Is God Rational?

[sideshowbob]

In what was is legitimate acceptible?

I was going to object to "legitimate" too, but one thing at a time seems to be beyond you already.

Was the opening statement incorrect?

You didn't understand it, which is why elaboration was required.

So the question remains, how can a "real" thing be rendered "more real" without applying some sort of hierarchy?

Can a panda be different from ice cream without applying some sort of hierarchy? What would the hierarchy be?

You seem to be saying that a requirement for something to be real, is that it be perceivable to the greatest majority.

No, that would be the hierarchy that you're fantasizing about: something that six people agree on would be "more real" than something that five people agree on.

But it isn't that simple. The main point is that what two or more people agree on is "more real" than one person's hallucination. A hundred people agreeing is not necessarily "better" than two. What is actually required is getting outside your own head and communicating with somebody else.

If one cannot, at least verbally, acknowledge why reality is better than illusion....

Reality isn't necessarily "better" than illusion. It's more useful when dealing with others, which is why agreement with others is important.

 

[Musika]

.


Can a panda be different from ice cream without applying some sort of hierarchy? What would the hierarchy be?

The hierarchy of words establishing certain ideas and discrediting/rejecting or being derivative of others.

So a panda is not an ice cream, so much so that the value of even a derivative word ( panda shaped ice cream ) requires knowledge of what a panda is in order to be valid. A less absurd example would be a photograph of a panda. While a "lesser reality" than a panda in the flesh, it provides us with more information so it is "greater" than the panda ice cream.

And conversely, an ice cream is not a panda, and so on,

No, that would be the hierarchy that you're fantasizing about: something that six people agree on would be "more real" than something that five people agree on.

But it isn't that simple. The main point is that what two or more people agree on is "more real" than one person's hallucination. A hundred people agreeing is not necessarily "better" than two. What is actually required is getting outside your own head and communicating with somebody else.

Doing aside with the technical methods of getting "outside one's head" for the moment, why is this actually required, if not for some hierarchical model that some standards for discerning reality are necessarily better than others.
Hint: if you are alluding to the requirements of why something is necessarily better, you have some sort of hierarchy on your hands.

Granted that "hierarchy" is a bit of a dirty word in this modern world. Historically these subjects were discussed as higher and lower. Nowadays, in these politically uncertain times, it seems we prefer to discuss the exact same concepts as central and peripheral.

Reality isn't necessarily "better" than illusion. It's more useful when dealing with others, which is why agreement with others is important.

Which makes reality (at least in your opinion) that draws a greater agreement more central than reality that does not draw such a great agreement.

After all, how could we possibly sell panda shaped ice creams unless there was some consensus what a panda is?

 

[Michael 345]

Reality isn't necessarily "better" than illusion. It's more useful when dealing with others, which is why agreement with others is important

Reality is ALWAYS better than an illusion

For something to grow from real to more real (poor expression but I'll run with it for the moment) - I see something in the sky - first presumption it's real - is it a bird? plane? Superman?

As it grows in size it becomes clear it is a plane coming into land

The clearer my understanding of what it is the more real (to me) it becomes

Reality can be handled and managed

Nothing can be done with illusions

 

[Musika]

Reality can be handled and managed

Nothing can be done with illusions

I wonder if that is true.

Is it possible to indicate an illusion that has no relationship to reality?

Infact post WW1 artists established surrealism, the use of illusion, to give a commentary on what, in their opinion, was the reality of a world gone crazy.

Those in working in the field of the legacy of surrealists, namely advertising, would argue that working with illusion, far from being unmanageable, is how we handle and manage reality.

 

[davewhite04]

Ummmm nooooo life has never been irrational / rational, hot / cold, funny / sad or ANY abstract concept

Life has always been just life. Full stop, end of story. Life is life

 

[davewhite04]

There's good to be had from technology. But it can also serve ill. As always, it's a mixed bag.

I agree, it's a roller-coaster, just like life itself.

 

[davewhite04]

I have everything I need or want.

I just want less.

Too much stuff is a curse and I just want to cut down...after I buy my next telescope that is...

Less is the way for the future.

One egg in one large basket.

Anyhow...which God is the subject of discussion here?
Any of the Greek Gods did not seem rational.

Any God will reflect the rationality of its creator.

alex

How are the Greek gods irrational?

 

[davewhite04]

I'm saying it's faith which is irrational, not the idea of a personal or social purpose. It's rational to want to organize a society, but not rational to think the universe cares one bit about you doing it.

Why is it not rational?

 

[davewhite04]

I would like God to be updated each year much like our cars or computers such that our model is better than last year.

There is only one God, whether he exists or not, it is the one from the bible. Hindu, muslim and other religions/beliefs do not mention an entity called God, so the answer to your question is this: Malachi 3:6

 

[Michael 345]

There is only one God, whether he exists or not, it is the one from the bible. Hindu, muslim and other religions/beliefs do not mention an entity called God, so the answer to your question is this: Malachi 3:6

Ummmm

whether he exists or not, it is the one from the bible

Puzzle - if he is not then he cannot be the one from the bible

Malachi 3:6 King James Version (KJV)
6 For I am the Lord, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed.

King James Version (KJV)

And how many VERSIONS were there before religion got to this one?

You also missed out numerous gods mentioned in numerous other text not gods necessarily associated with religion

Piss poor answer

 

[spidergoat]

There is only one God, whether he exists or not, it is the one from the bible. Hindu, muslim and other religions/beliefs do not mention an entity called God, so the answer to your question is this: Malachi 3:6

Muslims call it Allah. Hindus call it Brahman.

 

[Michael 345]

I don't watch videos

In your case, nope still won't

 

[sideshowbob]

Doing aside with the technical methods of getting "outside one's head" for the moment, why is this actually required, if not for some hierarchical model that some standards for discerning reality are necessarily better than others.

I did not say that some standards are "necessarily better". I said explicitly, "Reality isn't necessarily "better" than illusion," and you quoted me.

Which makes reality (at least in your opinion) that draws a greater agreement more central than reality that does not draw such a great agreement.

No.

I said that we should be more confident in a perceived reality that somebody else agrees on. I did not quantify the level of agreement. I said explicitly, "A hundred people agreeing is not necessarily 'better' than two."

 

[sideshowbob]

Nothing can be done with illusions

Apparently you've never heard of books, movies, etc.

 

[davewhite04]

Ummmm

whether he exists or not, it is the one from the bible

Puzzle - if he is not then he cannot be the one from the bible

Malachi 3:6 King James Version (KJV)
6 For I am the Lord, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed.

King James Version (KJV)

And how many VERSIONS were there before religion got to this one?

You also missed out numerous gods mentioned in numerous other text not gods necessarily associated with religion

Piss poor answer

I agree. Your answer was piss poor.

 

[davewhite04]

I don't watch videos

In your case, nope still won't

Liar.

 

[davewhite04]

Muslims call it Allah. Hindus call it Brahman.

Exactly.

 

[spidergoat]

Exactly.

It is gracious of you to admit your mistake.

 

[davewhite04]

It is gracious of you to admit your mistake.

Not the best comeback I've ever heard, but with time you might learn something if you listen

 

[Musika]

Exactly.

In hinduism, there are many names for God. Not to say that there are many gods, but God has many qualities, and therefore names to highlight these qualities. A popular one, to define the "official position" of god is "bhagavan" (possessor of all opulence) ("brahman" is used to explain how the spiritual quality is eternal and constant .... so the living entity is also described as brahman, however for the sake of distinguishing God, the word "Parabrahman" (or topmost brahman) is used.

The word "God" has germanic origins (it makes its first recorded appearance in about the 6th century AD). Regardless of how you want to rationalize the history of linguistics (namely whether the term "proto indo european" is just a relic from colonialism, used by white people to avoid the embarrassment of having to explain their culture as having derived from a place where they cannot drink the local water or not), the word God is etymologically connected to the word bhaga, which gives us the word bhagavan.

In otherwords, the use of the word "bhagavan", even by conservative estimates, was up and running well before the Germanic forerunner that gives us the term "God".

To anyone of average intelligence, it would appear that any cultural reference to a monotheistic God is, by necessity, describing the same thing. To talk of God in terms of intrinsic qualities of race or nationality would be to talk about, at the very least, a provincial sort of god, which wouldnt warrant a capital G.

tl:dr : south east asia had a working model of the word "God" before Jesus even appeared, what to speak of the germanic influences taking root and sorting themselves out to give us the word "God". But regardless, the word "God", in the monotheistic sense, is necessarily greater than cultural traditions. As such, its philosophy, not etymology, that provides greater insight into whether one understanding is more seminal or comprehensive than another.