But you believe other people when they tell you that someone else was told things by god?
Can you say "discrepancy"?
Religions are morally wrong.
- Thread starter wesmorris
- Start date
Can you say "discrepancy"?
Then why are muhamed, jesus and that mormon dude not liars? You see I see them as you see me. Such claims are total shit, IMO - at least regarding anything true. It's not to say that such claims can't be totally useful from an evolutionary point of view, but that they are in no way representative of actual happenings. No man is a prophet of god to me, not that many don't have great intentions and such.
If you pray and pray and pray and pray you'll still not fit 5 dimensions into your head. It's simply outside our realm of possible comprehension. We cannot relate to the space, it's a consequence of existing as we do.
Since the proposed entity 'god' is outside our realm of possible comprehension, claims as to its qualities (outside its definition) are conjecture at best.
The Lord discourages reading tea leaves. That's why good Christian people invented tea bags.
Wesmorris:
Few theologians claim God is outside of comprehension. In fact, the Ontological Argument is premised on God being comprehendable.
Few theologians claim God is outside of comprehension. In fact, the Ontological Argument is premised on God being comprehendable.
Is anyone convinced by the ontological argument nowadays ?
certainly
The only way around "my" argument IMO, would have to be from a gnostic.
I can't really argue with "I just know", since that means there's no room for discussion on the matter.
To me, the "flatland" point is insurmountable.
I think most theist say that God can be felt but
that god can be comprehended is another statement,
And you should first ask yourself what is to be comprehended?
and explain to us what do you mean by that.
Somewhat silly IMO, as how would you know it's "god" that you're feeling? Doesn't it take one to know one?
how about "clearly held in mind" or something like that? basically that's what the dictionary says. "to understand the nature or meaning of; grasp with the mind"
Why would you presume I haven't done so?
Well to really get into the nuts and bolts of it is a whole book or five with a ton of conjecture I suppose. I'd say first however, that whatever it is to be comprehended must first possibly be relatable. One must be able to imagine it fairly clearly I'd think.
After that I'd say comprehension is a subjective, ordered relation of concepts that allow the processing of inputs related to a specific subject.
The flatland thing clearly points out the foibles of attempting to relate to something clearly beyond comprehension. IMO, the faithful are akin to the 2D creature that experienced 3D and tried to explain it to the others. How should they expect the others to believe them? It's clear that if I were to purport I'd been assigned this thread by god that I'd be called a liar. So why isn't everyone who makes the claim in the same boat? How would they know I was lying?
Meh.
wesmorris I was addressing the question to Prince_James but that's fine too 
They probably don't need to know, it is a feeling that for them is god.
and if it is in some way possible, we would not know if we understood or not fro sure.
Is that right?
But do you think it is necessary to explain what god is?
you seem at first believe that comprehension is grasping by mind but then you want it to be expressible (processing of input)
Why not just say that comprehension of god could be beyond expressibility?
When prayer is just the experience of god, why not say: ok god exist. I did not know it was that simple
I am saying that it is their claim.
They probably don't need to know, it is a feeling that for them is god.
"Clearly held in mind" sounds like feeling
Just in case
do you think the possibility of processing of inputs is a necessary outcome of comprehension ?
for you god can not be comprehended?
and if it is in some way possible, we would not know if we understood or not fro sure.
Is that right?
But do you think it is necessary to explain what god is?
you seem at first believe that comprehension is grasping by mind but then you want it to be expressible (processing of input)
Why not just say that comprehension of god could be beyond expressibility?
When prayer is just the experience of god, why not say: ok god exist. I did not know it was that simple
wesmorris I was addressing the question to Prince_James but that's fine too
pardon.
A feeling about a powerful idea, yah.
"Clearly held in mind" sounds like feeling
It is. Isn't everything, really? All in all, they are all that matters.
Prudent.
Yes. Comprehension is a context that processes into a complicated feeling, basically.
For me there is no such entity. Simply the application of the term 'entity' doesn't make sense because it's attempting to describe something outside of time itself to which we are intrinsically bound. IMO, english.. maybe language itself, can't apply to something outside of the universe.
There's a hypothesis and a powerful idea called 'god', perhaps fundamental to that which is abstract. (e.g. any evolving species of entities with the capacity for abstract would stumble upon the idea at least eventually).
I think so. Given the whole "a sufficiently technologically advanced species could appear as 'gods' to less advanced species" thing, it seems plain that there is no basis for believing a claim of god should be correlated with god.
Not really. I'm more interested in the effect of the belief. I understand god is a powerful idea that tangibly effects our species in epic scope. I find it trippy that an intangible can have such a powerful tangible effect.
it's both. the a mind comprehends (grasps), it can then process input through that comprehension.
Because of the way it fits in my head. It doesn't read quite right to me, but I can't really argue with 'could be'. I'd say, is because the nature of the actuality of the being hypothesized would be necessarily unrelatable to potential human comprehension.
When prayer is just the experience of god, why not say: ok god exist. I did not know it was that simple
Well I wouldn't say it because it wouldn't be true. Okay I'd say it jokingly because I like to say random silly shit. I wouldn't say your conclusion follows from the premise because the premise includes the conclusion and round and round and such.
Last edited:
What do you find convincing about the Ontological argument ?
Simon Anders
Valued Senior Member
But we run into similar problems all over the place. "Do you know ________?" Fill in the blank. Your wife. Your boss. We often answer yes. Can one not know certain facets - a pun I suppose when thinking of flatland - of these beings without claiming to know all. Can one not have received information about these incredibly complex, endlessly investigatable creatures, from said creatures, despite the fact that there is much certainly temporarily unreachable about them and no doubt permanently out of reach also?
Yes, but 1) you know what I was gettting at and 2) there are people who are very skilled at reading emotions in people, often getting it right despite the honest claims of the ones they are watching. Later the claims are verified by the ones viewed.
So the monotheist God, or really the theologists' God. But again, you are assuming that such a God could not convey information to individuals. Even a limited guy like myself is aware of things that I cannot convey to you. A whole world of memories and sensory experiences and internal states I cannot make accessible to you. Despite these unreachable, unencapsulatable portions of myself that I cannot convey, I can give you accurate information about myself, which you could then relay to others.
I can see your argument working against someone claiming to know God completely. Or to share God's perspective, etc.
My intention was to put what I see as your challenge back on you. I think your argument is based on ideas of what it must be like if there is a God. As if you know what the possible limitations are on communication with such a being. I see this as having as much hubris as the people you are criticizing, which is ironic in context.
Ibid. But this seems an oddly defensive take on what I am saying. Or a quick attempt to show that unlike theists you are willing to immediately bracket off your knowledge or ideas as potentially fallible - something some theists would also do, not all being unwilling to reveal doubt.
I am sure about this. (theist)
I am sure you cannot be sure (Wes).
One is sure about what is.
The other is sure about what is possible.
A later qualification that you are not really sure helps put your position in perspective, but as long as it is presented in similar certain terms it begs for the same questioning.
How frustrating would it be to present to tentativeness first?
I hope it is clear why I am asking this.
'I am tentative and I am sure you must be also.' has problems.
However to not present, yourself, Wes, as being sure they cannot be sure must seem like you are only allowed to throw a half-pulled punch. I am afraid that that may be the situation. I think your position allows you to only throw a half-pulled (tentative) punch.
If you stray from this. And plant your feel and use your whole body to throw a punch at the theists - IOW present yourself as SURE they cannot know - I feel compelled, by forces partially unknown, to challenge the cake and eat it tooness.
So there you are, encapsulated, as it were, a neo-solipsistic bubble outside which you can never be certain.
Last edited:
I worried to death about neo-solipsism as mentioned above, where someone is stated to be living in a "neo-solipsistic bubble". The old stuff I could cope wi
th but this neo stuff has me worried. Am I writing to myself ?
See 114 above !
Sure, but they can't validate it really besides with feelings. To know it does not make it 'objectively true' in the sense the knowledge is representative of something 'real'.
Sure but generally the 'less material' or apparently unlikely the claim, the 'more evidence' is required to support it. If it seems fantastic, we'll likely have a hard time agreeing if you can't set it on the table for me to examine.
.
No I'm saying that the individuals have no means to authenticate the source of information. There is only 'what they think happened' (assuming it only happened to them) and what other people think about what they say happened.
Of course but this has little bearing on the point.
I mean "at all" past the definition.
I take the ramifications of the definition and run with them. The only way to 'know god' is via faith, for if god himself made me right this thread, he did not tell me that is what he did. If I were to presume it, which i might were I a believer - then I'd be all solipsistic and whatnot. If god would have told me, I'd have to wonder why a god would need to pull such a dirty trick as to make me ponder what fantastic aliens had decided to communicate with my brain. I'd have to see psychologists and be generally ridiculed by people who called me a liar for saying I talk directly to god. True or not, the claim itself is enough to render serious doubt on any psyche to make the claim and far worse - no means of validation or authentication whatsoever if not for 'his' will to force 'belief' on others I encounter. I could just know it and never make the claim, maintaining my faith for myself and not requiring external validation. That could work but the charm quickly dispells under the first claim uttered to another person.
I couldn't possibly know the limitations of such communication of course, but I do know what it is to be human, how society works, the relationship of a perspective to its environment, etc. It's from there that I make my argument. It's not about 'god' as you seem to be focusing on, it's about the claim - made by a person, how a person can know what they experience, etc. There are certain limitations on all that which I don't have to be god to 'know'.
Which is really self contradictory to the whole faith thing but that's another story. The religious have no exclusive rights to faith. I have faith in reason and a reasonably strong faith in the validity of my perspective - at least in its utility to my survival function.
No I'm sure you can be sure about a lot of things. I'm just not sure that being sure stand for anything outside the context in which said sureness is established, see? I'm also not sure it makes much difference directly, but there are a lot of indirect implications in framing the argument. As a person, I grant that each person (including myself) can possess all the sureness ever, perhaps. I don't think however, that such sureness establishes anything in other potential surenesses, or anything 'real' about what is not within the context making the claim of sureness.
Sure.
It's not particularly efficient in many ways. It depends on the goal of the presentation does it not? If I seek wisdom or Truth, I shall bear the almost sure inneficiency such as not to deny the truth of what I think I see. If I seek to get laid, putting the tentativeness first will almost surely contradict my goal.
But I'm not sure you must be also. I just think it so and recognize that the extent of my certainty in this regard can really only be my own context. I do not insist it and cannot nor would not command it from you. I'm pretty sure though, if you're already sure - there's little possible motive for one to enter such a conversation other that proving something to someone like their intellectual prowess, or simply to preach about what they know.
However to not present, yourself, Wes, as being sure they cannot be sure must seem like you are only allowed to throw a half-pulled punch. I am afraid that that may be the situation. I think your position allows you to only throw a half-pulled (tentative) punch.
I don't want to punch you or prove you wrong really. I just wonder how my thoughts apply in other contexts and find amusement in the folly of thinking them relevant to more than just my own context.
Nah I like a lot of theists. I have no need to steal their theism from them or punch it. I'm long since past it. There are a lot of opportunity costs for any choice and sometimes I think theists have it right. Not that there is any factuality behind their belief, but that their belief is factually impactfull on the world in a locally cohesive way.. and with their belief comes a strength I can't really know. I think it's kind of neat really, but have known since i was a child that religion just doesn't work for me.
You don't seem to understand but maybe the thing a few paragraphs back cleared it up. I can be dead certain about anything. It's generally simply wrong generally wrong when I impose my certainty onto others, as religions do. I think though that if you are susceptable to religious thought, you will be religious and really, it's that simple.
Of course the exception to the certainty thing is when direct mortal threats are involved. If I see something about to hurt you drastically and can help you, I feel obligated to do so. "hey look out man!", etc. Religions do the same thing, but on a wholly different basis - nothing direct, nothing tangible.
Simon Anders
Valued Senior Member
Last edited: