Absolute Certainty

Originally posted by vistesd
Hi, Google. Thanks. Hope you’re well, man.

I think that the last time we talked, I said that I presently consider myself an “agnostic theist”—using the terminology that you laid out. But my notion of theos is so outside the conventional notions generally proffered on here, that I am more and more using that term—theos—rather than the comm ...[text shortened]... post on here as an “atheist”, and other times as “theist”—no doubt confusing all and sundry! 😉

I am well thankyou, and hope you are likewise.

I don't know if what you believe would constitute what I would accept as a valid meaning for the word 'god'.
But then I don't really have much clue what it is you do believe in 😉

I don't know if this is applicable, but it seems a bit like you are starting from the idea that there is something
or should be something supernatural/godish/whatever that exists. And you are trying to work out what that
something is.

I would suggest as a better alternative [certainly a simpler one] is not to assume that any such thing exists
until sufficiently convincing evidence is discovered suggesting that it does.

As far as I can see, 'religion as philosophy' if I can use that as a catch-all for whatever it is you are doing, doesn't
seem to do anything outside of peoples minds. There is no 'there' there. If you want to do something to peoples
[your own] minds, it seems more practical and efficient to just do that, without all the religious baggage.


Instead of trying to imbue the universe with properties it doesn't have so as to have a desired effect on your brain.
Perhaps you should focus on just imbuing your brain with the desired effect directly?


Just a thought.

Anyhow, you are so delightfully vague on the topic that I cannot tell whether this thought is applicable or not.

Stay confusing. o/

Originally posted by googlefudge
I am well thankyou, and hope you are likewise.

I don't know if what you believe would constitute what I would accept as a valid meaning for the word 'god'.
But then I don't really have much clue what it is you do believe in 😉

I don't know if this is applicable, but it seems a bit like you are starting from the idea that there is something
or sh ...[text shortened]... on the topic that I cannot tell whether this thought is applicable or not.

Stay confusing. o/

LoL! “Delightfully vague”—I sort of like that! 😉 Not all notions of theos have, historically, been supernaturalist. That is a fact that neither “conventional” theists (in a certain “western” cultural sense), nor atheists (in the same western cultural sense), seem capable of remembering. Sorry—a bit of annoyance, just because I have been writing of this so much for so many years on here, and nobody ever seems to remember, or pay attention.

The notion of a naturalistic god that is not exogenous to the natural universe is not—not, not, not, not, not—some modern apologetic attempt to salvage “theism”. In fact, in various forms (not all of which I could defend), it is probably older than the exogenous god—of the omnipotent/omniscient/omnibenevolent/creator type that is almost always talked about on here, and elsewhere.

Google, I really like you, and have enjoyed your posts here often. But I am not going to write a lengthy redux just because nobody can be bothered to pay attention—or else think that the sign “g-o-d” has only one well-understood signified.

Just as you noted with Robert Carrier—there are books out there. I’ve cited several over the years. But because nobody wants to concede that there might be more than one kind of “g-o-d” worth considering—theist and atheist both—I’m just not going to bother anymore. You can write that off however you wish—but I’ve been on here a long time, so it’s not like I’ve refused to “play the game”.

I recall once when you (perhaps quite validly) called out myself and another poster on here for not providing sufficient information to “newbies” in our dialogue. After which, I undertook a fairly patient explanation—for which you thanked me. But enough is enough—really, I no longer want to spend the time on here repeating ad nauseum things I’ve said before—not because I think they are necessarily right, but because they are nearly universally ignored. And when I refer to them obliquely—now I am “delightfully vague”.

Not your fault, I suppose. Been here too long. Believe I shouldn’t have to explain once again, again, again . . . .

Be well. I really mean that.

Originally posted by vistesd
LoL! “Delightfully vague”—I sort of like that! 😉 Not all notions of theos have, historically, been supernaturalist. That is a fact that neither “conventional” theists (in a certain “western” cultural sense), nor atheists (in the same western cultural sense), seem capable of remembering. Sorry—a bit of annoyance, just because I have been writing ...[text shortened]... e I shouldn’t have to explain once again, again, again . . . .

Be well. I really mean that.

I wasn't asking for a redux or an explanation. And I don't need to be reminded that there are many different and
varied god concepts 😉 😛

When I said "accept as a valid meaning of god" what I meant is that I place boundaries [very broad]
on what I will accept as a 'god' concept for the purposes of discussing if a god or gods exist.

For example people could say "I believe the sun is a god, you believe the sun exists, therefore you believe
in my god"... To which I respond that 'the sun' falls outside of things I accept as being members of the set
identifiable by the label god.

I still accept the sun exists, I just don't accept that 'god' is a valid label for it.

[If you believe in an anthropomorphic being pushing a glowing ball across the sky then that's a whole other
ball game]

When I say that I don't know if what you believe in [or are thinking about] falls under what I accept as a valid
god, I am speaking strictly about labelling of what you believe [bearing in mind that you yourself hesitate to
use the word] and how you/we/I think about what you believe.

There may [for example] be potentially very powerful beings in existence in or out of our visible universe/set of dimensions
and those beings may have even created our little patch of existence. [I don't think it's at all likely, but it's possible].

However I wouldn't view such beings necessarily as being gods [natural or supernatural].

I am not sure that what you are exploring and thinking about is 'worth it' or not.
But that is semi independent of whether it's a god or not.

I cannot be certain, but I suspect that what you are thinking about is not something I would include under my
accepted definition of god criteria. [uncertainty includes my definition being non-formalised and more of a "I know
it when I see it" kinda thing] And I am not sure what, if any, benefit there might be to thinking in terms of god/theos
when exploring the world. It doesn't seem to me to be any sort of helpful identifier to any facet of reality.

Which was what I was trying to get at.

I don't see what thinking in such terms gets you, it doesn't appear to me to do anything but add unnecessary complexity.


Anyhow, while I am sure that what you are investigating is fascinating [at least to you] I long ago decided that to
properly understand what you are considering would require serious philosophical study and effort that I have neither
the time nor the inclination to devote to the topic. Which while frustrating for me [and perhaps others] there are levels
of detail I am not going to achieve in this because I always have had [and probably will always have] higher priorities
to deal with and devote my effort towards. This site being a small diversion from other things.

So I remain slightly in the dark as to quite what it is you believe, and content to remain that way. With no fault or blame
if such exists resting on anyone but me.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Tough time at comprehending, or just too much to keep straight for you?

I comprehend quite well: you made a mistake and just can't admit it.

Originally posted by googlefudge
I wasn't asking for a redux or an explanation. And I don't need to be reminded that there are many different and
varied god concepts 😉 😛

When I said "accept as a valid meaning of god" what I meant is that I place boundaries [very broad]
on what I will accept as a 'god' concept for the purposes of discussing if a god or gods exist.

For example ...[text shortened]... nd content to remain that way. With no fault or blame
if such exists resting on anyone but me.

You're right, and I apologize. I was cranky last night (for reasons unrelated to here), and not functioning particularly well. You didn't deserve any of that. Again, apologies.

Originally posted by vistesd
You're right, and I apologize. I was cranky last night (for reasons unrelated to here), and not functioning particularly well. You didn't deserve any of that. Again, apologies.

No apology required. 🙂

And I certainly cannot criticise anyone for late night crankiness.

Originally posted by sonhouse
It is you religious types that are the duped ones. For instance, you believe the bible is the absolute truth but the real truth is there were hundreds of essays from the era written but only the ones we see today included as the 'bible' only 400 years after JC and the boys.

It is clear the bible is a compilation of stories cherry picked by religious poli ...[text shortened]... s to be a defector, thus adding to the fear factor which was the main method for crowd control.

The Council of Nicea did not address the question of the biblical canon. It was simply not an issue by that time. Most of the work of the Council of Nicea was regarding the divinity of Christ, and of compiling a universal creed for all churches.

From Wikipedia, under 'Biblical Canon':
"By the early 3rd century, Christian theologians like Origen of Alexandria may have been using—or at least were familiar with—the same 27 books found in modern New Testament editions, though there were still disputes over the canonicity of some of the writings (see also Antilegomena). Likewise by 200, the Muratorian fragment shows that there existed a set of Christian writings somewhat similar to what is now the New Testament, which included four gospels and argued against objections to them. Thus, while there was a good measure of debate in the Early Church over the New Testament canon, the major writings were accepted by almost all Christians by the middle of the 3rd century." (S:Note: this is almost 100 years before the Council of Nicea.)

Christian biblical canon is considered works inspired by God, or works that express the authoritative history of the relationship between God and his people. As such, there is no room for writings that clearly do not follow either category, such as the so-called "Gospel of Judas" which was mainly an apologetic piece, meant to provide a picture of Judas as, if not a "nice guy", then at least an "average guy", instead of a tool.

Originally posted by wolfgang59
Can you conceive of a multi-headed god?
Some people can.
Can you conceive of a god with 2 heads? 3 heads? 4? 5?
Anyone with imagination would not put a limit on a number of heads.
Which is what "infinite number" (a rather loose term) means.

So there you have it. An infinite number of gods.

It is you being just plain silly.

My point with GF is that, when dealing with Christians, he could at least acknowledge our belief, especially before jumping up and down exclaiming that we "don't understand him", when he clearly doesn't understand us, or at least he doesn't care to understand us.

So please drop this "infinite number of gods" crap. There is only one God.

Originally posted by wolfgang59
You were arguing against there being an infinite number of god concepts.

I quite clearly showed you to be wrong.

Suck it up.

"Is man infinite or finite?" is meaningless and nothing to do with the post you are replying to.

I quite clearly showed you to be wrong.
In your mind, I'm sure this is true.

However, the term concept is your undoing here.
To conceive, a mind is required.
Insofar as we understand minds with the ability to conceive, man is singular.
Man is finite.
Ergo, concepts are finite.

Originally posted by vistesd
Freaky,

You and I have had so many conversations on here over the years. Sometimes we have agreed—more often, perhaps not. We have both been more than cordial—this is my recollection, anyway—with sometime exceptions: perhaps sometimes you, and sometimes I, have lost our patience. But that was always temporary—and followed by personal expressions of re ...[text shortened]... d of theos that you believe in is a conscious (or even subconscious), deliberate lie?[/b]

vistesd,

As much as I have always appreciated the esoteric nature of your musings--- often finding myself humming along agreeing to the tune--- I think, here, you allow too much credit.

The handful of souls here who blanch at God, at theos, have not plumbed the depths at which our pen lights stab in vain to find: they deny the very waters thoughtful folks seek to understand.

They demand water to cease being wet before they accept a drink.

And, as always, your low blows are heard, felt and appreciated.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]I quite clearly showed you to be wrong.
In your mind, I'm sure this is true.

However, the term concept is your undoing here.
To conceive, a mind is required.
Insofar as we understand minds with the ability to conceive, man is singular.
Man is finite.
Ergo, concepts are finite.[/b]

Absurd.
There are an infinite number of concepts.
Numbers are infinite.
Any concept which has any measurable quantity can
therefore provide an infinite number of concepts.
For instance the concept of a spaceship which takes 1 passenger, 2 passengers etc.

Originally posted by Suzianne
My point with GF is that, when dealing with Christians, he could at least acknowledge our belief, especially before jumping up and down exclaiming that we "don't understand him", when he clearly doesn't understand us, or at least he doesn't care to understand us.

So please drop this "infinite number of gods" crap. There is only one God.

Go back to sleep.

Originally posted by Suzianne
My point with GF is that, when dealing with Christians, he could at least acknowledge our belief, especially before jumping up and down exclaiming that we "don't understand him", when he clearly doesn't understand us, or at least he doesn't care to understand us.

So please drop this "infinite number of gods" crap. There is only one God.

Actually there are zero gods, but that is [for this conversation] beside the point.

Whether you believe in them or not, there are an infinite number of god concepts.

Or are you going to claim that the concepts of Thor, Ra, Zeus, Athena, Saga, Venus,
etc etc don't exist...

In which case you are just plainly denying reality.

Originally posted by wolfgang59
Absurd.
There are an infinite number of concepts.
Numbers are infinite.
Any concept which has any measurable quantity can
therefore provide an infinite number of concepts.
For instance the concept of a spaceship which takes 1 passenger, 2 passengers etc.

If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a noise?

Originally posted by wolfgang59
Go back to sleep.

Witty.