The Philosophy Forums at OnlinePhilosophyClub.com aim to be an oasis of intelligent in-depth civil debate and discussion. Topics discussed extend far beyond philosophy and philosophers. What makes us a philosophy forum is more about our approach to the discussions than what subject is being debated. Common topics include but are absolutely not limited to neuroscience, psychology, sociology, cosmology, religion, political theory, ethics, and so much more.
This is a humans-only philosophy club. We strictly prohibit bots and AIs from joining.
Discuss philosophical questions regarding theism (and atheism), and discuss religion as it relates to philosophy. This includes any philosophical discussions that happen to be about god, gods, or a 'higher power' or the belief of them. This also generally includes philosophical topics about organized or ritualistic mysticism or about organized, common or ritualistic beliefs in the existence of supernatural phenomenon.
Tegularius wrote: ↑February 16th, 2021, 9:40 pm
Amazing how we keep recreating god with ifs & therefores. It's how we keep god alive for whose existence there is absolutely no proof which proves at least this much. If there is a god its perfection resides in its non-interference policy.
I suppose by "non-interference" you intend that God does not intervene in history.
So He is a democrat. Probably a Democrat too.
Tegularius wrote: ↑February 16th, 2021, 9:40 pm
Amazing how we keep recreating god with ifs & therefores. It's how we keep god alive for whose existence there is absolutely no proof which proves at least this much. If there is a god its perfection resides in its non-interference policy.
I suppose by "non-interference" you intend that God does not intervene in history.
So He is a democrat. Probably a Democrat too.
Not likely! IF there were a god of some kind whose influence in the universe is equal to no god there would be no concern for however you acknowledge it or whether it even gets acknowledged. All labels are superfluous to describe such an entity even though humans love labels.
The earth has a skin and that skin has diseases; one of its diseases is called man ... Nietzsche
Tegularius wrote: ↑February 16th, 2021, 9:40 pm
Amazing how we keep recreating god with ifs & therefores. It's how we keep god alive for whose existence there is absolutely no proof which proves at least this much. If there is a god its perfection resides in its non-interference policy.
I suppose by "non-interference" you intend that God does not intervene in history.
So He is a democrat. Probably a Democrat too.
Not likely! IF there were a god of some kind whose influence in the universe is equal to no god there would be no concern for however you acknowledge it or whether it even gets acknowledged. All labels are superfluous to describe such an entity even though humans love labels.
If God such as you describe as ineffable, then what is the point of worshiping it, or even talking about it? After all, if if God had no attributes we could not conceive of it.
What has your idea of a contentless God to do with anything?
Tegularius wrote: ↑February 16th, 2021, 9:40 pm
Amazing how we keep recreating god with ifs & therefores. It's how we keep god alive for whose existence there is absolutely no proof which proves at least this much. If there is a god its perfection resides in its non-interference policy.
I suppose by "non-interference" you intend that God does not intervene in history.
So He is a democrat. Probably a Democrat too.
Not likely! IF there were a god of some kind whose influence in the universe is equal to no god there would be no concern for however you acknowledge it or whether it even gets acknowledged. All labels are superfluous to describe such an entity even though humans love labels.
If God such as you describe as ineffable, then what is the point of worshiping it, or even talking about it? After all, if if God had no attributes we could not conceive of it.
What has your idea of a contentless God to do with anything?
I don't think ineffable is the right word to use in this context since its meaning is not applicable to something which exists only in our imagination as a subjective experience. If that's the case the most that can be said is that god becomes a personal realization of ineffability and only that.
A god whose influence is equal to that of no influence at all with not an iota of its existence does not describe ineffability from what I can tell.
It's hard to assign any predicates to the word "nothing" for that would be a contradiction. Instead of the word "nothing" we replace it with god an idea to which we can assign anything we like or find expedient.
That's the reason why I wrote we keep god alive through If's and therefore's whose variations are only limited by the imagination.
The earth has a skin and that skin has diseases; one of its diseases is called man ... Nietzsche
I suppose by "non-interference" you intend that God does not intervene in history.
So He is a democrat. Probably a Democrat too.
Not likely! IF there were a god of some kind whose influence in the universe is equal to no god there would be no concern for however you acknowledge it or whether it even gets acknowledged. All labels are superfluous to describe such an entity even though humans love labels.
If God such as you describe as ineffable, then what is the point of worshiping it, or even talking about it? After all, if if God had no attributes we could not conceive of it.
What has your idea of a contentless God to do with anything?
I don't think ineffable is the right word to use in this context since its meaning is not applicable to something which exists only in our imagination as a subjective experience. If that's the case the most that can be said is that god becomes a personal realization of ineffability and only that.
A god whose influence is equal to that of no influence at all with not an iota of its existence does not describe ineffability from what I can tell.
It's hard to assign any predicates to the word "nothing" for that would be a contradiction. Instead of the word "nothing" we replace it with god an idea to which we can assign anything we like or find expedient.
That's the reason why I wrote we keep god alive through If's and therefore's whose variations are only limited by the imagination.
That is usually called "the god of the gaps". Historically gods have had substantial attributes and have usually had powers and/or elaborate moral systems attributed to them. Th meanings of gods is social not subjective.
Not likely! IF there were a god of some kind whose influence in the universe is equal to no god there would be no concern for however you acknowledge it or whether it even gets acknowledged. All labels are superfluous to describe such an entity even though humans love labels.
If God such as you describe as ineffable, then what is the point of worshiping it, or even talking about it? After all, if if God had no attributes we could not conceive of it.
What has your idea of a contentless God to do with anything?
I don't think ineffable is the right word to use in this context since its meaning is not applicable to something which exists only in our imagination as a subjective experience. If that's the case the most that can be said is that god becomes a personal realization of ineffability and only that.
A god whose influence is equal to that of no influence at all with not an iota of its existence does not describe ineffability from what I can tell.
It's hard to assign any predicates to the word "nothing" for that would be a contradiction. Instead of the word "nothing" we replace it with god an idea to which we can assign anything we like or find expedient.
That's the reason why I wrote we keep god alive through If's and therefore's whose variations are only limited by the imagination.
That is usually called "the god of the gaps". Historically gods have had substantial attributes and have usually had powers and/or elaborate moral systems attributed to them. Th meanings of gods is social not subjective.
You can call it god of the gaps if you like though I never considered it in what I wrote. Being a fallacy to begin with that idea offers a null perspective concerning the existence of any god. Here's a definition of it from Wiki...
God of the gaps (or a divine fallacy) is a logical fallacy that occurs when believers invoke Goddidit (or a variant) in order to account for some natural phenomena that science cannot (at the time of the argument) explain. This concept resembles what systems theorists[1] refer to as an "explanatory principle".[2] "God of the gaps" is a bad argument not only on logical grounds, but on empirical grounds: there is a long history of "gaps" being filled and the remaining gaps for God thus getting smaller and smaller, suggesting "we don't know yet" as an alternative that works better in practice; naturalistic explanations for still-mysterious phenomena always remain possible, especially in the future where research may uncover more information.[3] Invoking a God of the Gaps is a didit fallacy and an ad hoc fallacy, as well as an argument from incredulity or an argument from ignorance, and is thus an informal fallacy.
I agree that god, singular or plural, is a social construct and hence devoid of actuality but any subjective experience is certainly not without meaning who are so inclined to believe. Instead of a social construct it becomes a personal one which invariably happens when its social-political backdrop is grounded in atheism.
The earth has a skin and that skin has diseases; one of its diseases is called man ... Nietzsche
I agree that god, singular or plural, is a social construct and hence devoid of actuality but any subjective experience is certainly not without meaning who are so inclined to believe. Instead of a social construct it becomes a personal one which invariably happens when its social-political backdrop is grounded in atheism.
A reality that transcends social reality may be; and that reality may be an ordered reality for instance nature as we are coming to know it.
However we cannot know what transcends knowledge.
A man who believes what his social group does not believe is sometimes a poet, prophet, or artist and sometimes he is mad. Sometimes his motives are selfish.
Sometimes a new social group will form around his ideas.
I do not know what you intend by "atheism", as 'atheism' denotes several ideas and also connotes disapproval.
Belindi wrote: ↑February 19th, 2021, 4:16 am
Tegularius wrote:
I agree that god, singular or plural, is a social construct and hence devoid of actuality but any subjective experience is certainly not without meaning who are so inclined to believe. Instead of a social construct it becomes a personal one which invariably happens when its social-political backdrop is grounded in atheism.
A reality that transcends social reality may be; and that reality may be an ordered reality for instance nature as we are coming to know it.
However we cannot know what transcends knowledge.
A man who believes what his social group does not believe is sometimes a poet, prophet, or artist and sometimes he is mad. Sometimes his motives are selfish.
Sometimes a new social group will form around his ideas.
I do not know what you intend by "atheism", as 'atheism' denotes several ideas and also connotes disapproval.
The usual dictionary definition even though there may be grades of atheism. For myself, I regard the word simply as one that counters theism and all of its absurdities. It also seems to me that the word can be equally applied to some hypothetical god or being that has absolutely no influence in the world which it may directly or indirectly have created. Talking about such an entity is the most useless thing philosophy can do since it equals the effect of no god at all.
The earth has a skin and that skin has diseases; one of its diseases is called man ... Nietzsche
The usual dictionary definition even though there may be grades of atheism. For myself, I regard the word simply as one that counters theism and all of its absurdities. It also seems to me that the word can be equally applied to some hypothetical god or being that has absolutely no influence in the world which it may directly or indirectly have created. Talking about such an entity is the most useless thing philosophy can do since it equals the effect of no god at all.
All deities are agents of change. That these agents are conscious and have intentions like persons are conscious and have intentions is disputable .Classic theism holds there is an unchangeable law-giver, a deity that is necessary for change , for the creation, to happen at all.
If you think of a pair of compasses you understand one of the two legs is static and being static is necessary for the other leg to move within a defined radius.Classical theism is like that engineering principle. The static leg of the pair is the transcendent God Who has to be immovable and defines the movement of the creation which is relative to God.
Modern relativity is events relate to each other not to an immovable deity at their causal centre.
Count Lucanor wrote: ↑January 9th, 2021, 3:16 pmA perfect being with omni-benevolence by essence is also required to be omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient. Implied in all of this is also the attribute of being a person, an agent with volition, thoughts, feelings, etc. But all these essential attributes can never work together, they contradict each other. No such divine person could exist.
To wit: Krishna/Vishnu. He has all those attributes (and more).
Good enough reason to understand it is a mere product of imagination.
I still don't see your point.
I don't see why those attributes (should) contradict eachother.
baker wrote: ↑February 13th, 2021, 3:35 pmNone of this is an issue in Hinduism, for there, one is not threatened with eternal hellfire if one doesn't make the right religious choice in this lifetime.
Western theistic and atheistic discourse is permeated with Christianity's threat of eternal hellfire for making the wrong religious choice. The very relevance of discussing about God and trying to come to certainty about his existence or lack thereof is driven by this threat. Take away this threat, and the whole apologetics changes.
Hi, baker, I could be wrong but I suspect there is a miscommunication here. I didn't mention hellfire in the slightest, and I am not sure what hellfire or such has to do with any part of my post at all, let alone specifically the main point that there is a significant and critical difference (1) refutability versus (2) believability.
The threat of eternal hellfire is what gives relevance to the whole discussion of God's existence in the Abrahamic context.
Were it not fo the threat of eternal damnation if you make the wrong religous choice, you would dismiss Jehovah with an idle hand gesture, would you not?
baker wrote: ↑January 9th, 2021, 4:54 pm
Hindu (mono)theism is impossible to refute, given that it has an inbuilt clause that if you don't see it as true, then this is because God thinks that you're not ready yet.
Scott wrote: ↑January 24th, 2021, 2:14 am
baker, I don't think that makes it necessarily impossible to refute. If you claim a married bachelor with god-like power named Greg runs the world, and if I don't believe in Greg it's because Greg made me not believe in him with his godlike power, I think I can refute that with sound logic; don't you?
Nonetheless, secondarily, there is a big difference between (1) refutability versus (2) believability. A great example of that fact is Russell's Teapot.
baker wrote: ↑February 13th, 2021, 3:35 pmNone of this is an issue in Hinduism, for there, one is not threatened with eternal hellfire if one doesn't make the right religious choice in this lifetime.
Western theistic and atheistic discourse is permeated with Christianity's threat of eternal hellfire for making the wrong religious choice. The very relevance of discussing about God and trying to come to certainty about his existence or lack thereof is driven by this threat. Take away this threat, and the whole apologetics changes.
Scott wrote: ↑February 15th, 2021, 9:03 pm
Hi, baker, I could be wrong but I suspect there is a miscommunication here. I didn't mention hellfire in the slightest, and I am not sure what hellfire or such has to do with any part of my post at all, let alone specifically the main point that there is a significant and critical difference (1) refutability versus (2) believability.
baker wrote: ↑February 20th, 2021, 1:32 pm
The threat of eternal hellfire is what gives relevance to the whole discussion of God's existence in the Abrahamic context.
Were it not fo the threat of eternal damnation if you make the wrong religous choice, you would dismiss Jehovah with an idle hand gesture, would you not?
Hi, baker, again I suspect there is a severe miscommunication here. I never mentioned hellfire or Abrahamic religion in this thread.
I'm not sure how my own personal individual religious views would be relevant to the points I did make in this thread (which are quoted above in this post), but if my personal religious views do somehow have relevance then let me specify that I am not religious at all. However, even the fact that I would be inclined to mention that seemingly utterly irreverent autobiographical fact about myself seems to suggest there has been a huge misunderstanding, because as far as I can tell it is utterly irrelevant to the issues I discussed as quoted above, namely the philosophical matter of the difference between (1) refutability versus (2) believability.
Belindi wrote: ↑February 20th, 2021, 5:44 am
If you think of a pair of compasses you understand one of the two legs is static and being static is necessary for the other leg to move within a defined radius.Classical theism is like that engineering principle. The static leg of the pair is the transcendent God Who has to be immovable and defines the movement of the creation which is relative to God.
Modern relativity is events relate to each other not to an immovable deity at their causal centre.
I don't know how this relates to anything I wrote but by this description god is nothing more than a metaphor of immovability compared to which everything else moves. It reminds of Aristotle's Immovable Mover explanation as a metaphysical entity, not a religious one having anything to do with humans.
Under those conditions, believing in god purely as a metaphysical something does not preempt any postulate of atheistic thinking. That is, one can accept a version of such a being and remain an atheist because there is nothing theistic regarding that kind of intelligence.
The earth has a skin and that skin has diseases; one of its diseases is called man ... Nietzsche
Belindi wrote: ↑February 20th, 2021, 5:44 am
If you think of a pair of compasses you understand one of the two legs is static and being static is necessary for the other leg to move within a defined radius.Classical theism is like that engineering principle. The static leg of the pair is the transcendent God Who has to be immovable and defines the movement of the creation which is relative to God.
Modern relativity is events relate to each other not to an immovable deity at their causal centre.
I don't know how this relates to anything I wrote but by this description god is nothing more than a metaphor of immovability compared to which everything else moves. It reminds of Aristotle's Immovable Mover explanation as a metaphysical entity, not a religious one having anything to do with humans.
Under those conditions, believing in god purely as a metaphysical something does not preempt any postulate of atheistic thinking. That is, one can accept a version of such a being and remain an atheist because there is nothing theistic regarding that kind of intelligence.
Good that you mentioned Aristotle's Immovable mover . Immovable mover necessarily pertains to any god , not only Abrahamic God but also the major and minor gods of the Greek and Roman pantheons, and tribal gods such as Jahweh and Baal.
For instance the sea God Neptune has ultimate power over the seas, the power of the seas being an immovable fact of life. And Mars the god of war is an immovable fact of life. Also for the life of the tribe, Jahweh was an immovable fact of life.
a person who believes in the existence of God or gods
adjective
of or relating to theists or theismnoun
a person who believes in the doctrine of theism
a person who believes in the existence of God or gods
adjective
of or relating to theists or theism
(dictionary.com)
You may define 'theist' any way you like but if you want to be understood you should keep close to the dictionary definition.I guess what you really object to is personifications of natural forces and tribal allegiances.
There are many people alive today who believe Abrahamic God is a person Who not only intended to create stuff the way He did, but also intervenes in His creation whenever He feels like doing so.