Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 88 (8890 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 02-18-2019 12:45 AM
215 online now:
DrJones*, dwise1, LamarkNewAge, PaulK (4 members, 211 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 847,623 Year: 2,660/19,786 Month: 742/1,918 Week: 29/301 Day: 1/28 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
78
9
1011
...
22NextFF
Author Topic:   Can You define God?
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10284
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006
Member Rating: 3.5


(4)
Message 121 of 318 (675171)
10-07-2012 12:00 PM
Reply to: Message 119 by jar
10-07-2012 11:55 AM


Re: GOD is NOT a god
Right. Well I define "GOD" to mean a wafer covered in chocolate. Given that I am sitting here eating a Kit-Kat this makes me not only a "theist" but a GOD-eater.

Any wally can invent their own private language using common terms and then conflate these to come to their own conclusions whilst proclaiming everyone else to be wrong.

This is what you are doing here. And you can't even do it consistently!!! Go on - Explain how you are a theist if the thing you believe in isn't a god? What definition of "theist" are you applying?

Castles made of sand........


This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by jar, posted 10-07-2012 11:55 AM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 122 by jar, posted 10-07-2012 12:13 PM Straggler has responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 30934
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


(1)
Message 122 of 318 (675175)
10-07-2012 12:13 PM
Reply to: Message 121 by Straggler
10-07-2012 12:00 PM


Re: GOD is NOT a god
I believe in GOD.

I believe in God(s) and god(s) as human constructs; attempts to explain the unexplainable.

I understand that I am but a human and GOD, if GOD exists is as far beyond human understanding as a human is beyond the possible understanding of a worm.

I understand that I am but human and restricted to the natural world, which is why the God(s) and god(s) humans have created are basically versions of what humans have experienced in the Natural World. That's why we have the Greek and Roman gods, very human critters with all the human foibles; the Germanic and Norse gods that live in a stratified universe dominated by warriors, the Hindu pantheon that fight wars with bows and arrows.

If you believe you are a GOD-eater that's fine; you are free to believe anything you want. I have no problem with that unless you expect me to actually agree with your beliefs.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by Straggler, posted 10-07-2012 12:00 PM Straggler has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by Straggler, posted 10-08-2012 7:31 AM jar has responded

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 12033
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 123 of 318 (675199)
10-08-2012 5:49 AM
Reply to: Message 120 by Straggler
10-07-2012 11:55 AM


Re: IF as Objectivity
Straggler writes:

If something is unknowable, imperceptible etc. etc. etc. then where did any idea that it exists come from?

Imagination. Obviously. It cannot, by definition be otherwise can it?

Now by some fluke of blind random chance one may have imagined something that conceivably exists out there. Maybe there is a place out in the universe called Middle Earth full of hobbits and wizards etc. etc.

But I would suggest it unlikely.......Wouldn't you?

We are talking only of a Creator of all seen and unseen. We are not assigning this Creator any character or image beyond this. Granted we are imagining/believing that such a character may exist, and further we are speculating that if such a character exists He/She/It need not be a product of our imagination. This is a simple either/or construct. There is no way to assign it probability.

Probability can only be assigned from a finite set of variables...such as collective human imaginations. I suppose for the sake of this argument, such a concept need not exist for you if you cant imagine it. This, however, does not prove that it only exists in the imagination of one or many.

Edited by Phat, : No reason given.

Edited by Phat, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by Straggler, posted 10-07-2012 11:55 AM Straggler has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 125 by Straggler, posted 10-08-2012 7:52 AM Phat has not yet responded
 Message 151 by onifre, posted 10-10-2012 2:52 AM Phat has acknowledged this reply

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10284
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006
Member Rating: 3.5


(1)
Message 124 of 318 (675201)
10-08-2012 7:31 AM
Reply to: Message 122 by jar
10-07-2012 12:13 PM


Re: GOD is NOT a god
According to my personal definitions I am a theist and a devourer of gods. According to your personal definitions you are a theist who doesn't believe in the actual existence of god(s).

But by any meaningful definition I am not a theist. And by any meaningful definition you are a theist because the thing you believe in quite obviously qualifies as a god.

If you want to be understood and engage in meaningful communication you will use words as others use them.

If you want to ponce around sounding superficially profound whilst proclaiming that everyone who refuses to adopt your private definitions is misunderstanding/misrepresenting you - Then carry on as you are.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by jar, posted 10-07-2012 12:13 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 126 by jar, posted 10-08-2012 9:54 AM Straggler has responded

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10284
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 125 of 318 (675203)
10-08-2012 7:52 AM
Reply to: Message 123 by Phat
10-08-2012 5:49 AM


Re: IF as Objectivity
Phat writes:

We are talking only of a Creator of all seen and unseen. We are not assigning this Creator any character or image beyond this.

Yes you are. It's a conscious being - Right? It's an intelligent being - Right? It's a supernatural being - Right? Furthermore the thing I started discussing with jar is also classed as "unknowable". And we already know this thing is being put forward as the 'creator of all that is seen and unseen'. So we have the conscious, intelligent, supernatural, unknowable creator of all that is seen and unseen.

A god by any other name. Pretty vague as gods go. But still very definitely a god.

Phat writes:

Granted we are imagining/believing that such a character may exist, and further we are speculating that if such a character exists He/She/It need not be a product of our imagination.

If by "It need not be a product of our imagination" you mean it might conceivably actually exist in the same philosophical sense that Immaterial Unicorns and all those other irrefutable conceptions I know you love so much might conceivably exist - Then sure. But so what? That misses the point.

If something is genuinely unknowable, if it cannot be detected - Then any conception anyone has of it is imagined.

This is just a fact isn't it?

Phat writes:

This is a simple either/or construct. There is no way to assign it probability.

Rubbish!!!!

If I tell you that a materially undetectable unicorn is standing next to you is that a simple either/or construct? Or is it likely that I have invented this thing and that it doesn't actually exist (even if in some philosophical sense it might)?

Phat writes:

Probability can only be assigned from a finite set of variables...such as collective human imaginations.

How probable is it that there is an immaterial unicorn standing next to you?

How likely is it that I am making up this entity for purposes of debate?

How likely is it that I think I am making up this entity for purposes of debate whilst the immaterial unicorn standing next to me has a laugh at my expense?

Phat writes:

I suppose for the sake of this argument, such a concept need not exist for you if you cant imagine it.

The fact I can imagine something means that the human ability to imagine things is evidenced. Meanwhile the competing notion that this thing actually exists remains completely unevidenced.

On the simple (yet essentially inarguable) basis that evidenced conclusions are more likely to be correct than unevidenced ones - Voila!!

Phat writes:

This, however, does not prove that it only exists in the imagination of one or many.

What it "proves" is that humans can imagine gods. What remains completely unevidenced is the possibility that gods actually exist.

On the simple (yet essentially inarguable) basis that evidenced conclusions are more likely to be correct than unevidenced ones - Well - You tell me what the conclusion is on that basis.....?

Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by Phat, posted 10-08-2012 5:49 AM Phat has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 30934
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 126 of 318 (675207)
10-08-2012 9:54 AM
Reply to: Message 124 by Straggler
10-08-2012 7:31 AM


Re: GOD is NOT a god
I doubt you can find any indications I ever try to sound profound since most of what I post is really pretty simple.

I try repeatedly and explicitly to adequately explain how I am using the words and continue to try to educate those who seem unable to understand the nuance.

I have never asked anyone to adopt my public definition and have even said that you are free to think that god is a Kit-Kat bar, that God is a Kit-Kat bar or the GOD is a Kit-Kat bar. In the case of the first two you are even correct if that is what you really believe, however in the latter instance there is yet no evidence of whether or not you might be correct.

However, since I have repeatedly explained the nuance and way I am using the terms GOD, God and god, to say that you cannot understand how I use the terms is very telling.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by Straggler, posted 10-08-2012 7:31 AM Straggler has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 127 by Straggler, posted 10-08-2012 11:43 AM jar has responded

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10284
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 127 of 318 (675209)
10-08-2012 11:43 AM
Reply to: Message 126 by jar
10-08-2012 9:54 AM


Re: GOD is NOT a god
Do you want to be understood through common use of terminology so that you can engage in meaningful discussion?

Or do you want to shoehorn your own assumptions into arguments through the conflationary use of your own rather self-serving definitions and then relentlessly insist that you are being misunderstood/misrepresented by others who choose to use terms with their common meanings rather than adopt yours?

jar writes:

I try repeatedly and explicitly to adequately explain how I am using the words and continue to try to educate those who seem unable to understand the nuance.

I understand the nuance. But I am pointing out the contradictions. For example here is a typical definition of the term theist:

quote:
Belief in the existence of a god or gods.

Now you say the thing you believe in is NOT a god. Yet you also claim to be a theist. How can this be? I'll tell you. It is because you are flip-flopping at convenience between common definitions and your own private ones. That isnt nuance. Its conflation.

jar writes:

However, since I have repeatedly explained the nuance and way I am using the terms GOD, God and god, to say that you cannot understand how I use the terms is very telling.

I understand perfectly well how you are using them. You are using them in a way that is inevitably going lead to inconsistencies. Inconsistencies such as the above.

jar writes:

I have never asked anyone to adopt my public definition and have even said that you are free to think that god is a Kit-Kat bar, that God is a Kit-Kat bar or the GOD is a Kit-Kat bar. In the case of the first two you are even correct if that is what you really believe, however in the latter instance there is yet no evidence of whether or not you might be correct.

There you go shoehorning in your own assumptions and definitions again. How is the latter any different to the other two except by your own definition?

Jar Why not just use common definitions to explain your ideas? If, as you keep intimating, inventing your own definitions and repeating them ad-nauseum isnt getting your ideas across Why not try another approach?

Is it because without the implicit assumptions inherent in your definitions your arguments won't hold up?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by jar, posted 10-08-2012 9:54 AM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by jar, posted 10-08-2012 11:55 AM Straggler has responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 30934
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 128 of 318 (675210)
10-08-2012 11:55 AM
Reply to: Message 127 by Straggler
10-08-2012 11:43 AM


Re: GOD is NOT a god
I define and used those terms, GOD, God and god for the exact reason of the nuance.

I don't see anywhere that what I have posted does not stand up, but if you do see such a condition I will be happy to discuss it with you as I always have in the past.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by Straggler, posted 10-08-2012 11:43 AM Straggler has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 129 by Straggler, posted 10-09-2012 7:36 AM jar has responded

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10284
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 129 of 318 (675231)
10-09-2012 7:36 AM
Reply to: Message 128 by jar
10-08-2012 11:55 AM


Re: GOD is NOT a god
You have defined the object of your belief (i.e. GOD) as that which is NOT a human construct.
Yet you also start many of your arguments with the faux-reasonable IF GOD exists..
But if GOD is neither a human construct nor something that existswhat is it?
You have in effect defined the object of your belief (i.e. GOD) as that which exists.
You have defined the object of your belief into existence!!!

This isnt an argument. At worst it is a debate tactic. And at best it is a thinly disguised (although quite possibly self-deceiving) act of confirmation bias

jar writes:

I define and used those terms, GOD, God and god for the exact reason of the nuance.

That the object of your belief is defined into existence is just a happy co-incidence no doubt!!

jar writes:

I define and used those terms, GOD, God and god for the exact reason of the nuance.

You say your ideas a simple and not particularly profound. Yet, for all its famed subtlety, variety and nuance, you apparently find it impossible to express these simple thoughts using the English language as is. Instead you feel the need to invent your own words and definitions. Furthermore you feel the need to not only invent meanings but to commandeer already existing terms and redefine them in contradictory ways.

jar writes:

I don't see anywhere that what I have posted does not stand up....

  • As a theist which god(s) do you believe exist?
  • Do you accept the possibility that GOD does not exist?
  • Do you accept that if GOD does not exist then GOD is a human construct?

    jar writes:

    ...., but if you do see such a condition I will be happy to discuss it with you as I always have in the past.

    Have you? Well let's see. Because in the past challenging your definitions and assumptions usually results in you simply repeating yourself in ever more trite ways culminating in pointless responses such as "I can't help you" and "It really is that simple".


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 128 by jar, posted 10-08-2012 11:55 AM jar has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 130 by Phat, posted 10-09-2012 7:59 AM Straggler has responded
     Message 132 by jar, posted 10-09-2012 10:31 AM Straggler has responded

      
  • Phat
    Member
    Posts: 12033
    From: Denver,Colorado USA
    Joined: 12-30-2003
    Member Rating: 1.4


    Message 130 of 318 (675234)
    10-09-2012 7:59 AM
    Reply to: Message 129 by Straggler
    10-09-2012 7:36 AM


    Re: GOD is NOT a god
    Straggler,replying to jar writes:

    You have defined the object of your belief (i.e. GOD) as that which is NOT a human construct.
    Yet you also start many of your arguments with the faux-reasonable IF GOD exists..
    But if GOD is neither a human construct nor something that existswhat is it?

    This is where the answer depends solely on your individual belief. If GOD does not exist, there is no human construct, same as if He/She/It does exist. By definition, GOD has no definition apart from an eternally living entity, presumed intelligent beyond human capability at definition.

    Straggler writes:


  • As a theist which god(s) do you believe exist?
  • One will suffice, in my belief.
  • Do you accept the possibility that GOD does not exist?
  • Assuming that possibility by definition includes all answers, then yes. Again, I assign nor see no evidence for a numerical probability, however. (apart from 50/50)
  • Do you accept that if GOD does not exist then GOD is a human construct?
  • See above.(If GOD does not exist, there is no human construct, same as if He/She/It does exist. By definition, GOD has no definition apart from an eternally living entity, presumed intelligent beyond human capability at definition.
    )
    This message is a reply to:
     Message 129 by Straggler, posted 10-09-2012 7:36 AM Straggler has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 131 by Straggler, posted 10-09-2012 9:35 AM Phat has responded

      
    Straggler
    Member
    Posts: 10284
    From: London England
    Joined: 09-30-2006
    Member Rating: 3.5


    Message 131 of 318 (675236)
    10-09-2012 9:35 AM
    Reply to: Message 130 by Phat
    10-09-2012 7:59 AM


    Re: GOD is NOT a god
    Phat writes:

    Assuming that possibility by definition includes all answers, then yes. Again, I assign nor see no evidence for a numerical probability, however. (apart from 50/50)

    Where are you getting 50/50 from?

    Phat writes:

    By definition, GOD has no definition apart from an eternally living entity, presumed intelligent beyond human capability at definition.

    Being vaguely or ambiguously defined isn't the same as being undefined. A supernatural intelligent creator IS a definition.

    Phat writes:

    If GOD does not exist, there is no human construct, same as if He/She/It does exist.

    Of course there is a human construct!! How can anyone claim to believe in something if they have absolutely no conception of what it is they believe in?

    The very idea of a conceptless concept is absurd!!!!!


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 130 by Phat, posted 10-09-2012 7:59 AM Phat has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 150 by Phat, posted 10-09-2012 7:58 PM Straggler has responded

      
    jar
    Member
    Posts: 30934
    From: Texas!!
    Joined: 04-20-2004


    Message 132 of 318 (675240)
    10-09-2012 10:31 AM
    Reply to: Message 129 by Straggler
    10-09-2012 7:36 AM


    Re: GOD is NOT a god
    It is funny but I have answered all those very same questions for you many times, but I will gladly repeat the answers yet again if that is what you want.

    Straggler writes:

    As a theist which god(s) do you believe exist?

    I think it is very unlikely any god(s) exist except as a human construct.

    Straggler writes:

    Do you accept the possibility that GOD does not exist?

    Of course I accept that and have repeatedly pointed that out.

    Straggler writes:

    Do you accept that if GOD does not exist then GOD is a human construct?

    Of course.


    Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 129 by Straggler, posted 10-09-2012 7:36 AM Straggler has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 133 by Straggler, posted 10-09-2012 12:35 PM jar has responded

      
    Straggler
    Member
    Posts: 10284
    From: London England
    Joined: 09-30-2006
    Member Rating: 3.5


    Message 133 of 318 (675247)
    10-09-2012 12:35 PM
    Reply to: Message 132 by jar
    10-09-2012 10:31 AM


    Re: GOD is NOT a god
    jar writes:

    I think it is very unlikely any god(s) exist except as a human construct.

    What makes it any more likely that GOD exists as anything other than a human construct?


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 132 by jar, posted 10-09-2012 10:31 AM jar has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 134 by jar, posted 10-09-2012 12:39 PM Straggler has responded

      
    jar
    Member
    Posts: 30934
    From: Texas!!
    Joined: 04-20-2004


    Message 134 of 318 (675249)
    10-09-2012 12:39 PM
    Reply to: Message 133 by Straggler
    10-09-2012 12:35 PM


    Re: GOD is NOT a god
    And I have also answered that repeatedly but I'm willing to repeat it yet again for you.

    That GOD exists and is the Creator of all that is, seen and unseen is a personal belief.

    But neither my belief nor your unbelief has anything to do with the reality of whether or not GOD exists.


    Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 133 by Straggler, posted 10-09-2012 12:35 PM Straggler has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 135 by Straggler, posted 10-09-2012 12:50 PM jar has responded

      
    Straggler
    Member
    Posts: 10284
    From: London England
    Joined: 09-30-2006
    Member Rating: 3.5


    Message 135 of 318 (675252)
    10-09-2012 12:50 PM
    Reply to: Message 134 by jar
    10-09-2012 12:39 PM


    Re: GOD is NOT a god
    I didn't ask you what you believe. I asked you what was likely. They are not the same thing.

    I have faith that England will win the world cup every four years. I believe. But I still consider it unlikely.....

    Because (as you are so find of pointing out) beliefs aren't necessarily rational or evidence based.

    jar writes:

    I think it is very unlikely any god(s) exist except as a human construct.

    With the above distinction in mind - Here is the question again - Is it likely that GOD exists as anything other than a human construct?

    jar writes:

    And I have also answered that repeatedly but I'm willing to repeat it yet again for you.

    You haven't answered the question of likelihood.

    jar writes:

    That GOD exists and is the Creator of all that is, seen and unseen is a personal belief.

    Sure. You have faith. But what is likely?

    jar writes:

    But neither my belief nor your unbelief has anything to do with the reality of whether or not GOD exists.

    If something exists it exists. This applies to god, God, GOD, Kit-Kats, KIT-KATS, Bilbo Baggins, BILBO BAGGINS....and so on and so forth. Whether in upper or lower case.

    You can stop repeating this little tautology of yours because it really doesn't add anything.


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 134 by jar, posted 10-09-2012 12:39 PM jar has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 136 by jar, posted 10-09-2012 12:52 PM Straggler has responded

      
    Prev1
    ...
    78
    9
    1011
    ...
    22NextFF
    Newer Topic | Older Topic
    Jump to:


    Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

    ™ Version 4.0 Beta
    Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019