Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 88 (8890 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 02-17-2019 4:34 PM
145 online now:
Coragyps, PaulK, Phat (AdminPhat), RAZD, Theodoric (5 members, 140 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 847,607 Year: 2,644/19,786 Month: 726/1,918 Week: 13/301 Day: 13/38 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1415
16
1718
...
22Next
Author Topic:   Can You define God?
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10284
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006
Member Rating: 3.5


(1)
Message 226 of 318 (675569)
10-12-2012 12:21 PM
Reply to: Message 224 by Phat
10-12-2012 12:17 PM


Re: The Ultimate God of The Ultimate Gap
Pretty much. But it also boils down to saying "You don't know what you're talking about when you talk about 'God either"

In essence you can't believe-in, communicate about or indeed have any coherent thoughts regarding a non-concept.

It's like asking: Do you believe in X?

Where X is something. Or not. Maybe.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 224 by Phat, posted 10-12-2012 12:17 PM Phat has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 227 by Phat, posted 10-12-2012 12:25 PM Straggler has responded
 Message 232 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-12-2012 1:01 PM Straggler has responded

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


Message 227 of 318 (675570)
10-12-2012 12:25 PM
Reply to: Message 226 by Straggler
10-12-2012 12:21 PM


Re: The Ultimate God of The Ultimate Gap
in essence you can't believe-in, communicate about or indeed have any coherent thoughts regarding a non-concept.

It's like asking: Do you believe in X?

Where X is something. Or not. Maybe.

So if we said that X, if X exists...we would then have to turn X into something before we could discuss it, right?

Thats what I think is the distinction between GOD and God, according to jar. Or maybe he can correct me....


This message is a reply to:
 Message 226 by Straggler, posted 10-12-2012 12:21 PM Straggler has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 229 by Straggler, posted 10-12-2012 12:34 PM Phat has responded

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


Message 228 of 318 (675571)
10-12-2012 12:30 PM
Reply to: Message 219 by jar
10-12-2012 11:58 AM


Re: HOLD THE PRESS
jar writes:

You are of course free to believe that

I believe that because that is what you told me.

jar writes:

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

So you are inventing terminology to express the "nuance" of beliefs which you describe as "unreasonable, illogical and irrational".

It really shouldn't therefore come as any surprise that these definitions result in the incoherent web of tangled thought we have seen from you in this thread.

Given the basis of these definitions it is practically inevitable.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 219 by jar, posted 10-12-2012 11:58 AM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 230 by jar, posted 10-12-2012 12:37 PM Straggler has responded

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


Message 229 of 318 (675572)
10-12-2012 12:34 PM
Reply to: Message 227 by Phat
10-12-2012 12:25 PM


Re: The Ultimate God of The Ultimate Gap
If GOD is X why are you giving it the name G-O-D and talking about it in a thread that relates to defining the term "God".

A genuine X, a genuine absolute unknown, would have no more association with gods than with hobbits.

How about instead of GOD you use the term HOBBIT to refer to the object of your belief? Why not? If it really is as undefined as you seem to be suggesting....?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 227 by Phat, posted 10-12-2012 12:25 PM Phat has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 231 by Phat, posted 10-12-2012 12:37 PM Straggler has responded

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


Message 230 of 318 (675573)
10-12-2012 12:37 PM
Reply to: Message 228 by Straggler
10-12-2012 12:30 PM


Re: HOLD THE PRESS
Again, in the very message you quote I pointed out that "But as I pointed out above, it is only the belief that GOD does exist that I find unreasonable, illogical and irrational, the rest is reasoned I think."

The nuance is a conclusion based on reason, logic and rationality.


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 228 by Straggler, posted 10-12-2012 12:30 PM Straggler has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 235 by Straggler, posted 10-13-2012 7:14 AM jar has responded

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


(1)
Message 231 of 318 (675574)
10-12-2012 12:37 PM
Reply to: Message 229 by Straggler
10-12-2012 12:34 PM


Re: The Ultimate God of The Ultimate Gap
Straggler writes:

If GOD is X why are you giving it the name G-O-D and talking about it in a thread that relates to defining the term "God".

A genuine X, a genuine absolute unknown, would have no more association with gods than with hobbits.

How about instead of GOD you use the term HOBBIT to refer to the object of your belief? Why not? If it really is as undefined as you seem to be suggesting....?

Well..I don't like the term Hobbit, since Hobbit has been somewhat culturally defined.

Although I suppose that even by giving it the term X I brought the concept into human conceptualization. My point is that the concept/belief itself is by definition beyond,above, or outside of human conceptualization. In which case you might argue that there is no point discussing it. And yet we are.....


This message is a reply to:
 Message 229 by Straggler, posted 10-12-2012 12:34 PM Straggler has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 237 by Straggler, posted 10-13-2012 7:24 AM Phat has not yet responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 232 of 318 (675577)
10-12-2012 1:01 PM
Reply to: Message 226 by Straggler
10-12-2012 12:21 PM


Re: The Ultimate God of The Ultimate Gap
In essence you can't believe-in, communicate about or indeed have any coherent thoughts regarding a non-concept.

It's like asking: Do you believe in X?

Holy shit you just said that you can't believe in cheese!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 226 by Straggler, posted 10-12-2012 12:21 PM Straggler has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 236 by Straggler, posted 10-13-2012 7:16 AM New Cat's Eye has acknowledged this reply

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


Message 233 of 318 (675599)
10-12-2012 5:33 PM
Reply to: Message 225 by Straggler
10-12-2012 12:19 PM


Re: Nuances
ok, lets discuss the terms so far.

lets see...we have
GOD
God
god
and I added
X=GOD
and then which ones did you have?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 225 by Straggler, posted 10-12-2012 12:19 PM Straggler has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 238 by Straggler, posted 10-13-2012 7:26 AM Phat has responded

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 234 of 318 (675606)
10-13-2012 12:25 AM


Aww, shit.

Y'all just makin' it up as ya go.

Who ya think yer foolin'?

Don't let that pantie wedgie ruin your dinner.


Love your enemies!

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


Message 235 of 318 (675611)
10-13-2012 7:14 AM
Reply to: Message 230 by jar
10-12-2012 12:37 PM


Re: HOLD THE PRESS
jar writes:

The nuance is a conclusion based on reason, logic and rationality.

Dude - That is what they all say!!

But a term without definition is a term without meaning. Literally meaningless.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 230 by jar, posted 10-12-2012 12:37 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 240 by jar, posted 10-13-2012 10:23 AM Straggler has responded

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


(3)
Message 236 of 318 (675612)
10-13-2012 7:16 AM
Reply to: Message 232 by New Cat's Eye
10-12-2012 1:01 PM


Re: The Ultimate God of The Ultimate Gap
I don't see how concept X, defined as unknowable in this thread, could possibly be cheese.

Cheese, as I understand the term, is a rather well defined concept and my views on the existence of cheese are thus rather clear.

However if you wish to further confront your own ontological battle with cheese, to discuss further your previously proclaimed agnosticism towards the existence of cheese, I suggest you start a new thread.

A thread called "Does cheese exist?" I look forward to it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 232 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-12-2012 1:01 PM New Cat's Eye has acknowledged this reply

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


Message 237 of 318 (675613)
10-13-2012 7:24 AM
Reply to: Message 231 by Phat
10-12-2012 12:37 PM


Re: The Ultimate God of The Ultimate Gap
Phat writes:

Well..I don't like the term Hobbit, since Hobbit has been somewhat culturally defined.

But the term "god" hasn't? Do you not see the double standard at play here?

If this thing you are talking about literally has no conceptual meaning why use a word to describe it which very much does have meaning?

quote:
1. God
a. A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions.
b. The force, effect, or a manifestation or aspect of this being.
2. A being of supernatural powers or attributes, believed in and worshiped by a people, especially a male deity thought to control some part of nature or reality.

Why not call this thing you speak of "X" or even (radical suggestion) "unknown"....?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 231 by Phat, posted 10-12-2012 12:37 PM Phat has not yet responded

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


(1)
Message 238 of 318 (675614)
10-13-2012 7:26 AM
Reply to: Message 233 by Phat
10-12-2012 5:33 PM


Why not use the term "unknown" to refer to unknowns?
Well my radical suggestion here is to use the term "unknowns" to refer to things which are unknown. Then I think a meaningful conversation could be had and that it would go something like the following:

Phat: Do you believe in the existence of unknowns?
Straggler: Yes. It would be arrogant, foolish and unrealistic of us to claim to know everything.
Phat: Do you believe in the existence of unknowables?
Straggler: I think it very possible that there are things which the human mind is unable to comprehend
Phat: Do you believe in the existence of unknowables which can be meaningfully described as gods?
Straggler: Once you start imbuing unknown things with attributes such as being a supernatural creative conscious intelligence that can only be known after death you are unjustifiably imposing your own anthropomorphic wishful thinking into the mix. There is absolutely no reason to think any unknowns will possess these attributes and every reason to think you are simply inventing things in order to fulfil your own very human needs. So in short - No

That would be the basis for a sensible conversation. But this insane idea that we can discuss something when neither one of us has the first clue what it is because it is literally anything we can or probably cannot conceive of - Is just absurd.

Edited by Straggler, : Spellin innit.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 233 by Phat, posted 10-12-2012 5:33 PM Phat has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 239 by Phat, posted 10-13-2012 7:42 AM Straggler has responded

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


Message 239 of 318 (675615)
10-13-2012 7:42 AM
Reply to: Message 238 by Straggler
10-13-2012 7:26 AM


Re: Why not use the term "unknown" to refer to unknowns?
In that case I agree. On a personal level, I still prefer the terminology, GOD or in my case, Father...but X will do or even "unknown" or unknowable if we are jointly discussing such a concept.

Straggler writes:

Once you start imbuing unknown things with attributes such as being a supernatural creative conscious intelligence that can only be known after death you are unjustifiably imposing your own anthropomorphic wishful thinking into the mix.

Why is this unjustifiable? And as faqr as stirring "thinking" into the mix, what else can possibly be stirred into this "mix" to which you refer?

There is absolutely no reason to think any unknowns will possess these attributes and every reason to think you are simply inventing things in order to fulfill your own very human needs.
Not a chance? No IFs ? In Rahvins POTM post (nominated by you) in which he said to me
quote:
I pointed out that you are "communing" only within your own head, and you responded effectively that it can be good to let people talk to imaginary friends.
He basically says the same thing that you just said. So lets delve further.
Wiki writes:

Different conclusions as to the existence of God often rest on different criteria for deciding what methods are appropriate for deciding if something is true or not, including

whether logic counts as evidence concerning the quality of existence
whether subjective experience counts as evidence for objective reality
whether either logic or evidence can rule in or out the supernatural
whether an object of the mind is accepted for existence
whether a truthbearer can justify.

Edited by Phat, : sharpened argument


This message is a reply to:
 Message 238 by Straggler, posted 10-13-2012 7:26 AM Straggler has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 243 by Straggler, posted 10-15-2012 8:41 AM Phat has acknowledged this reply

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


Message 240 of 318 (675619)
10-13-2012 10:23 AM
Reply to: Message 235 by Straggler
10-13-2012 7:14 AM


Re: HOLD THE PRESS
Again, quote mining seldom has value.

The full post that you quote mined was:

quote:
Again, in the very message you quote I pointed out that "But as I pointed out above, it is only the belief that GOD does exist that I find unreasonable, illogical and irrational, the rest is reasoned I think."

The nuance is a conclusion based on reason, logic and rationality.


First, you have been complaining that only I have been defining GOD, God and god as separate concepts so I really doubt that is what they all say and I doubt that even the majority of theists admit that their belief in GOD or God or god is illogical, unreasonable and irrational so I'm somewhat confused by you claiming that the quote above is what they all say.

But defining things is often difficult as the robotics folk have found. Even human have a hard time with many concepts, some simply can't be defined in words at all and so mathematics are used as a better approximation.

But in an attempt to help you understand I have provided definitions of the three terms I use, of GOD, God(s) and god(s) and I will repeat it yet again to see if it helps you.

The Nuance is one of detail, our definition of god(s) has the highest level of detail. For example the god found in the Genesis 2&3 stories is very human, makes mud figures, is sometimes unsure, sometimes fearful, works by trial and error but also very compassionate and approachable. The god found in Genesis 1 on the other hand is never unsure, creates by an act of will alone but apart from the creation, aloof and distant.

The next level, that of God(s) is less well defined, for example the Christian God could be said to be an amalgam of all the various god(s) found in the Old Testament with the addition of the attributes of the Jesus character and something referred to as the Holy Spirit.

But the actual thing, the GOD, if GOD exists is unlikely to be anything like any of the descriptions humans have invented. It is unlikely to be human centric or Christian centric or Buddhist centric or Hindu centric or like anything we really imagine. We are limited by being human, by being animals existing on this world in these societies and cultures. We create caricatures based on what we can experience.

As long as we are but human, I doubt we will be able to do a much better job of defining GOD beyond stating that GOD is most likely unlike any of the God(s) or god(s) we've defined.


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 235 by Straggler, posted 10-13-2012 7:14 AM Straggler has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 241 by Phat, posted 10-13-2012 2:50 PM jar has acknowledged this reply
 Message 244 by Straggler, posted 10-15-2012 8:46 AM jar has responded

  
RewPrev1
...
1415
16
1718
...
22Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019