God is Real: a dialogue
- Angel Trismegistus
- Posts: 568
- Joined: July 25th, 2020, 1:19 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: William James
- Location: New York City
God is Real: a dialogue
For Gee
Beside a mountain stream, a Skeptic and an Angel, fishing.
Skeptic: There is no God!
Angel: What's the matter? Fish steal your bait again? Well, look at it this way -- at least you know they're out there!
Skeptic: Fish are out there, yes. But as for God.... My whole life I've been putting out bait -- not a nibble!
Angel: Maybe you're using the wrong bait.
Skeptic: Or maybe that lake has been fished out.
Angel: How can you say there is no God when you are surrounded by the wonders of nature -- by such natural beauty?
Skeptic: What does the one thing have to do with the other?
Angel: What does Beauty have to do with God?
Skeptic: I see no connection there at all.
Angel: The connection is heuristic.
Skeptic: Heuristic, you say? Look, everyone knows beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
Angel: Sure, everyone knows that. But is anyone who knows that saying that beauty isn't real?
Skeptic: What do you mean by "real"?
Angel: I mean not an illusion. When we say beauty is in the eye of the beholder, are we talking about something real or something illusory?
Skeptic: We're talking about something that is in the mind.
Angel: Everything we know and talk about is in the mind. If everything in the mind is an illusion, then nothing we know or talk about is real.
Skeptic: Well, that doesn't sound right. I know! Beauty is a value!
Angel: That's right.
Skeptic: And finding beauty in something is a judgment!
Angel: That's right too -- a value judgment.
Skeptic: There you go.
Angel: But aren't the different things different people find beauty in real things?
Skeptic: I suppose. Yes, the things are real.
Angel: And the value different people find in things -- this value called "beauty" -- is that not also real? Or are the things real but their value illusory?
Skeptic: But people find this value in different things.
Angel: Granted. But aren't these people finding the same value in these different things?
Skeptic: The same value in different things?
Angel: Yes, Beauty -- with a capital B.
Skeptic: All right, let's say for the sake of argument that it's Beauty with a capital B that they're all finding in different things.
Angel: Well, if the thing is real, isn't the value of the thing real? The face of a beloved wife or child, is not the beauty of that face as real as the face? Isn't the face and the beauty of the face inseparable?
Skeptic: To the one who finds beauty in it, yes.
Angel: And to the one who finds beauty in another face -- isn't that face and the beauty of that face one and the same?
Skeptic: That follows. All right, let's say that the thing and the beauty of the thing are both real to the one making the value judgment.
Angel: Then the many judgments of beauty by many different people in many different things -- these all find something real when they find Beauty in these things.
Skeptic: What's your point?
Angel: Beauty is real.
Skeptic: So let's say that beauty is real -- for the sake of argument, let's say that is the case. What does that have to do with God?
Angel: It's the same case.
Skeptic: What do you mean?
Angel: Like Beauty, God too is in the eye of the beholder. Manifest in the things of this world. A value of things. And that's a judgment most people make, and have made from the beginning of time. And like Beauty, God is as real as the things of this world in which people find Beauty and God. God is the value of the things of this world. God is real.
Skeptic: But I don't see God in the things of this world.
Angel: Well, keep looking, my friend, and perhaps one day you will. But pay attention -- your bobber is twitching! You've got a nibble!
Comment? Challenge? Criticism? Praise?
All good-faith responses are welcome.
- Terrapin Station
- Posts: 6227
- Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
- Location: NYC Man
Re: God is Real: a dialogue
So you're a solipsist, then. You'd have to say that insofar as there are even "other people," they're simply in your mind. And of course, gods are in your mind, too. So you're an ontological solipsist.Angel Trismegistus wrote: ↑September 17th, 2020, 5:38 am Everything we know and talk about is in the mind.
- Angel Trismegistus
- Posts: 568
- Joined: July 25th, 2020, 1:19 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: William James
- Location: New York City
Re: God is Real: a dialogue
I don't believe so. A solipsist claims that everything is only in his mind. The point made in the dialogue is that being in the mind is not a cogent point at all.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑September 17th, 2020, 7:02 am Why does your skeptic just let this slide:So you're a solipsist, then. You'd have to say that insofar as there are even "other people," they're simply in your mind. And of course, gods are in your mind, too. So you're an ontological solipsist.Angel Trismegistus wrote: ↑September 17th, 2020, 5:38 am Everything we know and talk about is in the mind.
-
- Posts: 10339
- Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Re: God is Real: a dialogue
If you use the word "God" to mean the value that you place on things in the world I have no problem with that, but it seems to be different from the way that most other people use that word.Angel Trismegistus wrote:God is the value of the things of this world.
I disagree that values are real, if by "real" we mean the opposite of abstract; existing independently of the minds that hold the values. If there were no sentient beings to value things then then those values would not exist. If you equate God with value, then the same goes for God. But, as I said, my impression of the way that most other people have used that word is that they see it as indicating something that does exist independently of the people who value it.God is real.
- Terrapin Station
- Posts: 6227
- Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
- Location: NYC Man
Re: God is Real: a dialogue
Your text says that everything we know or talk about is in the mind. What do you think is not in the mind then?Angel Trismegistus wrote: ↑September 17th, 2020, 12:34 pmI don't believe so. A solipsist claims that everything is only in his mind. The point made in the dialogue is that being in the mind is not a cogent point at all.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑September 17th, 2020, 7:02 am Why does your skeptic just let this slide:
So you're a solipsist, then. You'd have to say that insofar as there are even "other people," they're simply in your mind. And of course, gods are in your mind, too. So you're an ontological solipsist.
- Calepiaro
- New Trial Member
- Posts: 16
- Joined: September 11th, 2020, 3:26 pm
Re: God is Real: a dialogue
We are nothing but humble explorers. We do not create values, we only discover them. A rock falls down to earth even if there is no human to acknowledge that. If we created the values as you claim, they would lose all their meaning. One would be right only because he says so, he creating the values his righteousness is based on. Why would killers be evil and innocents innocent? Because we say so, for that nothing but us creates the values we base our morality and virtue on! Values must be set by a supra-human in order for them to be relevant. A killer would no be bad, for that his values would be in his favour, yours would be against him, but what would make you right and him wrong?Steve3007 wrote: ↑September 17th, 2020, 4:59 pmIf you use the word "God" to mean the value that you place on things in the world I have no problem with that, but it seems to be different from the way that most other people use that word.Angel Trismegistus wrote:God is the value of the things of this world.
I disagree that values are real, if by "real" we mean the opposite of abstract; existing independently of the minds that hold the values. If there were no sentient beings to value things then then those values would not exist. If you equate God with value, then the same goes for God. But, as I said, my impression of the way that most other people have used that word is that they see it as indicating something that does exist independently of the people who value it.God is real.
- Angel Trismegistus
- Posts: 568
- Joined: July 25th, 2020, 1:19 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: William James
- Location: New York City
Re: God is Real: a dialogue
Everything we know and talk about is in the mind, but not necessarily only in the mind. This post of yours that I'm replying to you is in my mind, but also on my computer screen. Re-read that part of the dialogue. You're missing the point.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑September 17th, 2020, 5:14 pmYour text says that everything we know or talk about is in the mind. What do you think is not in the mind then?Angel Trismegistus wrote: ↑September 17th, 2020, 12:34 pm
I don't believe so. A solipsist claims that everything is only in his mind. The point made in the dialogue is that being in the mind is not a cogent point at all.
- Terrapin Station
- Posts: 6227
- Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
- Location: NYC Man
Re: God is Real: a dialogue
The problem in that case is that when your skeptic says "We're talking about something that is in the mind" when he's talking about beauty, he's talking about something that's ONLY in the mind versus something that also exists externally.Angel Trismegistus wrote: ↑September 17th, 2020, 5:28 pmEverything we know and talk about is in the mind, but not necessarily only in the mind. This post of yours that I'm replying to you is in my mind, but also on my computer screen. Re-read that part of the dialogue. You're missing the point.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑September 17th, 2020, 5:14 pm
Your text says that everything we know or talk about is in the mind. What do you think is not in the mind then?
- h_k_s
- Posts: 1243
- Joined: November 25th, 2018, 12:09 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Aristotle
- Location: Rocky Mountains
Re: God is Real: a dialogue
Why did you choose an angel for this dialogue?Angel Trismegistus wrote: ↑September 17th, 2020, 5:38 am
For Gee
Beside a mountain stream, a Skeptic and an Angel, fishing.
Skeptic: There is no God!
Angel: What's the matter? Fish steal your bait again? Well, look at it this way -- at least you know they're out there!
Skeptic: Fish are out there, yes. But as for God.... My whole life I've been putting out bait -- not a nibble!
Angel: Maybe you're using the wrong bait.
Skeptic: Or maybe that lake has been fished out.
Angel: How can you say there is no God when you are surrounded by the wonders of nature -- by such natural beauty?
Skeptic: What does the one thing have to do with the other?
Angel: What does Beauty have to do with God?
Skeptic: I see no connection there at all.
Angel: The connection is heuristic.
Skeptic: Heuristic, you say? Look, everyone knows beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
Angel: Sure, everyone knows that. But is anyone who knows that saying that beauty isn't real?
Skeptic: What do you mean by "real"?
Angel: I mean not an illusion. When we say beauty is in the eye of the beholder, are we talking about something real or something illusory?
Skeptic: We're talking about something that is in the mind.
Angel: Everything we know and talk about is in the mind. If everything in the mind is an illusion, then nothing we know or talk about is real.
Skeptic: Well, that doesn't sound right. I know! Beauty is a value!
Angel: That's right.
Skeptic: And finding beauty in something is a judgment!
Angel: That's right too -- a value judgment.
Skeptic: There you go.
Angel: But aren't the different things different people find beauty in real things?
Skeptic: I suppose. Yes, the things are real.
Angel: And the value different people find in things -- this value called "beauty" -- is that not also real? Or are the things real but their value illusory?
Skeptic: But people find this value in different things.
Angel: Granted. But aren't these people finding the same value in these different things?
Skeptic: The same value in different things?
Angel: Yes, Beauty -- with a capital B.
Skeptic: All right, let's say for the sake of argument that it's Beauty with a capital B that they're all finding in different things.
Angel: Well, if the thing is real, isn't the value of the thing real? The face of a beloved wife or child, is not the beauty of that face as real as the face? Isn't the face and the beauty of the face inseparable?
Skeptic: To the one who finds beauty in it, yes.
Angel: And to the one who finds beauty in another face -- isn't that face and the beauty of that face one and the same?
Skeptic: That follows. All right, let's say that the thing and the beauty of the thing are both real to the one making the value judgment.
Angel: Then the many judgments of beauty by many different people in many different things -- these all find something real when they find Beauty in these things.
Skeptic: What's your point?
Angel: Beauty is real.
Skeptic: So let's say that beauty is real -- for the sake of argument, let's say that is the case. What does that have to do with God?
Angel: It's the same case.
Skeptic: What do you mean?
Angel: Like Beauty, God too is in the eye of the beholder. Manifest in the things of this world. A value of things. And that's a judgment most people make, and have made from the beginning of time. And like Beauty, God is as real as the things of this world in which people find Beauty and God. God is the value of the things of this world. God is real.
Skeptic: But I don't see God in the things of this world.
Angel: Well, keep looking, my friend, and perhaps one day you will. But pay attention -- your bobber is twitching! You've got a nibble!
Comment? Challenge? Criticism? Praise?
All good-faith responses are welcome.
And what kind of angel are you thinking of? The angel Gabriel who appeared to St. Mary and St. Elizabeth? The angel Gabriel who appeared to Muhamed in the cave? Some other angel?
You did not introduce your fictional characters very well if at all.
- Angel Trismegistus
- Posts: 568
- Joined: July 25th, 2020, 1:19 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: William James
- Location: New York City
Re: God is Real: a dialogue
Yes, the Skeptic makes the same mistake you're making here in your comments, but that's not a "problem" with the dialogue -- that's the problem set by the dialog, the problem solved in the course of the dialog -- in short, the very theme of the dialog.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑September 17th, 2020, 5:42 pmThe problem in that case is that when your skeptic says "We're talking about something that is in the mind" when he's talking about beauty, he's talking about something that's ONLY in the mind versus something that also exists externally.Angel Trismegistus wrote: ↑September 17th, 2020, 5:28 pm
Everything we know and talk about is in the mind, but not necessarily only in the mind. This post of yours that I'm replying to you is in my mind, but also on my computer screen. Re-read that part of the dialogue. You're missing the point.
- Angel Trismegistus
- Posts: 568
- Joined: July 25th, 2020, 1:19 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: William James
- Location: New York City
Re: God is Real: a dialogue
I confess to nepotism in casting the star role in my dialog. Yes. Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.h_k_s wrote: ↑September 17th, 2020, 8:24 pm Why did you choose an angel for this dialogue?
And what kind of angel are you thinking of? The angel Gabriel who appeared to St. Mary and St. Elizabeth? The angel Gabriel who appeared to Muhamed in the cave? Some other angel?
You did not introduce your fictional characters very well if at all.
The kind of angel is left open, but certainly not a cherub, and probably not an archangel. A dominion seems like the likely kind.
I would say not at all. The characters aren't introduced "at all," and when you come right down to it aren't even "characters." They're types.
-
- Posts: 10339
- Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Re: God is Real: a dialogue
I agree that we discover things. I just disagree that those things are values. A rock falling down to earth is not a value. It's an event. Yes, that event does happen even if there is no human to acknowledge it. A value, in that example, would be something like our own perception of beauty of, or love for that rock or that event.Calepiaro wrote:We are nothing but humble explorers. We do not create values, we only discover them. A rock falls down to earth even if there is no human to acknowledge that.
Another example: The other evening I watched a documentary film about the Voyager space probe mission. I found the film, the purpose of the mission and even the space probes themselves quite moving. I value those space probes! Many other people wouldn't value them or their mission at all. A lot of people would say something like "What a waste of time and money! They should be spending that money on schools and hospitals!" or some such thing. They'd obviously be perfectly right to say that if it's what they feel. They don't value those space probes. That's fine. That's the nature of value.
I feel the opposite way about it. I think it is the fact that we have created values and shared them with other people - that we are willing to own them - that gives them meaning.If we created the values as you claim, they would lose all their meaning.
Your comment here implies that, in your view, one is right or wrong depending on whether one is in agreement with that supra-human you mention. One of the standard problems with this position is that it often tends to be held by people who then want to tell us what the supra-human thinks. So they really just want to dictate to us their own views as to what is right or wrong (their own values) but attempt to give those views more gravitas. A frequent problem that occurs there is when different people claim different things about the values of that supra-human.One would be right only because he says so, he creating the values his righteousness is based on. Why would killers be evil and innocents innocent? Because we say so, for that nothing but us creates the values we base our morality and virtue on! Values must be set by a supra-human in order for them to be relevant. A killer would no be bad, for that his values would be in his favour, yours would be against him, but what would make you right and him wrong?
As I understand it, Angel Trismegistus tackles this by proposing that the values of that supra-human are the laws of Nature and, specifically, the law of evolution by natural selection. What do you think of that approach? Does it work for you?
- Angel Trismegistus
- Posts: 568
- Joined: July 25th, 2020, 1:19 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: William James
- Location: New York City
Re: God is Real: a dialogue
No, not "the value that you place on things in the world" -- rather, the value that is found in the things of the world.Steve3007 wrote: ↑September 17th, 2020, 4:59 pmIf you use the word "God" to mean the value that you place on things in the world I have no problem with that, but it seems to be different from the way that most other people use that word.Angel Trismegistus wrote:God is the value of the things of this world.
I disagree that values are real, if by "real" we mean the opposite of abstract; existing independently of the minds that hold the values. If there were no sentient beings to value things then then those values would not exist. If you equate God with value, then the same goes for God. But, as I said, my impression of the way that most other people have used that word is that they see it as indicating something that does exist independently of the people who value it.God is real.
How other people use the word "God" is beside the point here.
And your disagreement is based on the misunderstanding I've just corrected.
- Angel Trismegistus
- Posts: 568
- Joined: July 25th, 2020, 1:19 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: William James
- Location: New York City
Re: God is Real: a dialogue
Nicely put. Welcome to the club.Calepiaro wrote: ↑September 17th, 2020, 5:22 pm We are nothing but humble explorers. We do not create values, we only discover them. A rock falls down to earth even if there is no human to acknowledge that. If we created the values as you claim, they would lose all their meaning. One would be right only because he says so, he creating the values his righteousness is based on. Why would killers be evil and innocents innocent? Because we say so, for that nothing but us creates the values we base our morality and virtue on! Values must be set by a supra-human in order for them to be relevant. A killer would no be bad, for that his values would be in his favour, yours would be against him, but what would make you right and him wrong?
-
- Posts: 10339
- Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Re: God is Real: a dialogue
Angel Trismegistus wrote:No, not "the value that you place on things in the world" -- rather, the value that is found in the things of the world.
Steve3007 wrote:I disagree that values are real, if by "real" we mean the opposite of abstract; existing independently of the minds that hold the values. If there were no sentient beings to value things then then those values would not exist. If you equate God with value, then the same goes for God...
2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
2023 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023