Schroedinger's God

[Sarkus]

What God? The only God that *you* seem to be capable of defining is the 'imaginary and mythological' God, as this seems to be the only God you know.

No - I think you misunderstand him. It is not that he defines "God" as 'imaginary and mythological' and then proceeds to dismiss "God" - he looks at ALL definitions of God put forward and concludes that the only one that he can accept as rational / logical / whatever is the one where God is defined as "imaginary and mythological".
This definition is his conclusion, not his starting point.
There is a vast difference.

But theists may have a different experience of God than you.

And I'm telling you that their experience is not necessarily invalid. Taking for example the Calvinist view, one doesn't know God unless God decides to make Himself known to this person. Some say that whether a person believes in God is not this person's choice, but God's. So in this case, it is beyond people to define God.

Experience does not mean anything other than subjective interpretation of a material and natural event.
If you want to assign such things to "God" then that's your call - just don't hurt anybody

It seems to me that the whole problem of defining God is that people try to define God without God's intervention.

If a definition of God is attempted that does not include God's intervention, it is likely to happen that God gets defined as an 'imaginary, mythological being'.

First you must prove that something is "God's intervention" and not merely subjective interpretation of a natural event.

Then for all you mono-theists you must prove that there is ONLY the one God. If there are many Gods and only one chooses to "intervene" - how do you know the same one will "intervene" to every person - or whether different Gods are intervening to different people?
What if two Gods intervene to the same person?

If you're going to believe in one God - why not two, or three, or more?
What is stopping you?

So if God is to be considered as the omnimax Creator, then one must leave the definition of God up to God.

Haven't you just defined him as the "Omnimax Creator"?


Basically you're saying "God is unknown - until he becomes known."
And given that there is no scientific evidence of him making himself known to anyone, and that this "becoming known" is merely subjective interpretation, you basically have a God that doesn't exist except in people's own individual subjective interpretation of natural events - and thus an imaginary personalised deity.

Sounds fun.

 

[qwerty mob]

Hi. I'm trying very hard to be gentle here... with a subject and a rhetorical tone that approaches "hunting ghosts with a sledgehammer and a chainsaw."

What God?

Exactly-

What God is neither imaginary, nor a mythological being...

The only God that *you* seem to be capable of defining is the 'imaginary and mythological' God, as this seems to be the only God you know.

That's a nice projection, would you like it back?

One could always supply a better working definition of what Gods are, rather than make irrelevant assertions about ME, personally.

But theists may have a different experience of God than you.

Any God which you project *to be mine* exists only between your ears, not mine, and then so does that of any other, and vice-versa; and so the objective definitive characteristic that gods are IMAGINARY holds true. Even if it wasn't me suggesting it, and You thought it up yourself, or heard it through the grapevine, or one read it in their tea leaves- it evidently remains to be considered, because it works no matter what.

If you have a better working definition, honestly- what is it? If you have any tangible, plausible explanation for the diversity and the intensity of god-beliefs between others and yourself, please share it.

And I'm telling you that their experience is not necessarily invalid.

What do you mean?

How can one really believe that the clear and purposeful use of language (the word 'god' in particular) renders anyone's experience(s) invalid?

Is that broadening the discussion needlessly? I detect the usual inference of "You're just an Atheist so you can't Know God" coming, so I'll head it off with the proposition that "Monotheists are Atheists too- they just believe in One more God than I do." If an Atheist can't Know what their God is, then they can't know that ANY of the Other Gods are Wrong, and if that is so- then Monotheists all have the WRONG GOD and the Wrong QUANTITY OF GODS.

If people can't even discuss what Gods are (and aren't), how can one account for such large groups of people all worshipping a single God-- but not the same God?

In other words, reconsider the Problem of Monotheisms (plural)...

You probably don't care to read an objective explanation.

Taking for example the Calvinist view, one doesn't know God unless God decides to make Himself known to this person.

Interesting, but this in no way begins to refute the fact that Deities are all imaginary...

Some say that whether a person believes in God is not this person's choice, but God's. So in this case, it is beyond people to define God.

Then please explain how Calvinists ever got a following, other than the interventions of such an ineffable, other than highly-selective, personal God...

"God knows, and It's not going to pick non-Calvinists"-?

I suggest, again, though interesting, that their God exists only in their imaginations also.

It seems to me that the whole problem of defining God is that people try to define God without God's intervention.

What God?

The "God of not intervening in message board discussions" God?

I suggest that there is an infinite set of such impotent gods.

If a definition of God is attempted that does not include God's intervention, it is likely to happen that God gets defined as an 'imaginary, mythological being'.

Huh? Clarify?

So if God is to be considered as the omnimax Creator, then one must leave the definition of God up to God.

Do you really see no logical problem with multiple Creator-Gods?

What God are you proposing we leave definitions up to? The "God of Deferred Definitions"...?

So far, that's every single one of them.


Take Care

 

[qwerty mob]

/nod Sarkus

I'm not concluding "there is no God"

because

I don't understand what other people mean by the term, and sadly, neither do they... or so it seems.

...

I have found a "common denominator" though, in the puzzle of "other people's Gods"... thus my so-called definition.

...

As a mere Human being, I don't have any monopoly on knowledge or certainty, but there is good reason to suggest that absolute knowledge and certainty neither exists nor occurs, even outside the "set of sets" of all Human understanding and perception.

Such important considerations make one ever more humble, not arrogant.

Remember "Omniscience implies Deference"

That is quite a puzzle.

Cheers =)

 

[Lerxst]

As a mere Human being, I don't have any monopoly on knowledge or certainty, but there is good reason to suggest that absolute knowledge and certainty neither exists nor occurs, even outside the "set of sets" of all Human understanding and perception.

Bravo! This is good. I think you and I can get along just fine.

 

[qwerty mob]

I'm stupid.

Just ask anyone smarter...

(And I think you're right, and hope they'd agree)

 

[water]

qwerty mob,


The whole thing with God is
that God
might
actually
exist
and intervene with you.


This is why you can't define God without allowing for the possibility of God's intervention. This intervention may, of course, be completely beyond your present comprehension. And once you allow for the possibility of God's intervention, you have to withold the attempt to define God.

 

[Mythbuster]

If I told you that a big green dragon lived in my garage, you asked me to prove it to you, and I answerd "The big green dragon who lives in my garage told me he lived in my garage." Would you belive me? :bugeye:

 

[water]

If I told you that a big green dragon lived in my garage, you asked me to prove it to you, and I answerd "The big green dragon who lives in my garage told me he lived in my garage." Would you belive me? :bugeye:

But I wouldn't ask you to prove it to me.

I'd be bewildered, and suspend both belief and disbelief.

I'd probably only wonder why you are telling me that about the big green dragon.

 

[Mythbuster]

I can deny your god by simply pointing this:

G = God exists
B = God is benevolent
P = God is omnipotent
N = There is no evil

P1. If G, then B and P
P2. If B and P, then N
P3. Not-N
C1. Therefore, not-B or not-P
C2. Therefore, not-G

If G Then (B + P) = "true"
If (B + P) Then N = "true"
N != true

Therefore !(B + P)
Therefore !(G)

Now that i denied your god, it's your turn to prove your god mathematically.
PROVE IT WITH LOGIC !

 

[Jan Ardena]

Sarkus,

First you must prove that something is "God's intervention" and not merely subjective interpretation of a natural event.

Everything is a subjective interpretation of a natural event.
Motzart played the piano using the same notes and scales as anyone else, yet only someone who has no understanding of music, or composing music, would deem him no different to any other musical experience they may happen to like, or not. The person who has the understanding can see much more than the person who does not.

Then for all you mono-theists you must prove that there is ONLY the one God.

To whom?

If there are many Gods and only one chooses to "intervene" - how do you know the same one will "intervene" to every person - or whether different Gods are intervening to different people?
What if two Gods intervene to the same person?

Where do you get the idea of "many Gods"?
How many Sarkus's are there?

And given that there is no scientific evidence of him making himself known to anyone,...

What would you accept as scientific evidence?
Scientific evidence, at best, can only allow one to marvel at the complexity of design of the most simplest phenomena, which it does. But to ask for scientific evidence of God is simply asinine, IMO. No disrespect to yourself.

...and that this "becoming known" is merely subjective interpretation, you basically have a God that doesn't exist except in people's own individual subjective interpretation of natural events -

Everything that is important in life is based on subjective interpretation, who lives their life purely according to science, and more importantly; How does one do so?

Jan.

 

[Mythbuster]

True enough, for "God" is simply an electrochemical reaction, taking place within your brain. In more simplistic terms, "God" is a concept with no external reality. :m:

 

[Lerxst]

I can deny your god by simply pointing this:

G = God exists
B = God is benevolent
P = God is omnipotent
N = There is no evil

P1. If G, then B and P
P2. If B and P, then N
P3. Not-N
C1. Therefore, not-B or not-P
C2. Therefore, not-G

If G Then (B + P) = "true"
If (B + P) Then N = "true"
N != true

Therefore !(B + P)
Therefore !(G)

Now that i denied your god, it's your turn to prove your god mathematically.
PROVE IT WITH LOGIC !

Disclaimer: I am not a theist, I do not believe the following, I am just arguing for the sake of arguing...

What if the evil in the world is a necessary part of a greater good? Then God chooses to not intervene because we would not derive this greater benefit? And the benefit comes after death?

 

[Jan Ardena]

True enough, for "God" is simply an electrochemical reaction, taking place within your brain. In more simplistic terms, "God" is a concept with no external reality. :m:

What if the external reality is God?

Jan.

 

[water]

I can deny your god by simply pointing this:

G = God exists
B = God is benevolent
P = God is omnipotent
N = There is no evil

P1. If G, then B and P
P2. If B and P, then N
P3. Not-N
C1. Therefore, not-B or not-P
C2. Therefore, not-G

If G Then (B + P) = "true"
If (B + P) Then N = "true"
N != true

Therefore !(B + P)
Therefore !(G)

Now that i denied your god, it's your turn to prove your god mathematically.
PROVE IT WITH LOGIC !

Whose God?
I don't claim to believe in God.

 

[water]

True enough, for "God" is simply an electrochemical reaction, taking place within your brain. In more simplistic terms, "God" is a concept with no external reality. :m:

In the same manner, you could claim that you, "Mythbuster", are simply an electrochemical reaction, taking place within somebody's brain; In more simplistic terms, "Mythbuster" is a concept with no external reality.

 

[qwerty mob]

The whole thing with God is

Incoherent to me, objectively.

that God might actually exist and intervene with you.

"What God?"

The "God of merely being possible and maybe intervening"?

I realize it's a broken record now, perhaps even a proverbial dead horse...

This is why you can't define God without allowing for the possibility of God's intervention. This intervention may, of course, be completely beyond your present comprehension. And once you allow for the possibility of God's intervention, you have to withold the attempt to define God.

I'm sorry, but I really do not understand what you mean by "God" because it makes no sense to me, not because there is no willingness to imagine, but that imagining is all there is.

Thank You for the Dance, your Ladyship, You are most graceful under fire,

And I'll gladly do it all again albeit to a different tune.

=)

All the Best

 

[water]

I'm sorry, but I really do not understand what you mean by "God" because it makes no sense to me

Yes. I know. I wanted to bring you this far.
Now try to stop imagining things about God, as well.

 

[qwerty mob]

What God?

 

[water]

The God you think of when you say "God".

 

[qwerty mob]

I'm unsure what that really means; not even when you say it.

And neither does anyone else, evidently.