ask a very important question! If a theist is defined as someone who believes in a deity, and an atheist is therefore defined as someone who does not believe in a deity, then what in the first place is a deity? In order to define yourself as an atheist you first have to tell me what exactly you don't believe in! We can assume with the destruction of Sodom and Gamorrah, and the Tower of Babel, that the almighty, perfect God described in the Bible is far from perfect. We can also assume with the Crusades, Witch Trials, the entire history of the Papacy, the devastation of the New World, Manifest Destiny, etcetera etcetera, that practicing followship of this almighty deity has absolutely no relevance whatsoever when it comes to whether or not you are a "good person." But it's EASY to criticize the Church and their mockery of this idea of a "deity." However, how does that rule out the idea of a deity altogether? The next argument in course is that existence is plainly unnecessary with a deity. The idea that the universe was created by a being who simply "is" is no more logical than the idea that the universe simply "is." But if you ignore the inheritance the word "deity" brings with it, is it really such an illogical concept? Firstly, whether you're theist or atheist or something else entirely, what does the word "deity" mean to you? Does it imply a seperate being that watches us, or a being that is connected to us? Does it imply a creator? Every good video game needs a coder, but who coded the coder? Was the coder simply there? Then how did he know how to code? Secondly, in what way is a deity necessary, unnecessary, or at least "includable" in a logical concept of reality? I sincerely believe you miss the point of atheism. I underlined the parts of your post that make me think this. The first part underline really gives you away here. Do you believe in grumbledon? I assure you it is something. But do you believe in it? You lack belief in many things, even things that are real, yet you do not need to describe everything you lack belief in in order to say you don't believe it exists. You could easily believe that I am telling the truth, but until the concept is described to you, you can not believe in the concept. As an atheist, you require only one thing, a lack of a belief in a deity. Now, as an atheist, I don't make claims about what a deity is. I only respond to other claims of deities. Now, that being said, there is one trait which we know must be included in a Deity, because otherwise you are adding definitions to a word and are thus playing a semantic game, as those who say God is the whole, and such, and it is the central theme behind all deities in religion. The deity must be supernatural, as in functionally beyond the laws of our universe. Usually deities have roles as masters of fate, however not all deities need create the universe, but usually this is another common theme of deities. But the point here is this. As an atheist, I need not care what traits a deity might actually have, because a deity is outside of testability or effect. Until I give traits to a deity and claim they are true...I can not believe in said deity. The most basic description, however, of a deity is a thing which is beyond ultimate influence of rules or laws. Oh, and the deity must be conscious. I mean, how could I possibly believe in a thing I haven't defined in the first place? Deities come in many shapes and forms, and I deny their existence as they are presented, not actively every second of my life, however lacking a belief in them is active, in every moment, because it is a passive thing to do.

[Original Poster]

Okay so you define a deity as something acting beyond the physical laws we have thus far observed as a collective, as well as something conscious. You further argue that because it exists outside observable law it is therefore impossible to prove. As many christian apologists claim it is impossible to "disprove" you therefore take the stance that the burden of proof lies on the claimant. I don't see how I've misinterpreted atheism simply because I haven't made a claim as to what a deity is. I'm merely asking you to define what you have chosen to be unprovable in the most general terms possible, and you've done an excellent job in that. I am personally not big on this idea that we have physical laws that were always here and will always be here. I think it's malarky, and therefore to me nothing is supernatural. Each night we go to sleep and get to be masters of our own private universe where we decide all the laws and what not, then wake up and re-enter a collective universe where things like reality are decided upon by everyone, rather than just ourselves. I suppose my claim is that when you stop believing in something, it really does go away. Reality as an unconscious force is... malarky. Reality has to be conscious. But I can't define this as a deity because it has no emotions, no sense of self or separation from existence. It has no opinions nor anything that you could use to classify an ego. It is not beyond physics, because it makes up physics like little mitochondriacs solidifying under a common goal of creating energy, which then solidifes to make matter. In order to even see this idea as plausible, mind has to come before matter, for all matter exists within the mind. I speak of it physically using the word from star wars, mitochondriacs, but that's just an example. My supposition is that we are all part of the universe's mind, as little seeds of consciousness sent out so the mind can experience as much as possible. In one layer of reality, where we keep these machines we call our bodies, we're tied collectively to all other beings within the same layer so we all experience the same reality. It's my opinion that as the universe created itself, physical laws emerged, and physical laws do not predate the existence of the universe. It's my opinion that when you wake up from a dream you're not re-entering reality, just changing floors in your illusion. Furthermore, there is absolutely nothing in observed reality that argues a dead universe is more likely than a living one. I make this claim defining the deity as the collective mind, not existing outside natural laws but actually the very fabric of natural laws. I agree with you a deity is conscious, but I believe consciousness, mind, is all existence really is in the first place and everything else is just what has been imagined up. I am not going to say that this idea is not disprovable, but I will say that this is my claim and that in order to attack it you must make a claim of your own. Is it your opinion that a real atheist has no opinions, but merely attacks other ideas? The burden of proof rests on me, but this is the only plausible explanation for existence I have. Honestly it is, I see no other means for reality to exist, so the burden of proof still rests on you to prove some sort of claim for a plausible explanation of the universe. As in, if not this, then what?

[Sandform]

First, I feel I must point out, when defining what a deity is, I was actually defining the traits of deities that have been described to me by believers that are almost always a trait they claim the deity has. With this statement, "As in, if not this, then what? " you have met the criteria for critical thinking that is necessary to understand the atheist view point. As an atheist I am not content to say "well I'm going to make something up, and say it is true, and then say that that is it because there isn't another way it could have happened" when in reality many people have come up with different "ways" in which it could happen. But to try to be to the point. The question "then what" is where an atheist tips his hat to the question in itself. I do not know, and at the moment can not know, so I will then reserve myself to asking the question, searching for answers, but not clinging to any answers if they are not based in evidence. For example, many Christians think that the big bang theory is the theory of how the universe is able to exist. (likening it to their creation story of God saying let there be light.) However, this is not the case. The big bang theory explains nothing more than the earliest point we can trace the universe to, and to be more specific the expanding of the universe. The comparison here is meant to show that indeed an atheist checks in at what is answerable, and checks out at what is not. I don't see how I've misinterpreted atheism simply because I haven't made a claim as to what a deity is. I'm merely asking you to define what you have chosen to be unprovable in the most general terms possible, and you've done an excellent job in that. This is a common misunderstanding of atheism. I tried to get to what you wanted to know, while also pointing out that the way you phrase the question is incorrect when speaking to an atheist. You see, as an atheist, I can tell you that I disbelieve in that which I have heard of, meanwhile I can still have a disbelief in many things I have not heard of. Atheism is really simple, either you agree or do not agree with a claim of deities. If I have never heard of X deity claim, I can therefor not agree that it exists. Therefor, when asking an atheist what he doesn't believe in, the only response he could give would be to list off a great many list of names of deities, which many atheists do indeed to do to make a point. But, what I'm trying to say is that atheism is solely on a deity by deity basis. I can only actively "not agree" to that which is presented. And, just to be sure you understand another point upon which this conversation is contingent, not agreeing something is true, is not necessarily the same thing as agreeing that it is false. I feel I must also point out that the only Deity that is "unprovable" is a Deity such as a deist god. The gods of the major christian faiths, Muslim, and Jewish sects are actually very provable, if they actually had the attributes given to them, the reason they are "unprovable" is because they do not exist. It is very hard, indeed, to prove that a thing which does not exist does exist. Another point I must make, after reading through your post a second time, is that when I said "functionally beyond the rules of the universe" I did not mean to imply that a God would be solely outside of the universe, but rather that its actions would not be inhibited by rules or restrictions of any kind, though I do find this concept an impossibility in the first place, because without rules how can a thing possible be anything?

[Original Poster]

I'd like to continue this discussion but unfortunately I'm on the verge of leaving for another considerable amount of time and wont be back until mid January. To be quick, I'll respond to the thing about clinging. Ideally, an atheist does not cling to any particular answers but I think this is where atheists fall short of the generally held philosophy, as most do make the jump from claiming something is not true to claiming something is false. This topic was not meant to be an attack against atheism, I've already done that. It's merely a proposition that most atheists are so content with the idea that the universe is a random occurrence, that life and consciousness are all merely random reactions to the diverse interplay of matter and energy, that they don't feel the need to even properly examine other possibilities. In other words, they have an answer, and they cling to it. It may be easy to cling by merely putting down other ideas but it seems that the inheritance the word "deity" carries with it has caused so much judgments against the idea of universal consciousness most don't even feel it deserves any examination at all. My suggestion is that we can reopen other possibilities of existence, of how it exists. We can look at other models, other philosophies for life and other answers. It seems as thought most atheists are so strongly against religion they fail to even play with esoteric philosophy. That's what I like to do most, it doesn't mean I cling to ideas. As I like to say, "I believe in nothing but I'll entertain anything." And as I've alloowed myself free thought and such, I've come to the conclusions about the world that I've read. However, there are so many people claiming to be open minded that when approached with esoteric ideas like mine, merely push it aside as more religious nonsense. It's the most logical explanation I've ever heard for existence, that mind comes before matter, and yet it's judged as harshly as the Christian God himself.

[Sandform]

It's the most logical explanation I've ever heard for existence, that mind comes before matter, and yet it's judged as harshly as the Christian God himself. Why is this the most logical explanation you can think of?

[Original Poster]

It's based on the experiences I've had and the research I've done. To me, all physical laws appear to neatly come together in the perfect way to enable life. Change the natural rate hydrogen burns into helium by even a slight little bit one way or the other, and life is impossible. Where would we be without magnesiopheres? To me, physical laws aren't even slightly random, they're all perfectly planned to make life possible. However, the idea of a creator is illogical for many other reasons, which is why I think the universe creates itself. The creator and the universe is one entity, and we are subdivisions of said entity. It's most logical because the universe isn't random, maybe it's just my perception, but in the end you have to accept your perceived reality. I perceive intelligence everywhere, in the energy around me, because my life is catered directly to my needs. I can't escape the feeling like I'm not really on a planet at all, but in a classroom.

[Sandform]

It's based on the experiences I've had and the research I've done. To me, all physical laws appear to neatly come together in the perfect way to enable life. Change the natural rate hydrogen burns into helium by even a slight little bit one way or the other, and life is impossible. Where would we be without magnesiopheres? To me, physical laws aren't even slightly random, they're all perfectly planned to make life possible. Life as we know it, perhaps. You're arguing from a fallacy here. I can't recall exactly, but I believe it is called the pathetic/anthropomorphic fallacy, though I can't recall what it is called for sure. It comes from a mentality liken to applying significance to a random hand you are dealt in cards. I believe the exact explanation is something like applying a mind which gives forethought to things that have no evidence that it need a mind that has given forethought. Oh, I got a straight flush ace high, or whatever, it must have been planned that I would get that hand. But in reality there is no significance in any hand that is dealt. Furthermore, forms of life could in theory exist in a number of ways in a universe with different laws. Furthermore, there are many more uninhabitable areas in the universe than there are habitable. Even on Earth where life exists, catastrophic events are common place. Earthquakes, monsoons, animal verses animal, poisons, etc.

[Original Poster]

But this is still the best of all possible worlds. Physical laws act the way they act out of necessity, even earthquakes and floods and such are part of that process. I'm not arguing from the synchronistic perspective. It's a fallacy to use in a standard debate but it's not a fallacy to see it in your own life. I'm not talking about being meant to get a hand of cards, I'm talking about how the world I experience reflects areas of my life that specifically need to be worked on. I'll leave it at that because it's fallacious to use that to argue life has significance because it has no place in a standard debate. However there are other things, you claim that more of the universe is uninhabitable, but I don't think that's necessarily true. I can't make that argument logically, either, but I can ask you this... if life is created randomly in a freak phenomena, how come there are fossils on Mars? If it really is a 1/1000000000 chance that the amino acids will come together in just the right conditions and decide they're a conscious thing all of a sudden, how come it happened twice in the same solar system on the only two habitable planets we have? And furthermore, I haven't taken physics, chemistry or biology for a very long time but I can't even keep up with all the complex laws so well thought out and perfectly interlinked to create a universe that nurtures life. There are unwanted side effects, like asteroids and natural disasters, but change the laws a little bit to prevent these disasters and life becomes impossible again. Aside from the rate of combustion and the magnesiosphere I can't think of anything in particular but I remember specifically the laws of water are perfect, of magnetism, of energy transference, etc... I think it takes someone with their head pretty far up their ass not to see purpose and intention behind the universe.

[Sandform]

But this is still the best of all possible worlds. Physical laws act the way they act out of necessity, even earthquakes and floods and such are part of that process. I'm not arguing from the synchronistic perspective. It's a fallacy to use in a standard debate but it's not a fallacy to see it in your own life. I'm not talking about being meant to get a hand of cards, I'm talking about how the world I experience reflects areas of my life that specifically need to be worked on. I'll leave it at that because it's fallacious to use that to argue life has significance because it has no place in a standard debate. However there are other things, you claim that more of the universe is uninhabitable, but I don't think that's necessarily true. I can't make that argument logically, either, but I can ask you this... if life is created randomly in a freak phenomena, how come there are fossils on Mars? If it really is a 1/1000000000 chance that the amino acids will come together in just the right conditions and decide they're a conscious thing all of a sudden, how come it happened twice in the same solar system on the only two habitable planets we have? And furthermore, I haven't taken physics, chemistry or biology for a very long time but I can't even keep up with all the complex laws so well thought out and perfectly interlinked to create a universe that nurtures life. There are unwanted side effects, like asteroids and natural disasters, but change the laws a little bit to prevent these disasters and life becomes impossible again. Aside from the rate of combustion and the magnesiosphere I can't think of anything in particular but I remember specifically the laws of water are perfect, of magnetism, of energy transference, etc... I think it takes someone with their head pretty far up their ass not to see purpose and intention behind the universe. Citation needed. Furthermore, if life was indeed present on Mars, I find no reason why it would support the idea of a thinking universe. The point that your missing, from my previous post, is that the universe is just barely good enough to support the form of life we can think of, but there is no reason why a universe with different properties couldn't support life with different properties, just as poorly if not better.

[Original Poster]

Your bias is exemplifying my point that atheists do not practice what you were preaching. There's a difference between practical criticism and cynical closed-mindedness. I made a very simple, simple point, it doesn't need a citation. Look up a science book, this universe is plainly designed to sustain life.

[ThreeLetterSyndrom]

Agnost here. I don't believe a diety exists, nor do I believe that a deity exists. It's a strange concept, but it allows me to be free to do what I want. A deity is plausible in my eyes. IF a diety exist, it would have nothing human. No ego, no conscious, no body, nothing. That's what I believe to be the key point of a diety. so far my opinion.

[Sandform]

Your bias is exemplifying my point that atheists do not practice what you were preaching. There's a difference between practical criticism and cynical closed-mindedness. I made a very simple, simple point, it doesn't need a citation. Look up a science book, this universe is plainly designed to sustain life. I'm sorry what? A citation IS needed when you say they found fossils of life on Mars. Because guess what, NASA doesn't support your hypothesis. And how a bout a .gov or .edu source. I love how every time someone asks for proof of a statement, like they found fossils of life on mars, I'm told that it doesn't require evidence. It is not plainly designed to sustain life. The majority of the universe isn't even habitable by any form of life. Planets that do indeed have life are prone to trying to destroy that life. If anything the universe is out to extinguish life, not create it. If the universe were another way, there is no reason why another type of life couldn't spring up and be saying the same thing you are.

[Sornaensis]

Okay, okay I know this is more semantics and I'm sorry but with all these threads about defining things and challenging each other as theists and atheists I need to ask a very important question! If a theist is defined as someone who believes in a deity, and an atheist is therefore defined as someone who does not believe in a deity, then what in the first place is a deity? In order to define yourself as an atheist you first have to tell me what exactly you don't believe in! We can assume with the destruction of Sodom and Gamorrah, and the Tower of Babel, that the almighty, perfect God described in the Bible is far from perfect. We can also assume with the Crusades, Witch Trials, the entire history of the Papacy, the devastation of the New World, Manifest Destiny, etcetera etcetera, that practicing followship of this almighty deity has absolutely no relevance whatsoever when it comes to whether or not you are a "good person." But it's EASY to criticize the Church and their mockery of this idea of a "deity." However, how does that rule out the idea of a deity altogether? The next argument in course is that existence is plainly unnecessary with a deity. The idea that the universe was created by a being who simply "is" is no more logical than the idea that the universe simply "is." But if you ignore the inheritance the word "deity" brings with it, is it really such an illogical concept? Firstly, whether you're theist or atheist or something else entirely, what does the word "deity" mean to you? Does it imply a seperate being that watches us, or a being that is connected to us? Does it imply a creator? Every good video game needs a coder, but who coded the coder? Was the coder simply there? Then how did he know how to code? Secondly, in what way is a deity necessary, unnecessary, or at least "includable" in a logical concept of reality? A deity is some form of higher power or existence that is used as an explanation for a natural phenomenon in place of a naturalistic explanation. They are also usually the center of a religion, exhibit magical powers and most of the time can not be seen by humans in the time period that said deity is being worshipped in. (i.e. most documents detailing divine creatures coming to earth were written hundreds of years after they supposedly happened) Deities are seen as necessary in today's world to explain suffering, death, hatred, and existence itself by most theists. As an atheist I do not see (a) deity(ies) necessary, obviously, because all superstitions thusfar have been replaced by naturalistic explanations, so I don't see why the deity itself should been seen differently. Especically with all this spiritual jargon that most newagers (I know terms!) wrap the concept in. Oh, and apologists. Those are just annoying. >=(

[Original Poster]

I'm sorry what? A citation IS needed when you say they found fossils of life on Mars. Because guess what, NASA doesn't support your hypothesis. And how a bout a .gov or .edu source. I love how every time someone asks for proof of a statement, like they found fossils of life on mars, I'm told that it doesn't require evidence. It is not plainly designed to sustain life. The majority of the universe isn't even habitable by any form of life. Planets that do indeed have life are prone to trying to destroy that life. If anything the universe is out to extinguish life, not create it. If the universe were another way, there is no reason why another type of life couldn't spring up and be saying the same thing you are. I'm sorry, I thought you were asking a citation for something else. Here's the thing to me, you're still ignoring that fact that if physical laws existed in even slightly a different way, the universe could not exist at all. If combustion worked slightly differently, a star would not be able to sustain itself to provide energy for floating bodies. If magnetism did not work in a specific way, radiation would make life impossible. I don't see how the universe is bent on destroying life, in which way? This truly baffles me, the universe appears to me like a cradle for life. This planet is a sanctuary for life. A Roxxor - Look, I understand the reasoning behind your opinion. There was a time when everything was determined by church interpretation. Everyone's life was guided by the church and therefore by God, every ailment, every spot of bad luck, everything. Then, as the church revealed how corrupt it was and people like Isaac Newton determined the possibility that things exist purely out of chance if they have unrelated causations, this purely spiritual model of existence fell apart. And this is not a bad thing in my opinion, in the 1600s when the world underwent a secular transformation, it wasn't a determination that nothinig esoteric existed, but rather that "for now" the question was not answerable so it was time to focus on things we could understand, material things. The scientific method became a basis of understanding the world in an agreeable way. In it's simplest form, it's basically stating you have an idea, you test the idea, then show the results to your peers and see if they agree. This has brought us a very long way, and without this materialistic transformation we would not have the technological advancements that we do. However, there was no group decision to rule out esoteric possibilities, simply put them off until answers were available. That was the consensus, as Sandform described perfectly. Atheism is not in the business of saying God doesn't exist, just that the previous/current concept of God is unverifiable. I had my atheist revelation back in 8th grade, when I decided until I got some proof of something esoteric I would act as thought the exoteric world was all I had. But the time has come to look beyond. Not to have faith, but not to judge esoteric ideas so harshly, either. The universe has no "default reality" because if you observe particles their position changes based on where you're observing them. That means that your awareness directly alters reality in the smallest form we have thus far discovered. The entire world is made up of energy, something Buddha claimed thousands of years of ago. Not only that, but that energy is directly altered by our perception of it. So it's time to look at other possibilities, to wonder again, as we did 500 years ago, what our spiritual purpose for existence is. We now have the technology to sustain our planet without the need for fossil fuels, to feed every human being beyond their need, to live in a paradise if we build it that way. And I sincerely apologize for the demeaner of my previous posts, it exemplifies I obviously still have my own judgments and a closed minded view of what reality is. Spirituality is purely personal, it's not meant to be proven in a laboratory, it's meant to be an experience where one draws on the mystic reality in order to bring evolution into a conscious level. If you only see the material reality in front of you, and nothing whispers into the back of your mind that there may be something beyond it, some higher purpose, then more power to you. Go invent things to better our material lives, to enable more security and comfort for humanity. In my opinion, we've already done this sufficiently over the last 400 years and now more people could realize their higher purpose in reality.