Concept of God arising in multiple, different cultures

[Balerion]

Clearly then you understand now that God is the one you should turn to for explanations.

I do. That's why I actually read the scriptures, wynn, something you've never done. This is why the contradictory scriptures necessarily necessarily invalidate one or both.

 

[Balerion]

How you imagine scripture to be an imagination is a separate argument of yours.

At the moment you are trying to make clear how the appearance of multiple POV's to a topic (whether it be religion or medicine) somehow magically renders all POV's incorrect,/some POV's incorrect ... or something like that

Because those "POVs" all belong to an alleged God, purporting itself to be unassailable truth, and many are contradictory. Objective truths cannot contradict each other.

It's pretty simple. It's the fact that these texts claim to be the word of God that raises this problem.

If someone was playing the numerous different approaches to treating headaches (by medicine) as somehow magically contradictory or irrevocably incompatible or whatever I thought it would be pretty clear where it came from

No idea what you're going on about, but there's nothing "magically" contradictory and irreconcilable about various faiths and scriptures. They are just contradictory and irreconcilable.

as I said, take comprehension of the goal out of the picture and you could talk about the contradictory truths of practically anything one cares to mention

It still doesn't make any sense, or seem to fit whatsoever into the topic.

as I said, that shouldn't be a problem then

It isn't, for me. It's a problem for you, since you believe at least one of these scriptures to be true.

hence my suspicion you have never come within 10ft of them ....

Not having any use for it doesn't mean I haven't read any of them. I'm familiar with the work of plenty of apologists.

However, it is ironic that you're trying to invalidate my argument through the false claim that I've never read any apologetics when you repeatedly say you don't need to read Dawkins et al to have an understanding of their arguments.

henological discourse tends to suggest otherwise

Of course it does. A bunch of people who want something to be true can doubtless find a way to make it be so. Those 9/11 Truthers have built themselves quite a little unreality, too.

so many remedies for headaches and all of them telling us they are true - can only mean they are all wrong, huh?

Apples and oranges. Rubbing one's temples isn't contradictory to the principles of aspirin.

 

[elte]

deleted

 

[wynn]

Of course it is! It's just state-sanctioned because it serves their best interests.

Right. The thieving part is rewarded, banging hot women like 007 is a reward of its own.

Right, but that wasn't the point you raised. You said thieving is always punished, it's just to varying degrees. You used this as an example of objective morality. The example of the spy shows that not all theft is punished, and it is in fact rewarded in certain circumstances.

Obviously, but that wasn't the point.

You're just being daft.

You're working out of an equivocation, decontextualizing.
E.g. From the Russian perspective, what a Russian spy does is a matter of homeland security, and is not considered theft. From the American perspective, what the Russian spy does is theft. If the spy works well, the Russians award him. If the Americans get him, they punish him.
From the American perspective, what an American spy does is a matter of homeland security, and is not considered theft. From the Russian perspective, what the American spy does is theft. If the spy works well, the Americans award him. If the Russians get him, they punish him.

Those who perceive something as theft, punish it or at least believe it should be punished somehow.
That is the principle.

I don't think that's true at all, particularly in the case of religious morals. Things like homosexuality and eating pork are considered immoral, and neither of those injunctions serve any practical purpose.

Of course they do. They give people directions on what to eat, and whom to associate with or not.

Anyway, the point was to demonstrate that even if everyone agreed that thievery was awesome and fun, in order to maintain a civil society, it needs to be outlawed.

As has been done.

That's not an answer. It doesn't explain why Hinduism and Islam--which co-exist in both region and era--have contradictory claims of sanctity.

Hinduism and Islam are two different cultures, even as Hindus and Muslims are living in the same neighborhood.

Again, that's like saying these cultures have shelter in common. The injunctions aren't to keep something sacred, they are to keep something specific sacred.

You're right, it's a pipe dream to think you're either willing to or capable of retaining anything you read here. But we try!

Actually, it seems to me that what you want is that I would be as upset, as outraged about some things as you are.

Again, this is something you wouldn't say if you'd read the bible.

I've given you an example of a fundamentalist decontextualizing a scriptural claim.

 

[wynn]

I do. That's why I actually read the scriptures, wynn, something you've never done.

So you actually believe that scriptures are the Word of God?

This is why the contradictory scriptures necessarily necessarily invalidate one or both.

Only in the mind of a fundie.

 

[Balerion]

You're just being daft.

You're working out of an equivocation, decontextualizing.
E.g. From the Russian perspective, what a Russian spy does is a matter of homeland security, and is not considered theft. From the American perspective, what the Russian spy does is theft. If the spy works well, the Russians award him. If the Americans get him, they punish him.
From the American perspective, what an American spy does is a matter of homeland security, and is not considered theft. From the Russian perspective, what the American spy does is theft. If the spy works well, the Americans award him. If the Russians get him, they punish him.

Those who perceive something as theft, punish it or at least believe it should be punished somehow.
That is the principle.

No, you're trying to change the definition of it to suit your argument. A spy steals information. It's theft, it's just that under the circumstances the thief is sponsored by the state and actually rewarded for his efforts. That's a fact, you can't say it's something else just because it destroys your argument.

Try to be honest for once in your life. Please.

Of course they do. They give people directions on what to eat, and whom to associate with or not.

Non-sequitur much?

What practical purpose do these directions serve, wynn?

As has been done.

Yeah, I know. Are you really this lost?

Hinduism and Islam are two different cultures, even as Hindus and Muslims are living in the same neighborhood.

You're still not explaining why these two cultures have contradictory claims.

Actually, it seems to me that what you want is that I would be as upset, as outraged about some things as you are.

No, I want you to be as versed in some things as I am. I'd like you to have read one of these texts you have endless opinions on. It would make things easier if you actually knew what you were talking about.

I've given you an example of a fundamentalist decontextualizing a scriptural claim.

No you haven't. Jesus does say that he's the one and only way. He does not say he's the only way for certain Jews, and he claims that his kingdom will rule the world. Though it's a local myth at heart, it makes universal claims. Again, (sigh) this is something I wouldn't have to explain to you if you'd crack open a bible once or twice.

 

[elte]

well for start, it might mean that you are fielding a take on reality totally divorced from philosophical discourse (at worst) or simply airing your beliefs about how one paradigm is better than another (at best)

There are various philosophies, it's no surprise that yours and mine don't match very closely. If yours happens to be more popular, and that is arguable, that doesn't mean yours is better.

Needless to say, lexicographers have different ideas about what words ought to mean .. and the fact that life is short and that survival has been frustrated in 100% of all cases since time immemorial is but one symptom of this ignorance

But don't you mean it in the derogatory way? Everyone has always died like that and do you mean that you know how not to?

once again, it appears that you just saw the phrase "figure of speech" and though "this doesn't have anything to do with science"

A metanym is kinda like a euphemism. Neither can change the the nature of the thing being referred to.

JamesR though the same thing and I am in the middle of discussing why this is a hasty conclusion

Let's try to focus on just our discourse right now, if I may ask. I still think the metanym is not very different from a euphemism and the thing being referred doesn't get changed through the use of the figure of speech.

with no real solution ...

That doesn't mean we shouldn't do things to help it.

lol
obviously

Getting near the edge of polite discourse there, and I appreciate how you have been trying to use some care.

I recently saw that there was an article on how to rattle the other party in an argument. The very idea the article proposed is dishonest. Ideas should stand on their own without badgering.

Can you think of a single pedagogical model that doesn't incorporate some sort of negative experience?
Or even better, can you imagine the negative consequences that would accrue if a person went through such a pedagogical model?

IOW to say that we will only accept a god that does what I want to do is a good introduction to the topic of why we have to accept so much other stuff in this world.

It turns out that such a type of supernatural universe that you're supporting just happens to do what parents are classically said to do and that is to let their children go through hard times to come out better. So the concept of the parent has been applied to god anthropomorphically, though there are probably people out there who say it is the other way around.

It has commonly been proposed that there can't be pleasure with out suffering to compare it to. That view lacks vision, IMO.

I think the problem is your idea of a good god is simply someone who gives you a passport and visa to do whatever you want.

We are needy people, so why not. That's better than a hurtful god. If there are beings out there with divine powers, why not keep our actions from hurting others. It's a big universe with plenty of playground room for everyone.

 

[elte]

But then we wouldn't be atheists! That's like saying, "My guess is that my dog would climb trees and play with catnip, if he were a cat." Duh?

The reason that we're atheists is that there is no god so we have no reason to believe in the existence of one. This isn't an opinion, it's obvious from informed observation of the universe, something that religionists studiously avoid, even those who call themselves scientists during their working hours.

If you knew a god who would be your friend and always be kind to you, wouldn't you accept? It was a hypothetical example. I have heard of atheists saying they would.

 

[gmilam]

If you knew a god who would be your friend and always be kind to you, wouldn't you accept? It was a hypothetical example. I have heard of atheists saying they would.

If I knew a god who was an asshole and a jerk I would still have to accept. God is whatever god is... Fortunately for us, there is no evidence of a good or a bad god.

 

[elte]

Sure.

okay

Day to day functioning and resolving moral issues go hand in hand.

i can go along with that.

People are saying such things at least indirectly quite often -- when they complain.

It's okay as a venting mechanism. It's good to get mad at things instead of people.

The dichotomy I proposed was this:
"God is not involved."
vs.
"God is not involved in ways I like."

You don't like the way things (currently) are in the world, and that leads you to conclude that there is no God, or that God is indifferent.
Either way, your opinion in matters of God is entirely or mostly shaped by your negative experiences with the world.
IOW, you're starting off with your dislike of the world to begin with, not with whether there is God or not.

You still haven't convinced me that God shouldn't stop suffering. That God that doesn't (stop suffering), isn't God, so our views on God stay unreconciled.

Again:
1. Currently, there are many theistic religious doctrines available to us to reflect on them.
2. These theistic religious doctrines offer quite different perspectives on God, ourselves, life.
3. We have no certainty about which one is the right one, or whether any of them is right at all.

4. And yet you insist on focusing on the Abrahamic ones. Why?

It seems strange to propose that all religions are man-made, but then insist on reflecting only on one or one group of them, as if that one would be the right one.

Reflecting on mainstream Abrahamic notions of God, one ends up with a rather bleak picture of one's existence in the world.
But with some other notions of God, this is not the case.
If you believe that all religions are man-made anyway, or believe that all may be equally possible - then there should on principle be no impediment to reflecting on those.

Okay, if there is a God, why let our parents brainwash us with Abrahamic theology, especially if they knew no better. They were doing the best they knew and had no one else to tell them otherwise. Why does the idea of god have to be so gimmicky?

 

[elte]

If I knew a god who was an asshole and a jerk I would still have to accept. God is whatever god is... Fortunately for us, there is no evidence of a good or a bad god.

You really wouldn't want a truly good god to exist, one that would stop suffering and that would always make you happy? I'm not saying that one exists, though.

 

[Write4U]

that says absolutely nothing about reconciling the conflict between different procedures

In medicine the delivery of medicine is dedicated by the physical circumstances of the patient. Comparing this to choosing a method of prayer and particular god as circumstances warrant is ludicrous.

I'm simply pointing out how abstract thinking is a prerequisite for any sort of moral learning ... or even straight out learning for that matter ... so its unclear how abstract thinking automatically becomes lesser in your books, regardless of your opinions on whether the subject matter is contrived or not.

Abstract thinking and even moral philosophy seems to be an emergent quality in living species. It is in itself not related to the existense of a god.

not sure with what all this has to do with well over 99% of what is important to us standing outside of the purview of physics ....

IMO, the general belief that religion is a good influence on the civilization of mankind is based on a concept of an Imaginary causality named God who has some special plans for us. I find it presumptive and arrogant, and clearly results in conflict in the real world, as has been evident for the past several thousand years of religious strife and wars and terrorism in the name of a (fill in blank) god or deity.

I amnot saying that the finely honed practice of the major religions are not influential in society and civilization, I am saying that I find that dangerous.

 

[lightgigantic]

Because those "POVs" all belong to an alleged God, purporting itself to be unassailable truth, and many are contradictory. Objective truths cannot contradict each other.

much like there are a host of POV's governing the treatment of headaches ... all of which become contradictory when one is bereft of an idea of what the goal is

It's pretty simple. It's the fact that these texts claim to be the word of God that raises this problem.

no more than words about the treatment of headaches is a problem ....

No idea what you're going on about, but there's nothing "magically" contradictory and irreconcilable about various faiths and scriptures. They are just contradictory and irreconcilable.

well it is magical since you are yet to explain how various POV suddenly render all POV incorrect in a manner that isn't absurd

It still doesn't make any sense, or seem to fit whatsoever into the topic.

why?
You don't think headaches exist as an objective truth?

It isn't, for me. It's a problem for you, since you believe at least one of these scriptures to be true.

Oh I see the problem now.

You think that all scriptures are untrue.

Thats kind of like thinking all explanations on the treatment are headaches are not true .... good luck with that one

Not having any use for it doesn't mean I haven't read any of them. I'm familiar with the work of plenty of apologists.

However, it is ironic that you're trying to invalidate my argument through the false claim that I've never read any apologetics when you repeatedly say you don't need to read Dawkins et al to have an understanding of their arguments.

but i have come within 10ft of Dawkins you see. I mean its not like I go around saying there are no arguments for reductionist views attempted to being used as a framework for a moral barometer or given the numerous POV's on the subject that (in and off itself) some how renders all such POV's incorrect. ... You on the other hand ....

Of course it does. A bunch of people who want something to be true can doubtless find a way to make it be so. Those 9/11 Truthers have built themselves quite a little unreality, too.

the irony is that we are seeing nothing but big wads of a similar determination in your own posts

Apples and oranges. Rubbing one's temples isn't contradictory to the principles of aspirin.

For as long as one is cognizant of how a headache exists as an objective phenomena and what the goal of treatment is, sure .

 

[lightgigantic]

There are various philosophies, it's no surprise that yours and mine don't match very closely. If yours happens to be more popular, and that is arguable, that doesn't mean yours is better.

Its more that you are suggesting a take on reality that doesn't really address its self-imposed limitations ... much less how on how it could possibly deal with issues outside of its purview ... hence the whole suggestion of an absence of "discourse"

But don't you mean it in the derogatory way? Everyone has always died like that and do you mean that you know how not to?

I am saying it is more a consequence of attitude ... and it goes back to your suggestion that you are ultimately unaffected by any issue of an omni-max god

A metanym is kinda like a euphemism. Neither can change the the nature of the thing being referred to.

on the contrary, at least with the case of empiricism, metonymic cognitive processes are how one refers to a thing

Let's try to focus on just our discourse right now, if I may ask. I still think the metanym is not very different from a euphemism and the thing being referred doesn't get changed through the use of the figure of speech.

I just mentioned how I already discussed this JamesR and I can't really see the point in reposting it since its only a page or two down in the same thread (I even linked it in my previous reply).

From hearing you talk about euphemisms, it appears you didn't read it.

If however you have some problem with that, let me know and I will copy/paste it .

That doesn't mean we shouldn't do things to help it.

It means that you can do nothing to help

It turns out that such a type of supernatural universe that you're supporting just happens to do what parents are classically said to do and that is to let their children go through hard times to come out better. So the concept of the parent has been applied to god anthropomorphically, though there are probably people out there who say it is the other way around.

So you are trying to say that a personal omnimax god would have a more credible existence if he simply threw everyone in a universe that worked purely to chance and accident and had no mechanism to deliver consequences in accordance with an individual's actions?

It has commonly been proposed that there can't be pleasure with out suffering to compare it to.

thats simply the baggage of dualistic existence (which is part of the baggage accrued from having an attitude that sees one relegated to materialistic existence in the first place)... the irony is that the pursuit of pleasure in a dualistic existence often simply orbits around the avoidance of pain - so I am happy if I am rich because it means I have escaped the suffering of being poor, etc etc

That view lacks vision, IMO.

The only reason that one is justified in going through the school of hard knocks is if they weren't that wise to begin with ... and as a further detail, the more thorough one is in adhering to the curriculum of such a school, teh more it can be said that they are steadfast in their ignorance

We are needy people, so why not.

needy or greedy?

That's better than a hurtful god.

already explained how facilitating the growth of someone without negative consequences is simply a greater hurt

If there are beings out there with divine powers, why not keep our actions from hurting others. It's a big universe with plenty of playground room for everyone.

or even better, why not create something like a great big virtual reality machine where individuals can adopt temporary identities to fulfill whatever desire they want, but the environment of the machine ensures suitable consequences are accrued for such acts. That way they can develop the capacity to manage their own independent free will without ever really damaging anything or getting damaged themselves. Of course it would require that the participants really think "this is me" for the system to work, so an element of illusion would have to be infused into the consciousness of such participants.

 

[lightgigantic]

In medicine the delivery of medicine is dedicated by the physical circumstances of the patient. Comparing this to choosing a method of prayer and particular god as circumstances warrant is ludicrous.

So IOW the knowledge of what the goal of knowledge is enables one to surmount the otherwise obvious discrepancies between one POV and another

Abstract thinking and even moral philosophy seems to be an emergent quality in living species. It is in itself not related to the existense of a god.

Your opinions of god aside, abstract thinking is undoubtedly the most powerful and distinguishing features of humans and its unbecoming for you to play it off as something secondary or inferior

IMO, the general belief that religion is a good influence on the civilization of mankind is based on a concept of an Imaginary causality named God who has some special plans for us. I find it presumptive and arrogant, and clearly results in conflict in the real world, as has been evident for the past several thousand years of religious strife and wars and terrorism in the name of a (fill in blank) god or deity.

I think its particularly presumptive te al to think that the political apparatus responsible for conflict would some how magically be rendered dysfunctional in the absence of religion

I amnot saying that the finely honed practice of the major religions are not influential in society and civilization, I am saying that I find that dangerous.

Still not clear how your opinions on religion have anything to do with most of what we (atheist or theist - it doesn't matter) find important not being qualified by the field of physics.

IOW its striking me as kind of absurd for you to have suddenly said that something is inferior because its not a sub-discipline or whatever of physics

 

[Write4U]

So IOW the knowledge of what the goal of knowledge is enables one to surmount the otherwise obvious discrepancies between one POV and another.

In this case you have substituted a diagnosis of a physical disease with a diagnosis of demonic possession. Prayer does not cure a physical disease.

Your opinions of god aside, abstract thinking is undoubtedly the most powerful and distinguishing features of humans and its unbecoming for you to play it off as something secondary or inferior

Just because man has the ability for abstract thought does not prove anything but that we can "imagine" a "wholeness, for which the name god has been grandfathered in for millenia. This does not make it true!

I did not dismiss the emergence of abstract thinking as inferior. I merely said it was not an unusual or special evolutionary phenomenon in nature. Many animals exhibit the ability for abstract thought. And IMO, it is hubris to believe we are the only creatures in the universe capable of abstract thought.
The problem starts when this ability is ascribed as a peculiar human gift from god, because that statement has no scientific standing. Santa Claus does not bring presents in the middle of the night either.

I think its particularly presumptive te al to think that the political apparatus responsible for conflict would some how magically be rendered dysfunctional in the absence of religion.

Does the world change when we dismiss the FSM? I am saying that the political apparatus will become dysfunctional as an arm of Theism. The US Constitution specifically addresses this in the "establishment clause".

Still not clear how your opinions on religion have anything to do with most of what we (atheist or theist - it doesn't matter) find important not being qualified by the field of physics.

IOW its striking me as kind of absurd for you to have suddenly said that something is inferior because its not a sub-discipline or whatever of physics

I would suggest you read my posts more carefully. If I suggested anything is inferior as a tool in science, it is religion. It is not founded on falsifiable premises or empirical data and in general dismisses as "unimportant" everything science has discovered where it conflicts with scripture.
You seem to forget that science is an evolving discipline. Theism is at an evolutionary dead end. It served its purpose and may now be relegated to the realm of mythology as all other gods have been relegated to mythology, one by one.

 

[Write4U]

duplicate

 

[elte]

Its more that you are suggesting a take on reality that doesn't really address its self-imposed limitations ... much less how on how it could possibly deal with issues outside of its purview ... hence the whole suggestion of an absence of "discourse"

Are the limitations self-imposed or just the way things are. if a philosophy has answers to a problem area, that's not necessarily better that one with no good answer. It depends on if no answer is better than a not-so-good one.

I am saying it is more a consequence of attitude ... and it goes back to your suggestion that you are ultimately unaffected by any issue of an omni-max god

I mean what can I say? If there's no omnimax god in my life I'm reluctant to try to say otherwise.

on the contrary, at least with the case of empiricism, metonymic cognitive processes are how one refers to a thing

The cognitive processes might vary, but the thing remains the same? I'm afraid this is going to boil down to each person saying the other sees things wrong.

I just mentioned how I already discussed this JamesR and I can't really see the point in reposting it since its only a page or two down in the same thread (I even linked it in my previous reply).

Figures of speech are a language quirk. I'm still wondering how a figure of speech can have some type of supernatural aspect or what, and this is after I read your post to JamesR.

From hearing you talk about euphemisms, it appears you didn't read it.

I just read it and metonymy doesn't click for me in any supernatural way.

If however you have some problem with that, let me know and I will copy/paste it .

It's cool now, i read it. Thanks for offering.

It means that you can do nothing to help

I'm not sure if that is completely true. New ways may be discoverable.

So you are trying to say that a personal omnimax god would have a more credible existence if he simply threw everyone in a universe that worked purely to chance and accident and had no mechanism to deliver consequences in accordance with an individual's actions?

Not that but such a god would do about the opposite of that except pain and suffering wouldn't exist. There wouldn't be a need for consequences and no one would get hurt in the first place.

thats simply the baggage of dualistic existence (which is part of the baggage accrued from having an attitude that sees one relegated to materialistic existence in the first place)... the irony is that the pursuit of pleasure in a dualistic existence often simply orbits around the avoidance of pain - so I am happy if I am rich because it means I have escaped the suffering of being poor, etc etc

Our existence is what it is though. However, maybe there a triistc existence. 1 Joy-pleasure 2 sadness-pain 3 contentment. Even this triistic one doesn't require the supernatural or belief in it.

The only reason that one is justified in going through the school of hard knocks is if they weren't that wise to begin with ... and as a further detail, the more thorough one is in adhering to the curriculum of such a school, teh more it can be said that they are steadfast in their ignorance

Many people live in a community where they get bussed to the school of hard knocks, though. They don't have much say in the matter.

needy or greedy?

Everyone is needy. That involves the food, clothing, shelter stuff. Some people cross the line to greedy and miss how they have crossed it, while others cross it more intentionally.

already explained how facilitating the growth of someone without negative consequences is simply a greater hurt

That could be explained as an anthropomorphic projection onto the idea of god, too.

or even better, why not create something like a great big virtual reality machine where individuals can adopt temporary identities to fulfill whatever desire they want, but the environment of the machine ensures suitable consequences are accrued for such acts. That way they can develop the capacity to manage their own independent free will without ever really damaging anything or getting damaged themselves. Of course it would require that the participants really think "this is me" for the system to work, so an element of illusion would have to be infused into the consciousness of such participants.

I think that is one possible future to provide lives for all the people on the planet and at the same time drastically reduce their ecological impact. The participants would think it is real like the most realistic of dreams seem so real. Not the vivid type of dreams, but the ones that are totally out of the sleeper's control. The difference is the people don't wake up, so the illusion persists. Another difference is that dreams seem crazy and make little sense while the virtual reality thing seems real.

 

[James R]

wynn:

So you can't think of any actual examples of automatic things, according to your own definition? I thought as much.

My example would be God, but I refrained from mentioning this, because you've already said in an earlier reply here that God is not an example you'd like to consider.

Ok. I get it. You're defining "automatic" as something that can only apply to God. That doesn't seem like a useful definition to me. And when pushed, you couldn't come up with anything that is "self-existent" other than God, either, which means that the term "self-existent" as you use it is just a synonym for "God", which doesn't take us anywhere new. So let's move on.

The problem with defining theism as "belief in God, god or gods" is that such a definition assumes that these three are all the same in nature - that belief in God, belief in a god, and belief in gods all entail the same things, just that the object of the belief happens to be different (whether it is God, a god, or gods).

But as long as we work with the proper omnimax definition of "God" (ie. God is the First Being; Cause of all other causes; omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent) then the above definition of "theism" is misleading.

It doesn't matter whether I believe in an "omnimax" God or a little tiny God of the Tuesday Washing Load. Either way, I'm a theist.

Because as LG has already been explaining to you, although you haven't replied, God is defined as the one being that contextualizes all other beings and their activities.
Which means that when you reflect about the topic of God, then, as long as you work with a proper omnimax definition of "God", you have to bear in mind that your very efforts to reflect on the topic of God, are made possible by God.
Which is why you cannt hope to find any evidence of God, as long as you take the standard empirical approach.

The best that the standard empirical approach may be able to evidence, is whether there exists an old man with a beard in the sky, or the FSM, but not God.

And as you yourself have noted about an idea such as equality of some human rights ....
The same line of reasoning can be applied to matters of God: even though one doesn't have ordinary evidence of God's existence, given the proper omnimax defintion of God, there is nothing to dissuade one from efforts to approach life with this definition and its implications in mind.

It sounds like you're saying that you want to act as if there is a God, in spite of a lack of any evidence that there is one. Well, you wouldn't be alone there. I'm sure that's exactly what the vast majority of religious people do.

I have been asking over and over here how I can find some actual evidence that there really is a God. Now you're telling me that I can't hope to find any evidence, and that I should instead just act as if there is one and hope for the best. LG, on the other hand, is arguing that I'm not looking in the right place for God, because I'm too reductionist. He would say I can't see the wood for the trees because of my "empirical" blinkers. I should instead look at the "big picture" and conclude that there must be a God based on ... er... something or other, which remains unspecified.

 

[lightgigantic]

It sounds like you're saying that you want to act as if there is a God, in spite of a lack of any evidence that there is one.

It sounds like you want us to act as if empiricism can evidence an explicit description, in spite of any reasonable argument for to even hope to be capable of it

I have been asking over and over here how I can find some actual evidence that there really is a God. Now you're telling me that I can't hope to find any evidence, and that I should instead just act as if there is one and hope for the best. LG, on the other hand, is arguing that I'm not looking in the right place for God, because I'm too reductionist. He would say I can't see the wood for the trees because of my "empirical" blinkers. I should instead look at the "big picture" and conclude that there must be a God based on ... er... something or other, which remains unspecified.

actually at the moment I am simply problematizing your claims that there is no evidence for god, when what you really should be saying is that god, or indeed any explicit description, lies beyond empirical investigation