Is God Rational?

[spidergoat]

To anyone of average intelligence, it would appear that any cultural reference to a monotheistic God is, by necessity, describing the same thing.

That's not true either, if they define it differently, but it is a similar flavor of nonsense

 

[Musika]

That's not true either, if they define it differently, but it is a similar flavor of nonsense

Perhaps I could have worded that better (or you could have consulted the tl:dr to establish context)

. Laying claim to an appropriate definition of a monotheistic God incorporates all cultures. Superior and inferior definitions of monotheism may be there, but to necessarily reduce a monotheistic God to provincial interests or culture (admittedly, a popular manoeuvre when religious sentiments yield local political results) is to reduce the term further to the realms of inaccuracy

 

[Musika]

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

So what value lies in "getting outside one's head"?
You seem to be going to great pains to say it is not "better".

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."

So the more people who agree on reality, the more confident we can be it is real, yet a hundred people agreeing is not necessarily better than two.

Seems you are saying its not important to have confident ideas about reality or your ideas about establishing a confident grasp on reality are not effective.

 

[sideshowbob]

So what value lies in "getting outside one's head"?

Having your head up your ass gives you a close-up view of your own innards but less enlightenment on the rest of reality. "Better" is relative.

So the more people who agree on reality, the more confident we can be it is real....

Still no. I keep saying "white" and you keep claiming I'm saying "black".

Try again: You can be more confident in your perception of reality if somebody agrees with you. A hundred people agreeing with you doesn't necessarily increase the level of confidence.

Seems you are saying its not important to have confident ideas about reality....

It's up to you how important it is to you. If you're comfortable with your head up your ass, that's fine. The Internet was made for you.

 

[spidergoat]

. Laying claim to an appropriate definition of a monotheistic God incorporates all cultures. Superior and inferior definitions of monotheism may be there, but to necessarily reduce a monotheistic God to provincial interests or culture (admittedly, a popular manoeuvre when religious sentiments yield local political results) is to reduce the term further to the realms of inaccuracy

It's more than just inaccurate, it's not true. There can be no superior or inferior flavor of a fantasy. It's also cultural imperialism to ignore the true diversity of religious tradition just because you've convinced yourself they are all based on a single thing which is real.

 

[Musika]

It's more than just inaccurate, it's not true. There can be no superior or inferior flavor of a fantasy.

Of course it's true. One can even discuss superior and inferior explanations of atheism. For instance, saying "Theism is a fantasy because I told you so" is more inferior than "Theism is a fantasy because my community/culture told you so", even though both are admittedly inferior explanations. A ship of fools has potentially better odds of success in some fields (outside of mere foolishness) compared to a lone fool.

It's also cultural imperialism to ignore the true diversity of religious tradition just because you've convinced yourself they are all based on a single thing which is real.

No more than mountains and trees in europe are more important than mountains and trees in south east asia, on account of the greater influence of europe on contemporary society. To insist on defining a universal phenomena in provincial terms automatically makes for an inferior explanation. As such, even an atheist must, in theory, accept such definitions outside of such limitations if they want to attempt a less inferior definition of atheism.

 

[Musika]

Having your head up your ass gives you a close-up view of your own innards but less enlightenment on the rest of reality. "Better" is relative.

Most (sane) people would beg to differ.

Still no. I keep saying "white" and you keep claiming I'm saying "black".

Try again: You can be more confident in your perception of reality if somebody agrees with you. A hundred people agreeing with you doesn't necessarily increase the level of confidence.

So (according to you) a hundred somebodies agreeing with one's perception of reality tends to ....

A) make one more confident of one's perception of reality.

B) Less confident of one's perception of reality.

C) Has no bearing on one's perception of reality.

 

[spidergoat]

Of course it's true. One can even discuss superior and inferior explanations of atheism. For instance, saying "Theism is a fantasy because I told you so" is more inferior than "Theism is a fantasy because my community/culture told you so", even though both are admittedly inferior explanations.

That's because atheism is one thing and monotheism differs in every culture. There are no correct definitions of God, because that assumes there is a God, which is the question in dispute. I agree there are inferior explanations as to why people think there is a God, but it hardly matters when they are all wrong.

To insist on defining a universal phenomena in provincial terms automatically makes for an inferior explanation.

It's not universal. The existence of polytheism proves that. Try giving the best explanation possible, I'd like to hear it.

 

[Musika]

That's because atheism is one thing and monotheism differs in every culture.

That doesn't even begin to make sense. To say a philosophical outlook bears no cultural baggage is to be ignorant of philosophy, ignorant of culture or ignorant of both.

There are no correct definitions of God, because that assumes there is a God, which is the question in dispute.

Effective argument, as opposed to scream therapy, requires the assumption of one's opponent's definition.

I agree there are inferior explanations as to why people think there is a God, but it hardly matters when they are all wrong.

If you think it hardly matters, you are not equipped to discuss it, either for or against.

It's not universal. The existence of polytheism proves that. Try giving the best explanation possible,

Funnily enough, you can also discuss universal parameters of polytheism. I use the word universal to mean widespread, as distinct from confined or local.

I'd like to hear it.

In all matters of ignorance, wiki can be a good place to start.

 

[spidergoat]

That doesn't even begin to make sense. To say a philosophical outlook bears no cultural baggage is to be ignorant of philosophy, ignorant of culture or ignorant of both.

Not at all, one is a label for people that don't believe in God, the other comes with texts and teachings.

Effective argument, as opposed to scream therapy, requires the assumption of one's opponent's definition.

Which you negate when you declare a belief to be universal and choose to ignore theological details that make each definition unique.

If you think it hardly matters, you are not equipped to discuss it, either for or against.

It hardly matters if the emperor is not wearing pantaloons or not wearing a kilt, he's still naked.

 

[Musika]

Not at all, one is a label for people that don't believe in God, the other comes with texts and teachings.

The notion of people arriving at ideas (regardless of the dialectic) divorced from history, philosophy and culture is extremely naive, to say the least.

Which you negate when you declare a belief to be universal and choose to ignore theological details that make each definition unique.

If even you can distinguish between polytheism and monotheism, you can clearly make the grade when it suits your purposes.

It hardly matters if the emperor is not wearing pantaloons or not wearing a kilt, he's still naked.

If one is clueless on how to identify something as basic as an article of clothing, it's difficult to understand where the problem with nudity lies.

 

[spidergoat]

The notion of people arriving at ideas (regardless of the dialectic) divorced from history, philosophy and culture is extremely naive, to say the least.

It doesn't matter how they arrived at the idea. We can debate the merits of the idea without it.

If even you can distinguish between polytheism and monotheism, you can clearly make the grade when it suits your purposes.

I can tell singular from plural, but it still doesn't tell me much about what an individual believes.

If one is clueless on how to identify something as basic as an article of clothing, it's difficult to understand where the problem with nudity lies.

Right, I can't tell whether a person is naked unless I know whether it's Louis Vitton or Calvin Klein.

 

[Musika]

It doesn't matter how they arrived at the idea. We can debate the merits of the idea without it.

Good luck with that debate if you can't even bring a definition through the front door (because you insist arguing from the position untainted by history, philosophy and culture).

I can tell singular from plural, but it still doesn't tell me much about what an individual believes.

I guess this is where having recourse to history, philosophy and culture comes in handy.

Right, I can't tell whether a person is naked unless I know whether it's Louis Vitton or Calvin Klein.

If you decry the very framework that would render Louis Vitton or Calvin Klein meaningful, it's difficult to understand what you are complaining about.

 

[Write4U]

What would be "better". An "motivated sentient rational god", or an "implacable non-sentient natural function"?

 

[Musika]

What would be "better". A "rational god" or an "implacable god"?

A rational God of course .... although if you want to introduce implacable qualities, that's probably where we come in, as opposed to God.
So it becomes "How does a rational God deal with a host of living entities with implacable natures?"

 

[Write4U]

A rational God of course .... although if you want to introduce implacable qualities, that's probably where we come in, as opposed to God.
So it becomes "How does a rational God deal with a host of living entities with implacable natures?"

Wrong question; How does an Implacable mathematical function deal with "everything" (including living organisms)?

Answer: Evolution and Natural Selection, IOW, a slow probabilistic change tending toward "optimum parsimony"

 

[spidergoat]

Good luck with that debate if you can't even bring a definition through the front door (because you insist arguing from the position untainted by history, philosophy and culture).

That's not my problem, it's the theist proposition.

If you decry the very framework that would render Louis Vitton or Calvin Klein meaningful, it's difficult to understand what you are complaining about.

Because it's not meaningful. It's nonsense.

 

[Write4U]

Good luck with that debate if you can't even bring a definition through the front door (because you insist arguing from the position untainted by history, philosophy and culture).

I guess this is where having recourse to history, philosophy and culture comes in handy.

If you decry the very framework that would render Louis Vitton or Calvin Klein meaningful, it's difficult to understand what you are complaining about.

They are only meaningful because they are tainted by history, philosopy and culture. A symbol of status by individuals belonging to a special cultural class.

 

[Musika]

Wrong question; How does an Implacable mathematical function deal with "everything" (including living organisms)?

Answer: Evolution and Natural Selection, IOW, a slow probabilistic change tending toward "optimum parsimony"

I'm not sure if implacable is the best word to describe mathematics (mathmaticians may get placated, but maths itself?).

Regardless, talking about how the universe is better off doing things one way compared to another (as it moves forward on its ever mysterious yet parsimonious journey) begs the question from what vantage point one is making that observation. If you want to talk about it in terms of energy expenditure, complex things arising from simple things is a step in the wrong direction .... yet here we are.

 

[Musika]

That's not my problem, it's the theist proposition.

If you don't see an advantage in climbing out from inferior versions of atheistic arguments, that is also not my problem.

Because it's not meaningful. It's nonsense.

QED