|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Can You define God? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 92 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
I'm not sure why you still think putting it in capitals makes the existence of the supernatural-creator-being (AKA god) you believe in any more likely to exist than any other conceivable yet "unknowable" entity.....
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 92 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Phat writes: GOD either exists or does NOT exist. This is tautologically true of anything. Why you and jar keep repeating it about GOD baffles me. I either exist or I don't. You either exist or you don't. Brad Pitt either exists or he doesn't. JINKY the giant purple ethereal squirrel eiether exists or he doesn't. So what? What is the point you are making with this pointlessly recited tautology? Are you suggesting that if something either exists or it doesn't then there is a 50-50 chance either way? If so - That is just bonkers!!!!
Phat writes: Where are you getting "likely" from? The evidence pertaining to the human ability and proclivity to invent such things as compared to the evidence that such things are even a possibility beyond philosophical conjecture. The simple (yet essentially inarguable) basis that evidenced conclusions are more likely to be correct than un-evidenced ones.
Straggler writes: A supernatural intelligent creator IS a definition. Phat writes: Yes, but that is about as far as we can go. Do we need to go any further than that? Phat there is no much fabled "absence of evidence" here. All human claims are made in the context of human history, psychology and culture. And no claim of any supernatural-creator-superbeing has ever been correct yet. Simply retreating into vaguety isn't an answer to this failed hypothesis except for those who just can't let go. Indeed we know there are many reasons why humans are deeply inclined towards such erroneaous explanations and notions.
Straggler writes: 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!!!!! Phat writes: Are you suggesting that an idea without evidence or concept is absurd? Can you explain to me what an idea without concept even means? Because you seem to be claiming to believe in something without having any concept of what it is you believe in. And that is absurd.
Phat writes: ...but why do you have problems believing in a power greater than the capability of the human mind to define? I don't have a problem with that. I have a problem with people denying that this is a concept..... Edited by Straggler, : No reason given. Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 92 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined:
|
jar writes: I'm not at all sure what "supernatural" is.. Then let me enlighten you with yet another common definition:
quote: jar writes: But GOD, if GOD exists is completely beyond anything we find in the Natural World. Which would make him supernatural. It generally is one of the qualifications for being a god.
jar writes: And remember, I do distinguish between GOD, God and god. I am well acquainted with the fact that you impose your personal beliefs on discussions in the form of self-serving definitions - Yes
jar writes: I see no reason to think you might not be a god. Well my lack of supernatural abilities would seem to be a rather fatal flaw in my quest for godly status.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 92 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
jar writes: Your lack of supernatural powers (whatever they are) would preclude you from being GOD but not God or god. Can you give me an example of a god or a God that isn't supernatural or doesn't have supernatural abilities? (Note - As usual one is forced to adopt your terminology and thus implicitly your assumptions when discussing these things with you. But there remains absolutely nothing to distinguish the supernatural creator -aka GOD - you happen to believe in from any of the other such beings you have described as "unlikely" except for some capital letters and your own personal inclinations dressed up as definitions)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 92 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
jar writes: GOD, if GOD exists, really is different than being natural. How do you know this? Or are you just stating a personal belief dressed up as a definition again?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 92 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined:
|
Phat writes: When it comes to subjective beliefs, there is no absolute right or wrong involved. The question of whether something exists or not is not the same as asking whether one prefers red to blue. So what subjective belief are we talking about here? And the question of defining the term god (or GOD or squirrel or paperclip or electron or whatever) isn't just a subjective free-for-all either. The entire point of definitions is to be objective. Unless a definition leads to common conceptual use of terminology there is absolutely no point to it.
Phat writes: The criteria is not 100% empirical. I'm not sure what being "100% empirical" has to do with defining things or the absurd idea that one can believe in the existence of something without having any notion of what it is one believes in the existence of!!! But the thing is you do believe in something. The concept you have described is that of an unknowable-unimaginable-supernatural-hyperintelligent-creator-being. It's vague. But it is sufficiently defined to be subjected to critical consideration. And critical consideration leads inexorably to us asking why this "thing" is worthy of any more credence or consideration than any other "unknowable" entity I could put forward. A question to which I have yet to see an answer......
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 92 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Straggler writes: Can you give me an example of a god or a God that isn't supernatural or doesn't have supernatural abilities? jar writes: All of the Gods or gods. I am bewildered as to how Thor or Zeus or Yahweh, as commonly described, can be considered anything other than supernatural beings. Can you explain how they are not?
jar writes: GOD, if GOD exists would really be supernatural, not because you or I believe or assert or claim that it is supernatural but rather because it IS supernatural. How do you know that GOD "IS supernatural" except by means of some human constructed definitions pertaining to necessarily imagined notions such as 'existing outside of nature'....?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 92 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined:
|
jar writes: Thor and Zeus and Yahweh are human constructs, caricatures, attempts to explain the (at the time) unexplainable. This doesn't preclude them from being supernatural beings though does it?
Straggler writes: Can you give me an example of a god or a God that isn't supernatural or doesn't have supernatural abilities? jar writes: All of the Gods or gods. You still haven't explained how Thor or Zeus or Yahweh, as commonly described, can be considered anything other than supernatural beings.
jar writes: The answer is the difference between actually being the thing and simply being asserted to be the thing; Since when does does being supernatural correspond to being an actuality? It is perfectly possible to be both supernatural and fictional. E.g. Voldermort.
jar writes: .the difference between the map and the territory. It isn't possible to even a attempt a map of a territory that is defined as "unknowable"......
jar writes: All the Gods and gods are just that, human attempts to explain the unexplainable. And this GOD you speak of is no different. The unexplained observable phenomenon in question is human belief in the existence of gods. And your proposed answer to this phenomenon is that there really is something (which you are calling GOD) which is the source of these beliefs. Yours is just the ultimate god of the ultimate gap. The gap that is the concept of god itself.
jar writes: But GOD, if GOD exists, would be the reality. You can’t legitimately just define the object of your belief into existence jar. Yours is just a god of the gaps with knobs on. However else you seek to define it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 92 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Do you agree that Voldermort is a fictional supernatural being?
jar writes: As I have said, I see no way to determine if something IS supernatural as long as I am simply a living human. I am open to suggestions though. Well by looking at the entity/concept in question and comparing it's attributes to the definition of supernatural.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 92 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
The clue is in the definition of supernatural. I suggest you look it up. But in case you can't for some reason I'll lend you a hand:
quote: Do you now understand why Voldermort qualifies as supernatural but Miss Marple (for example) doesn't? Both are fictional but only one is supernatural. If you disagree could you reveal what definition of supernatural it is you are applying here?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 92 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined:
|
Phat writes: Why not? Well he can in the sense that nobody can stop him doing it. But if he wants to actually communicate with other people they have to know what the hell he is talking about. And given that the thing he believes in is apparently "unknowable" it is debatable (to say the least) that he knows what he is talking about himself, never mind when he is expressing these thoughts to anyone else. In truth I am rapidly beginning to think that jar has created such a tangled web of inter-dependent personal definitions that coherent conversation with him is nothing but superficially possible. A Christian who thinks the Christian god is a fabrication. A theist who believes in a supernatural entity that isn't a god. Definitions of of god, God and GOD that are nothing other than personal beliefs and assumptions imposed in the form of something else. A use of the term "supernatural" that apparently only applies to this GOD that really exists as opposed to those other non-supernatural gods.....etc. The guy is practically talking in tongues whilst approximating English closely enough to make superficial sense.
Phat writes: He only asserts possible existence, anyway. He defines his genuinely supernatural GOD as that which is real rather than being one of those other made-up-non-supernatural-gods. But why is this concept worthy of any more merit, consideration or credence than any "unknowable" entity I can conceive of and put forward as real? Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 92 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
jar writes: Yes, we can assert that something is supernatural but what does that have to do with whether or not the thing is supernatural? Says the man who asserts that the object of his own belief "IS supernatural...."
jar writes: GOD, if GOD exists would really be supernatural, not because you or I believe or assert or claim that it is supernatural but rather because it IS supernatural. In what sense is your conclusion here anything other than an assertion?
jar writes: I have never said that humans can't make stuff up. The obvious conclusion here is that this is exactly what you are doing. You are making up god(s). Then you are making up definitions to distinguish the object of your belief from all those other false-gods.
Straggler writes: The clue is in the definition of supernatural. jar writes: The clue is also pretty worthless. How can the definition of supernatural be worthless in assessing whether something (e.g. the fictional entity Voldermort) qualifies as supernatural? What definition of supernatural are you applying such that GOD does qualify but Thor, Zeus and Voldermort don't? Is this yet another case of you taking a commonly defined term and redefining it for your own purposes? Dude you need to create your own dictionary of personal terminology.....
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 92 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Straggler writes: But why is this concept worthy of any more merit, consideration or credence than any "unknowable" entity I can conceive of and put forward as real? jar writes: But I have never suggested that I think you should consider my posts as "worthy of any more merit, consideration or credence than any "unknowable" entity I can conceive of and put forward as real". If you agree that there is no reasoned argument to give this GOD concept any more merit, consideration or credence than any other "unknowable" entity I can conceive of and that your only reason for doing so is your own personal irrational belief - Why are you arguing with me?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 92 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined:
|
Shock news!!!!
Theist concludes ALL other gods are false interpretations of the one true god he believes in!!!!! How unoriginal.....
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 92 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Sure. It's the map territory thing.
jar writes: While GOD is the actuality, the reality (assuming that I am right and GOD does exist), God is a human creation, an attempt by humans to put into words their beliefs about GOD. So we have - GOD is the reality. All those other gods/Gods are just flawed interpretations of GOD.
jar writes: I have told you repeatedly that I believe GOD is the creator of all that is, seen or unseen. So the object of your belief is the one true GOD. Not one of those other-human-construct-gods. Yours is the real deal. The truth upon which those other flawed interpretations are based. In short - All those other gods are false interpretations of the one true god, sorry I mean GOD, that you believe in..... Like I said - It's depressingly unoriginal of you.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024