Definition of God - one thread to rule them all

[Tiassa]

Seriously? You think I have a ego so big to make piddling little debates like these, about me?

Yes, you have an ego big enough to put in the effort of two-bit trolling. It is demonstrable in your posts.

You'll notice, for instance, you didn't actually answer the question. But you did manage to post some make-believe:

Allowing belief to set laws (education, passing your driving test and a zillion other activities Minions - in the real world - engage in) then ANYTHING goes

For me THAT, anything goes, is a system I would not like to see implemented, so it's worth slapping down when found at the lava level

Yeah, whatever. It's all about you. So here's a reminder. When you go and say something stupid like, "Seriously? You think I have a ego so big to make piddling little debates like these, about me?" remember your own long enough to finish your post without dodging a question by making it all about your own satisfaction.

"Seriously?" Yeah, you're not exactly subtle.

 

[Michael 345]

Yes, you have an ego big enough to put in the effort of two-bit trolling. It is demonstrable in your posts.

You'll notice, for instance, you didn't actually answer the question. But you did manage to post some make-believe:



Yeah, whatever. It's all about you. So here's a reminder. When you go and say something stupid like, "Seriously? You think I have a ego so big to make piddling little debates like these, about me?" remember your own long enough to finish your post without dodging a question by making it all about your own satisfaction.

"Seriously?" Yeah, you're not exactly subtle.

OK you win

 

[Vociferous]

By reducing your point to a tautology? That's certainly charity in that it saves people time thinking you might be saying something more worthwhile.

Sure, if you think intellectual honesty isn't worthwhile. You can believe whatever you like, but unless you also recognize how it might not be compelling to others, you're not being honest with yourself and can't expect to be taken seriously.

I am actually wondering that of you given you use the phrase "objectively compelling". Compulsion, or what we find compelling, is a subjective matter, and a shared subjectivity does not make something objective.

So you believe we actually know how what we perceive relates to the world as it is? That's just hubris. All we know is subjective, and all we call objective is just what subjective observations are universally accepted. It's fine if you don't like how I phrase that, but it doesn't make it any less true.

So you are saying a unicorn causing the chaos in my garage (in my example) is on equal footing to a cat doing it? Got it. Thanks.

Since I've already told you that subjectively some explanations are better than others, you're little "so you are saying" is just a straw man. Your prerogative if you want to believe your own straw man over reality.

Sure, if that was all I was saying. But hey, at least you admit you were being trivial. That's charitable of you.

It's okay if you can't understand my point. You've got plenty of company here.

 

[Sarkus]

Sure, if you think intellectual honesty isn't worthwhile.

Intellectual honesty has nothing to do with whether stating a tautology is worthwhile or not. But thanks for the straw man.

You can believe whatever you like, but unless you also recognize how it might not be compelling to others, you're not being honest with yourself and can't expect to be taken seriously.

And another straw man! Where have I said that a belief has to be compelling to others???

So you believe we actually know how what we perceive relates to the world as it is?

No.

That's just hubris.

Then it's lucky you're just setting up a straw man, isn't it.

All we know is subjective, and all we call objective is just what subjective observations are universally accepted.

So you don't really understand what the difference is. Fair enough. If you can't see the difference between shared subjectivity and objectivity, then it's a shame you throw the words around as much as you do.

It's fine if you don't like how I phrase that, but it doesn't make it any less true.

If you phrase it in a way that changes the meaning of the word then I'm sure you could get anything to agree to anything else. Doesn't really help communication with others, though.

Since I've already told you that subjectively some explanations are better than others, you're little "so you are saying" is just a straw man. Your prerogative if you want to believe your own straw man over reality.

How is it a strawman when it is what you are saying? If it isn't what you are saying, then say so. Which you haven't as yet done. You said that objectively they are on the same footing. That is what I am disagreeing with, other than in the trivial tautological way in which anything that is not known is quivalent in that it is not known. What you say about differences in subjective view is simply irrelevant to the matter at hand.

It's okay if you can't understand my point. You've got plenty of company here.

Oh, I understand your point. I was just expecting it to be more than the trivial tautology that it was. I gave you too much credit. For that I sincerely apologise.

 

[Vociferous]

Intellectual honesty has nothing to do with whether stating a tautology is worthwhile or not. But thanks for the straw man.

No straw man, you just missed the point I've been making for many pages in this thread.

And another straw man! Where have I said that a belief has to be compelling to others???

Then what are you disagreeing with, aside from your own straw man? That's my whole point.

So you believe we actually know how what we perceive relates to the world as it is?

No.

All we know is subjective, and all we call objective is just what subjective observations are universally accepted.

So you don't really understand what the difference is. Fair enough. If you can't see the difference between shared subjectivity and objectivity, then it's a shame you throw the words around as much as you do.

You can only think there's a difference if you believe that you know how what we perceive relates to the real world. So you're contradicting yourself.

 

[Sarkus]

No straw man, you just missed the point I've been making for many pages in this thread.

No, I got the point, after your clarification that you were merely stating a trivial tautology.

Then what are you disagreeing with, aside from your own straw man?

So you can’t support where I have said that a belief has to be compelling to others... no surprise there.
I heartily admit I initially misunderstood your point because I overestimated you, and your willingness to state the trivial as if it was of worth. Your subsequent necessary clarification put me in my place by affirming just how trivial you were being.
The rest is then simply an expansion of the discussion into the non-trivial, non-tautological. If you want to consider it a strawman, to expand the discussion beyond the trivial tautology you expressed, that’s entirely up to you.

You can only think there's a difference if you believe that you know how what we perceive relates to the real world. So you're contradicting yourself.

False.
First, you asked if I believe we know how what we perceive relates to the world as it is. Since I do not know what you perceive, or how you perceive, how can I honestly answer “yes” to the question you asked? However, if you are a reasonably functioning person, one might argue that it is not unreasonable to assume that your perceptions will tie up in some practical way to the world as it is.
Secondly, it is possible to know objective truths. It is possible to know things that are true irrespective of bias, opinion, perspective. I know many objective truths. Such as knowing that, if the words are adequately defined, this morning I brushed my teeth. It actually happened. Do I expect you to believe it? I couldn’t care, as that doesn’t determine whether it is an objective truth or not.
So I am not contradicting myself in the slightest. You are simply taking an answer to one question and using it as if it was an answer to a different question.

So given that we have established that we agree on your trivial tautology, that everything that is not known is not known, why are you still arguing it? If you want to explore the non-trivial, though, the ways in which those things that are not known are not equal, do carry on.

 

[Vociferous]

No, I got the point, after your clarification that you were merely stating a trivial tautology.
So you can’t support where I have said that a belief has to be compelling to others... no surprise there.
I heartily admit I initially misunderstood your point because I overestimated you, and your willingness to state the trivial as if it was of worth. Your subsequent necessary clarification put me in my place by affirming just how trivial you were being.
The rest is then simply an expansion of the discussion into the non-trivial, non-tautological. If you want to consider it a strawman, to expand the discussion beyond the trivial tautology you expressed, that’s entirely up to you.
False.
First, you asked if I believe we know how what we perceive relates to the world as it is. Since I do not know what you perceive, or how you perceive, how can I honestly answer “yes” to the question you asked? However, if you are a reasonably functioning person, one might argue that it is not unreasonable to assume that your perceptions will tie up in some practical way to the world as it is.
Secondly, it is possible to know objective truths. It is possible to know things that are true irrespective of bias, opinion, perspective. I know many objective truths. Such as knowing that, if the words are adequately defined, this morning I brushed my teeth. It actually happened. Do I expect you to believe it? I couldn’t care, as that doesn’t determine whether it is an objective truth or not.
So I am not contradicting myself in the slightest. You are simply taking an answer to one question and using it as if it was an answer to a different question.

So given that we have established that we agree on your trivial tautology, that everything that is not known is not known, why are you still arguing it? If you want to explore the non-trivial, though, the ways in which those things that are not known are not equal, do carry on.

I think Yaz is right. You go on an awful lot over what you claim is a tautology.
Do you even heard yourself? "...not unreasonable to assume", apparently without thought as to how we can justify that. Of course, as literal and obtuse as you seem to be, what else can I expect. Ah well. Cheers.

 

[Michael 345]

Has anybody kept track and count of definitions posted?

If so please summaries and then what? Are posters going to vote which we consider the most generic? Or perhaps melding the posted definitions into a generic version?

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

Has anybody kept track and count of definitions posted?

I thought you were keeping track...someone must be.
I was expecting in excess of two thousand definitions and that was for christianity alone...heck what a list if all came forward with their definition...and you know except for the most rational folk..mmm how many is there here...say five maybe twenty five..how could we know how many rational folk..if rational they won't be wasting time here ...except for the rational folk I expect few definitions would contain the key qualifier of mythical...sometimes I think there may be up to seven billion definitions...
Great thread however... I have learnt so much and I expect that you have as well.
Sometimes I do wonder however even if any of these thousands of gods were real, I know fat chance but just say, if any of these Gods were real does it seem inconsistent with the general concept of a god that such god would make known it's wishes to a human...and certainly why would it worry about eating shell fish..mmm...unless shell fish are somehow actually a god protected species..maybe gods are related to shell fish..who knows..and of course that is the point really, who knows...all this in cite into gods mind etc I think is just so incredibly stupid say so...yeh..here I am being slack wasting my time and mind but at least it is only for a few minutes...just think of these folk who waste their whole lives discussing god and philosophy...I employed a guy who had qualifications in philosophy...I had to let him go as he was useless and the rest of the staff did not like him...pity he needed work so I thought I would help him.
Alex

 

[Write4U]

Objectively, any belief without objective or universally compelling evidence of abiogenesisis similar in that way, yes.

We have objective compelling evidence of abiogenesis. You just refuse to accept the "hard facts" in favor of your subjective emotionally satisfying "wishful thinking".

 

[Michael 345]

I thought you were keeping track...

Na I'm just trolling I did think original poster might have kept track. My guesstimate is about 20

Posted this before but worth rechecking

https://jonsquoracontent.home.blog/2019/08/24/can-i-redefine-god-as-no-heres-why/

Bored here so thought would comb thread looking for definitions

Seems my above guesstimate of 20 to high

Got back to a post of mine Number 161 (and became more bored) and count was 2½. Now at just over 500 post don't think even close to 20 definitions

And again what is going to become of anything in the thread?

 

[Sarkus]

I think Yaz is right. You go on an awful lot over what you claim is a tautology.

A tautology that puts the impossible on the same footing as the possible.

Do you even heard yourself? "...not unreasonable to assume", apparently without thought as to how we can justify that.

??? I thought the justification for such an assumption would be self-evident from what I wrote: i.e. the ability to function reasonably. Do you really need the dots joined? If one can function reasonably in the world then do you not think it is because what you think about the world matches that world as it is. The problems will come when one starts failing in that capacity - such as with those suffering dementia.

Of course, as literal and obtuse as you seem to be, what else can I expect. Ah well. Cheers.

My seeming "literal and obtuse" is purely a symptom of you not being able to communicate as effectively as you obviously think you are being. Try ensuring that the questions you ask really are what you intend to ask. Try ensuring that you understand the words you are using, etc.

Further, you have entirely missed the actual point I raised: that you, and Yazata, put both the impossible and the possible on "pretty equal footing", simply because neither might have compelling evidence. E.g. if X might be caused by A (but we have no compelling evidence yet) but can't possibly be caused by B - to you, both the belief that A caused X, and the belief that B caused X, are on the "pretty equal footing", because neither have compelling evidence in their support.

Now, you can be comfortable sitting on your tiny scrap of land that noone is disputing, and you can claim that I'm spending an awful lot over what I claim is a tautology (and your trivial position really is a tautology - it goes beyond me simply claiming it to be, to it actually being one) and thus deflect from addressing the issue, or you can engage on the matter raised. Up to you.

 

[Yazata]

In the sense that everything that isn't knowledge is equivalently not knowledge then of course, but that is trivial.

The point is that a great deal of what people claim as 'knowledge' doesn't seem to really be knowledge at all. It's often just poorly justified belief.

Atheists are hugely fond of triumphantly pointing this out when it concerns religion, in the belief that it somehow discredits religion. But it applies equally to ethics (how does one justify 'good' and 'evil', or 'right' and 'wrong', apart from intuition?) and it applies to many of the deeper philosophical questions as well, including the foundations of science.

None of it is conclusively nailed down.

When we don't really know things, perhaps the most honest thing to do is to admit it.

 

[Sarkus]

The point is that a great deal of what people claim as 'knowledge' doesn't seem to really be knowledge at all. It's often just poorly justified belief.

No disagreement. But we shouldn't necessarily throw baby out with the bath water by treating everything the same simply because it is "not knowledge".

Atheists are hugely fond of triumphantly pointing this out when it concerns religion, in the belief that it somehow discredits religion. But it applies equally to ethics (how does one justify 'good' and 'evil', or 'right' and 'wrong', apart from intuition?) and it applies to many of the deeper philosophical questions as well, including the foundations of science.

No disagreement, other than perhaps using "atheists" in the absolute. I am an atheist, after all.

None of it is conclusively nailed down.

When we don't really know things, perhaps the most honest thing to do is to admit it.

Whole heartedly agree.

 

[Tiassa]

Posted this before but worth rechecking

The problem with the argument is that it encourages relgious foolishness, and is just another demand that people don't get too smart for the critic. It's actually a lot like this "one thread to rule them all" that needed a companion thread to bail it out.

Good luck with what? Well, yeah, but your Quora poster is going to fight againt it even while saying good luck. It's just another surrender to futility.

And again what is going to become of anything in the thread?

Nothing. That was its point. Look at the companion thread↑; after the one thread to rule them all encountered an obvious stumbling block dropped by a low-effort troll, the companion thread tried to winnow down to a particular range of Biblical belief.

All that was ever supposed to happen, according to the topic post of this thread, in light of the second thread, is that some manner of Christianists we don't have a lot of, if any at all, at Sciforums, were supposed to line up and dutifully recite whichever pabulum he needed in order to justify his critique.

What will become of anything in the thread? Nothing. That was always the point.

Try it this way: I don't know if you are familiar with the word, Boobah, but it's true I keep recalling the famous catch-phrase, "Look what I can do!"

That's pretty much what this thread was for, and when that didn't work out, well, at least it's a notable waste of time, and thus not an utter loss.

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

Maybe a requirement of a thread like this should be to actually post your definition...could that work?
Alex

 

[arfa brane]

Maybe a requirement of a thread like this should be to actually post your definition...could that work?
Alex

Let's see: . . . no, it's actually been tried already.

And, here we are. But where is that? Stuck on the same narrow (generally biblical) course, or at least, I've seen little evidence that most people are prepared to look beyond that context.

Maybe they were bashed over the head with a Bible when young. Maybe they never had access to a modern library or the internet. Maybe that's why such people cling to the belief that any discussion of God has to start and end with what the Bible says, and whether we should agree or disagree.

Like whether, if you want to join a biker gang, you should own anything other than a Harley. I know one or two people who wouldn't be seen dead on a jappa; more likely they would set fire to it. After accusing the owner of heresy, natch.

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

Maybe that's why such people cling to the belief that any discussion of God has to start and end with what the Bible says, and whether we should agree or disagree.

I have on a few occasions tried to seek comments on the era before the bible and it just does not happen it seems.
Anyways I find the history of religion interesting perhaps because of the links to astronomy or perhaps better called astrology.
Alex

 

[Write4U]

If science or its discussion board apologists want to insist that science already knows or is within reach of knowing how life originated, then science will have to be able to (1) elucidate the mechanism by which it hypothetically happened. Not only that, they will have to be able to show that (2) their hypothetical mechanism matches what actually happened on the early Earth.

The leading expert in this field is Robert Hazen (Carnegie Institute of Science.)

ROBERT HAZEN

Earth scientist Robert Hazen has an unusually rich research portfolio. He is trying to understand the carbon cycle from deep inside the Earth; chemical interactions at crystal-water interfaces; the interactions of organic molecules on mineral surfaces as a possible springboard to life; how life arose from the chemical to the biological world; how life emerges in extreme environments; and the origin and distribution of life in the universe just to name a few topics. In tandem with this expansive Carnegie work, he is also the Clarence Robinson Professor of Earth Science at George Mason University. He has authored more than 350 articles and 20 books on science, history, and music.

Astrobiology is the search for the origin, distribution, and future of life in the universe. Hazen and the Carnegie team have explored the hypothesis that hydrothermal systems on planets and moons might have contributed to the formation of organic molecules, and thus the origin of life, and they have looked at the cosmochemistry of carbon, the essential element of life.

In work on mineral-molecule interactions, it turns out that the origin of life’s biochemicals have “handedness” , like left and right handiness in people. Hazen and team believe that these so-called chiral mineral surfaces may have played a significant role in the selection and concentration of molecules necessary for life.[/quote] https://carnegiescience.edu/scientist/robert-hazen

His Youtube lectures are clear and logically presented. Worthy of any science library.

 

[Vociferous]

A tautology that puts the impossible on the same footing as the possible.

No, that's your own straw man. If you want to compare unicorns to theism (which ~80% of the world believes in) that's your own intellectual dishonest. You making faulty, straw man analogies says nothing about any point I've made.

??? I thought the justification for such an assumption would be self-evident from what I wrote: i.e. the ability to function reasonably. Do you really need the dots joined? If one can function reasonably in the world then do you not think it is because what you think about the world matches that world as it is. The problems will come when one starts failing in that capacity - such as with those suffering dementia.

What you consider reasonable is obviously subjective. Lots of people function fine without agreeing on reality, just look at politics. But again you've missed the point. Whether or not we observe the world as it is is an open philosophical question, as you can only even be sure one's own mind exists, and everything else is subject to some form of justification. That you seem to dismiss that fact out of hand tells me you're ill-equipped for the discussion you've haplessly stumbled into.

My seeming "literal and obtuse" is purely a symptom of you not being able to communicate as effectively as you obviously think you are being. Try ensuring that the questions you ask really are what you intend to ask. Try ensuring that you understand the words you are using, etc.

Lots of whining about something people like Yaz readily comprehend.

Further, you have entirely missed the actual point I raised: that you, and Yazata, put both the impossible and the possible on "pretty equal footing", simply because neither might have compelling evidence. E.g. if X might be caused by A (but we have no compelling evidence yet) but can't possibly be caused by B - to you, both the belief that A caused X, and the belief that B caused X, are on the "pretty equal footing", because neither have compelling evidence in their support.

No, that's still your own faulty comparison and straw man. No one here ever said anything to the effect of something which "can't possibly be caused by B" being equal to anything else, no matter how much you may, subjectively, think that description fits religion or anything else. You're arguing your own straw man.

Now, you can be comfortable sitting on your tiny scrap of land that noone is disputing, and you can claim that I'm spending an awful lot over what I claim is a tautology (and your trivial position really is a tautology - it goes beyond me simply claiming it to be, to it actually being one) and thus deflect from addressing the issue, or you can engage on the matter raised. Up to you.

I think I've more than adequately addressed your repeated straw man.