New, and stuff

[TheBigOhMan]

Rule breaking? Derailing? Please I'm something like the 5th oldest regular... and really, I'm a lot more regular than 3 of the others. Me, Tiberius, Fr0d0, Darwinian, Ace... I haven't seen the last post since like, February. Dar sometimes posts, it's rare though. Tib and fr0d0 post more consistently, but less overall, I post in bigger batches, then disappear for a bit. I have the pleasure of having been around for some of the more explosive policy decisions (even being part of the explosives, once or twice)... good times.

Haha, that's cool. You are one of the Great Old Ones .

TLDR: We're not exactly sticklers for the rules we do have and enforce, let alone things that could only dream to be offenses. You're not breaking any rules, and I consider this more of an introduction to who you are than random tidbits about where you are from or what you've read.

Thanks. And please forgive me rudness by taking so long to reply. I had some problems the other day and I was forces to derai the reply. But here it is.

Fair enough, but you consider them non-gods? More inline with wisps and unicorns and faeries than with beings of immense supernatural powers that might impact the natural world?

I woud put them in the same label as entities that have some magic ( though an ambiguos word ), yes. Perhaps Satan, who happens to be exceptionally more powerfull could be consideres a "semi-God" of sone sort ( I know satanist who praise him as a God. They beliefs are complex, so I'll just leave it in that I don't agree with their maltheism).

Good analysis... I'm rather impressed, actually. I'm so happy that we've finally a thinking new member join the forum. I'd say that humans are gods (of a sort)... they are the gods of the material world, alongside all other sapient beings They are young gods, still but learning the basics of living in their world, only just starting to practice changing it.

Almost all Gods have in common that. Rarely ( in mythology ) a God have the chance to choose to be one. In our case it was Darwinian-like evolution. In other cases they just happen to be necesary entities that cannot choose to not be what they are. So the only option left is to either develope the skill or just let it be .

You're correct: I don't put spirit as a requirement for godhood... as I find that it doesn't change the nature of being 'powerful', having 'control over <nature, men, elements, etc>', infact, even having power and control does not a god make a being...

Being material though Impose some clear limits in the "material Gods". Being material means you cannot break the many Natural Laws the world is ruled upon. It also means you are subject to the Second Law of Entropy hence you are not immortal. I agree however that It's not a requirement to have a large control over your enviroment and your own physical body.

it only makes them a powerful and dominating being... but then, perhaps that is what a god is? Really, if we're to be honest: most people haven't the slightest clue what makes any being a god... they know only examples of things that others have told them are gods, and they assume the rest of the baggage from there. I took that definition as an attempt to meet you in the middle, but if we're to go all the way for a better understanding: that's what I most enjoy to do

There have been many definitions of God. After all, "God" is a human term and we tend to use it to label anything above us that happens to have some metaphysical implication. Never below or equal to what mens consider "the normal". If I happened to go to 1600 with many items from this year, perhaps I would be consideres a God or at least a demi-God given I would break the normal while showing a understanding of nature way beyond those mens (hence the metaphysical implication.).

God has the ultimate power and control, and is assumed to be 'a god' in all things.

I agree. I tend to think of God, however, as being the being with "all" the power. However, that doesn't mean he can do anything. Some thing are not a matter of power I think ( you can't change 2+2=4, for example ). I think the bible agree with me in this extent, given that there are passages that show some limits to God ( 2 de Timoteos suggest God "cannot negate itself" ).

A god is a being who has achieved a significant mastery over an element of existence, or who has achieved a significant level of power or control within an element of existence.
A demigod (half-god) is a being who has a significant mastery/power/control over an element of existence, but one which is notably limited compared to that which a god might posses.
<Minor gods> are beings who have only a simple mastery/power/control over an element of existence, and which is notably limited compared to that of even a demigod.
<Nongods> are beings who have little-no mastery/power/control over any elements of existence, and which are notably limited compared to that of even a minor god.

Problem with this labels is that given they don't have an objective "power-o-meter" to actually measure it. God could be perhaps the only clear term. We must simply pick all the entities and choose the one that can have more degrees of freedom than the other ones. Non-God is also an easy one: we must just do the reversed thing as to God. However, "minor god", "demigod" and "god" are all terms betweem the two limits and there is not a clear distinction. ie: ¿How do we know an angel have more power than a human or a demon? rarely in the Bible there is any reference of their true power. Please note that you put "notably limited". So there is where all the minor-god, demi-god and god could morph simply by claiming demons/angels/humans while diferent are not "notably diferent" ( one could even pull the trick that we are all made at "image of God" ).

There could be some ambiguities, also, such as a god having control over one single element and a minor-god having control over several elements at the same time. In a "battle" the minor god could be able to win to an actual god, merely by having more possibilites ( imagine the god having the best war-men in existence, and the minor-god controling a few nuclear bombs...). ¿ Quality or Quantity, then?
As you can see from my crude analogy, there is also the distinction between what element of reality you control. A minor-god could overturn a god if he simply could control minds to some degree. In fact, ¿does a minor-god, being able to use some trick to control higher spheres of powesr count as one control of a single element or of many others?.
In short, i find the classification not-so-fit given that is a bit non-clear. However, I think it's a really good start.

The last two in particular need better names, but it's a start of an attempt. It's not every day that one realizes they've no idea precisely what a god is

I agree. I've had some debatein the past concerning if this guy ( ) is an actual God for example .

We can indeed be ^_^ When I find myself not knowing why I think what I think, I usually have a good long think about why I think what I think. It's rare for me to give up when I find I don't know.

Excuse my question, but, ¿ Are you a Deist or an atheist and the label in your profile is a kind of in-joke? Just curious given I can't actually figure out your position by the posts I've read of you.

If knowledge was the power that humans were given: I want a do-over. I could get into my knowledge=faith=confidence=trust=belief speil (and a concurrent absolute spite for dictionaries that use 'circular synonyms systems'), but that's handled... discovering what a god is? That's fascinating, and difficult as hell... and I'm not even sold on the whole 'power is basis for godhood' schtick... it might well be that it's more a 'we value X highly therefore it's a god', but I think that one's got a critical flaw in that I don't value Shiva as worth shit, yet I think that Shiva is a god, regardless of whether Shiva exists as more than smoke and mirrors or not.

Perhaps the attemp is equal or in analogy to classifing things in nature. Nature doesn't have clear labels but we try our best to fit them, and we constantly need to make some modifications as nature show us how rebel she is each time a new thing comes that doesn't fit in the rules. Sometimes the entire system must be overturned just to fit a single thing.
In this case, we humans have developed Gods/gods a long time we all met and decided to label in terms, so figuring out a Universal Clasification for all the beliefs across cultures can be tricky.

---

¿I'm not breaking any rule by "derailing" my own introduction thread, right?

I find it cute how the written spanish languages always start a question with the inverted question mark...
You don't need to do that when writing in english, tough...
Most of us don't even have that symbol in our keyboards.
Then again, I have some nice symbols most people don't have on theirs: ª º ç Ç.
The circumflex ^ with letters: â ê î ô û (all except the â and ê are very uncommon in portuguese)
The acute ´ á é í ó ú (opens all vowels, makes them sound like they do in italian)
The grave ` à è ì ò ù (we only use it in the à... I guess the french use all those...)
The tilde ~ you have, but we can use it with other letters ã õ ñ(this n is only used when writing spanish)
The umlaut ¨, or with other letters ä ë ï ö ü (only used when writing in german or something like it)



I like the PT-PT keyboard. It's very versatile.... but makes writing code a bit of a pain, because the brackets all require pressing shift or altGr. Nothing you don't get used to...

Haha, I cannot help it. I find it more convenient. How do you guys do with some phrases that need the "¿" ? For example, if I said:

I like cheese and honey? <---- I'm asking if I like both things. Now compare with:

I like cheese ¿and honey? <---- I already stated that I like cheese and the question only concerns honey.

¿How can you do that in english ? ( the second case, I mean ), without the "¿" if you want it to sound fluid ( that is, without a dot ).

[Violet]

Haha, that's cool. You are one of the Great Old Ones .

Nothing great about me... but I'm certainly old. My best years are behind me... which is a shame: they sucked.

Thanks. And please forgive me rudness by taking so long to reply. I had some problems the other day and I was forces to derai the reply. But here it is.

Sometimes I look up at the mountain... and I ponder how long it might take me to climb. The climb would not be easy, and there's some chance I might fall, and I've no particular need to climb it... and so I sit there, and I imagine the climbing. I might put the thoughts in the back of my mind, and go traipsing through the jungle, where I meet with monkeys and apes and teach them logic. I might then hear the distant call of the birds on the lake, and with them I might frolic, if for just a minute: splashing and singing and having a grand old time. On a sudden, I would hear a cry for help, and I see a man off the edge of a cliff, hanging on for his very life (which is precious to him)... but I am torn as I approach, for the man has a very nice car nearby, and his key is still in it. I ponder then, for I must be swift: do I save his life... or do I steal his car?

Later that night, I look upon the summit again... and in my heart, I know that I will conquer the slopes and ascents beneath the mighty peak, and that I shall stand on the morrow upon the steeple of the mountain... to behold my apprehension of the sheer drop below me.

...

Don't worry about taking a while. Unless I die (or something horrible like that): I'll be here at some point

I woud put them in the same label as entities that have some magic ( though an ambiguos word ), yes. Perhaps Satan, who happens to be exceptionally more powerfull could be consideres a "semi-God" of sone sort ( I know satanist who praise him as a God. They beliefs are complex, so I'll just leave it in that I don't agree with their maltheism).

Magic is indeed an ambiguos word... I'd prefer to not tackle this word at this time, though, since I'm fairly secure in my understanding of magic (and it's a long one, written out very much like legalese). I'll accept, for now, that angels and demons are not necessarily gods (this to be yet established).

Almost all Gods have in common that. Rarely ( in mythology ) a God have the chance to choose to be one. In our case it was Darwinian-like evolution. In other cases they just happen to be necesary entities that cannot choose to not be what they are. So the only option left is to either develope the skill or just let it be.

Nothing chooses anything, choice is illusory Humans are biological machines... at least, this is so if we accept logic. An identical input will always have an identical output.

Being material though Impose some clear limits in the "material Gods". Being material means you cannot break the many Natural Laws the world is ruled upon. It also means you are subject to the Second Law of Entropy hence you are not immortal. I agree however that It's not a requirement to have a large control over your enviroment and your own physical body.

It does for so long as they're material... but if other worlds do not have logic in their bounds: anything can happen. Men will always be immortal if they're remembered by only a single mind: they shall always exist. Until no minds know a man... his existence does not cease Not that existing is particularly important, or anything...

There have been many definitions of God. After all, "God" is a human term and we tend to use it to label anything above us that happens to have some metaphysical implication. Never below or equal to what mens consider "the normal". If I happened to go to 1600 with many items from this year, perhaps I would be consideres a God or at least a demi-God given I would break the normal while showing a understanding of nature way beyond those mens (hence the metaphysical implication.)

Maybe it is as simple as 'God of the gaps'... but I think it's rather more than that. Why, after all, should any person who recognizes that it's an unfalsifiable premise believe in any gods? If a person did not have an investment of any sort in a god: they wouldn't recognize such a being as a god. The more I think about it, the more I feel that 'godhood' is a value placed upon a being for <whatever reason> to say that that being is 'special' for <whatever reason>.

That is: the beings simply are... and godhood is foisted upon them by emotion, by sociality, by logic, and/or more. The reasoning for it, and how the god exists, is not relevant... the attributes of the god, and what it has accomplished, is not relevant: 'god' is a two-way observation... the first, observes that the being is 'great'... the second, observes that you 'lowly'. It is a comparison between one's being and another's... if in just one place it is so significant as to brand the being greater on the whole than you are. While I do not believe in Shiva as more than an element of my mind and other's... I do brand Shiva a god in observance that others brand Shiva a god. If I didn't respect this social group, or its history, Shiva would be nothing to me.

A man becomes a god only when another sees him as particularly great... and themselves as nothing in their presence.

Or maybe it's just the first bit, but godhood isn't anything special, then, and the gods lose all meaning: want to beat a god? Devalue it until the dirt you walk upon is greater than it. Actually, that's pretty much how you do it anyway. Poor Larry.

God has the ultimate power and control, and is assumed to be 'a god' in all things.

I agree. I tend to think of God, however, as being the being with "all" the power. However, that doesn't mean he can do anything. Some thing are not a matter of power I think ( you can't change 2+2=4, for example ). I think the bible agree with me in this extent, given that there are passages that show some limits to God ( 2 de Timoteos suggest God "cannot negate itself" ).

If having the ultimate power and control is constrained by logic, then God can be constrained by logic... if it cannot, then God cannot be constrained by logic. Can God change logic? Good question: Welcome to metaphysics

Problem with this labels is that given they don't have an objective "power-o-meter" to actually measure it. God could be perhaps the only clear term. We must simply pick all the entities and choose the one that can have more degrees of freedom than the other ones. Non-God is also an easy one: we must just do the reversed thing as to God. However, "minor god", "demigod" and "god" are all terms betweem the two limits and there is not a clear distinction. ie: ¿How do we know an angel have more power than a human or a demon? rarely in the Bible there is any reference of their true power. Please note that you put "notably limited". So there is where all the minor-god, demi-god and god could morph simply by claiming demons/angels/humans while diferent are not "notably diferent" ( one could even pull the trick that we are all made at "image of God" ).

The funny thing, I find... is that there is no objective power-o-meter (for anything)... understanding a being to be a god or not is a wholly subjective task. With, or without, a being's understanding of another... the other being exists. Essentially... I'm suggesting while that a being's mastery over a thing is: another being observes (some part of) this mastery, and decides whether the other being is 'okay', 'good', 'great', 'fantastic', 'a prodigy', or... 'a god'. If you went back to 1600 CE: the people there would call you 'god' for what I wouldn't even notice you for. Labels being subjective... godhood must also be such. The question is: can we come up with an intersubjective definition of godhood which meets our unspoken criteria for gods (so as to encompass all deities at the least)?

There could be some ambiguities, also, such as a god having control over one single element and a minor-god having control over several elements at the same time. In a "battle" the minor god could be able to win to an actual god, merely by having more possibilites ( imagine the god having the best war-men in existence, and the minor-god controling a few nuclear bombs...). ¿ Quality or Quantity, then?
As you can see from my crude analogy, there is also the distinction between what element of reality you control. A minor-god could overturn a god if he simply could control minds to some degree. In fact, ¿does a minor-god, being able to use some trick to control higher spheres of powesr count as one control of a single element or of many others?.
In short, i find the classification not-so-fit given that is a bit non-clear. However, I think it's a really good start.

Not all gods are made equal... the god of shoveling poop is... the god of shoveling poop. He's not much use in a fight, but if you need someone to shovel poop: he's your guy.

The reason for this, should be obvious: a powerful being is a powerful being, and if it's particularly so or very talented at a few things: it might be far and wide considered a god. A fairly weak being is a fairly weak being, but if it's REALLY FREAKING GOOD at JUST ONE THING: it might be far and wide considered a god. The being's state, and whether it is or is not a god, are not necessarily dependent on one another

I agree. I've had some debatein the past concerning if this guy ( ) is an actual God for example.

Have you been touched by his noodly appendage?

Excuse my question, but, ¿ Are you a Deist or an atheist and the label in your profile is a kind of in-joke? Just curious given I can't actually figure out your position by the posts I've read of you.

I'm a deist so far as I don't believe in coincidences, and if I did: there's simply too many of the damn things for me to believe they're coincidences. So coincidences are right out... there's something behind the curtain.

This doesn't mean that I believe the puppetmaster(s) are necessarily gods, and if they show themselves to me: I'll probably give killing them a shot. I seriously dislike them. So I'm at once both an atheist AND a deist, depending on your understanding of each of these, of course.

Perhaps the attemp is equal or in analogy to classifing things in nature. Nature doesn't have clear labels but we try our best to fit them, and we constantly need to make some modifications as nature show us how rebel she is each time a new thing comes that doesn't fit in the rules. Sometimes the entire system must be overturned just to fit a single thing.
In this case, we humans have developed Gods/gods a long time we all met and decided to label in terms, so figuring out a Universal Clasification for all the beliefs across cultures can be tricky.

Tricky, but a fantastic exercise I think i've hit close to the mark with 'subjective comparison between the talents/power of oneself and another being, where the other being is valued as many times more talented/powerful than the self, such that the self recognizes it could never be capable of the other's talent/power'.

By the way, I'm clocking history under sociality, here... if you wondered why it was missing way up earlier in the post. Gods but I'm tired.

And don't worry about responding immediately, either

[Angrboda]

Welcome. Is there a special meaning or story behind your name?