(November 17, 2016 at 7:57 am)robvalue Wrote: This is at least original. It's the most bizarre definition of "God" I've ever heard. If I was to use a reverse appeal to popularity fallacy, I'd say it must be false because no one else in the world believes it. I'd be interested to know how you came up with it. 

It's actually a classic Thomistic conceptualization of god, which has been granted status for centuries in the catholic church. That god is the very essence of being. All that is, thusly, is rooted in god.

My oxygen analogy wasn't accidental, it's one of the ways they introduce the concept to children, lol.

(no one ever seems to remember that I was educated by a bunch of fucking jesuits, lol)

It's no surprise or coincidence that the largest version of the most popular religion in the world's conceptualization of God is both the vaguest and most unfalsifiable. The Catholic's conceptualization of God is so successful because it's so irrefutable. But why is it so irrefutable? Because there's nothing fucking there to refute, it's as vague as shit, lol. It's like.... religion is so popular because most people are morons who don't recognize that falsifiability is a strength.

It's all about people starting with a conclusion they can't refute and pretending it's a premise.

It's easy for a vague god to hide.

It's easy to hide when your presence and non-hiding is indistinguishable from your absence and hiding, lol.

To be fair, that's not their -entire- conceptualization of god.  It's simply an example of what preeminant catholic thinkers proposed was knowable about the fundamentally unknowable.  What you could conclude about god by reason, and without revelation. It wasn't even intended as an argument for gods existence. Subsequent believers have simply taken it up as-such. Someone gave a pretty fair description of it in this thread or some other, as the ascribing -to- god attributes that would be necessary, as the best solution to a tough problem. The problem was reconciling theology with the sciences (then known, not science like we think of it today) in the wake of the rediscovery of the philosophical tradition. In essence, to create a philosophical theology.

(November 17, 2016 at 8:05 am)Rhythm Wrote:

(November 17, 2016 at 7:57 am)robvalue Wrote: This is at least original. It's the most bizarre definition of "God" I've ever heard. If I was to use a reverse appeal to popularity fallacy, I'd say it must be false because no one else in the world believes it. I'd be interested to know how you came up with it. 

It's actually a classic Thomistic conceptualization of god, which has been granted status for centuries in the catholic church.  That god is the very essence of being.  All that is, thusly, is rooted in god.

My oxygen analogy wasn't accidental, it's one of the ways they introduce the concept to children, lol.

(no one ever seems to remember that I was educated by a bunch of fucking jesuits, lol)

Oh really, OK thanks I'd never heard of it.

(November 17, 2016 at 8:04 am)Ignorant Wrote:

(November 17, 2016 at 6:22 am)robvalue Wrote: Can you tell us what it is you do, that I don't, given the knowledge you supposedly have? Can you give me any real example, and of what benefit it is? [1]

Except marvelling at how important this thing supposedly is, I don't know what I could possibly do about it even if I wanted to. [2]

1) From one aspect, the knowledge does not give the ability to do "new" things that people without the knowledge can't do. The knowledge, instead, gives new REASONS for which to do things, reasons which more accurately correspond to reality.

From another aspect, the knowledge moves me to do things that people without that knowledge don't do, e.g. prayer. IF there is a god with whom I and everything else relates, then EVERYTHING communicates something about god through that relation simply by being-what-the-things-they-are. "Listening" to that communication is a very very basic form of prayer. "Listening" to that communication coming from your own personal relation to god is another. The benefit is knowledge of a reality upon which real communion/community may be built.

2) Well, perhaps the marvelling will lead you to other conclusions which might have import for the way and the REASONS for which you act within reality. Perhaps the knowledge about that relation will lead you to a life which is not merely fully human, but fully human in a way that overflows with god's own fullness?

Okay, thanks. As usual it's very confusing for me.

1) You pray by listening? What do you hear? What use is it?

2) I have no idea what you're even saying here I'm afraid. I'm marvelling at how there must necessarily be an abstract concept which describes some things I know are happening... and this will help me understand how I act? This seems a lot less efficient than simply studying myself in the usual ways; particularly studying human behaviour in general.

A life that overflows with god's own fullness? I have no idea what that means, or why I'd want it. I'm already as full to the brim as I can be with tautologies about being myself, and acting the way I act and so on. I can't be anything else.

(November 17, 2016 at 8:10 am)Alasdair Ham Wrote: It's no surprise or coincidence that the largest version of the most popular religion in the world's conceptualization of God is both the vaguest and most unfalsifiable. The Catholic's conceptualization of God is so successful because it's so irrefutable. But why is it so irrefutable? Because there's nothing fucking there to refute, it's as vague as shit, lol. It's like.... religion is so popular because most people are morons who don't recognize that falsifiability is a strength.

I think that this is the end game for all religion, eventually.  There is one point you can get almost every theist to agree on, and that is that god's existence is evident.  If we put aside the quality of the evidence used to reach that conclusion and grant it, we have one claim that they can agree on: a god exists, because at least one has to exist.

But you are still very far from determining who or what that/those god(s) is/are.  And this is where we run into the problem of a god or gods that exist outside of the range of our perception so that the only evidence we think we have is his/their smudgy fingerprints scattered all over the place.  Fingerprints that are so smudgy that not only can we not make a definitive identification, we cannot even be certain that they're fingerprints at all.  There are lots of other people claiming that they are the fingerprints of a different god/gods altogether, and their methods are strikingly similar to yours, yet they do not come to the same conclusion, which casts doubt on their effectiveness.  And to complicate matters even further, science continues to demonstrate that those smudges aren't fingerprints at all.  They're just smudges.

If religion only did good, or only moved humanity forward, or only taught ideas that bring people together, then none of this would be an issue.  But they have not developed that way, and only the inexorable advance of human reason has had any sort of positive effect on us as a whole.  God will eventually be nothing more than some sort of "spirit of cooperation" or "goodness" that impels mankind forward.  But there's a long and painful road to traverse before we get there.

(November 17, 2016 at 7:55 am)Rhythm Wrote: You're presenting those statements as if they were contradictory or in competition.  They aren't, lol.  

You can use your own terms as well, just get on with it for fucks sake?  

Or, I guess, you can bicker with me about this that and the other thing until the end of days.  All for what?  To avoid answering a question you don't actually have an answer for, imo.  You know what, though, I'm ready to be wrong....and you can make me wrong about that just as soon as you stop arguing for it's existence by necessity and start explaining why anyone should care?  Here it is, it;s that magic moment you never thought would materialize.  You don't have to arue your god in.  It's been granted, even if only for the purposes of discussion.  This is your opportunity to waste.  

Now what, so what?

I'm dumb. It's better for dumb people to move slowly. If you find that speed to be annoying, feel free to ridicule me for it.

(November 17, 2016 at 7:57 am)robvalue Wrote: ... I'd be interested to know how you came up with it. Or why. [1] At first glance, it appears to be a way of protecting the concept of "God" at all costs by making the definition evidence of its own "existence"; although in what way it actually exists, or does anything at all, I have no idea. [2] I don't know why you even picked the word "God" and didn't make up a new term for it, as it seems to have nothing at all in common with anyone else trying to talk about God, or the entirety of the bible. [3]

It does go to show that the word means absolutely nothing out of context, doesn't it? [4]

1) Like Rhythm has said, I didn't come up with it. I am, however, trying to put it in terms that don't require a background in neo-platonic/aristotelian/thomistic philosophy. Apparently, I'm doing a poor job of it.

2) I can see how you'd think this given the context of our current discussion (which grants its existence for the sake of your question). The reasons leading to the conclusion that "it" exists at all begin from observed reality (which we have discussed in the past). You obviously find those reasons lacking validity, which is fine, but the "definition" derives from the reasons, not the other way around. At least I find that t o be the case.


3) Internet forum theists are not necessarily the best sample of all those trying to talk about god.

4) Well it certainly means the people have a wide-variety of using the term 'god'. Most theists would hold that some sort of a currently dependent relationship exists between existing things and what they call god.

It's not an issue of speed You aren't moving at all, Igno.  Strange, because you had no such trouble in mounting arguments for gods existence.

It's clear that you thought this would just become apparent if you could successfully argue for a god.  Well.  It hasn't.  You're going to need to articulate it at some point, stalling is uninformative. Can I offer you some advice? The philosophy which you're trying to use....it was never meant as an argument for god -or- why anyone should care. You can't get there, from here.

If you want to employ a thomistic framework....well, there -is- an appeal in that framework as to why we should care. Why don't you just use that? Perhaps something from Contra Gentiles? Or Q1 article 8 of Theologica II? Hell, you were espousing it in the morality thread...you know about it.....why is it absent? What;s this full and whole human life bullshit, lol?

(November 17, 2016 at 8:00 am)Alasdair Ham Wrote:

(November 17, 2016 at 5:11 am)Ignorant Wrote: Are you now asking me how would we otherwise arrive at the knowledge that there is indeed a creator?

Yes. Because step 1 is knowledge. Even though I care about the truth, and even if a god exists I'd care about that truth, I can't care about a truth I have no knowledge of. To say the OP should care because they should care about the truth doesn't work because "ought" implies "can". It makes no sense to say that someone ought to care about the truth if they cannot care about it. To care about it first they must have awareness of it.

I have actually tried to be careful about using the word "should" or "ought". I try to avoid them. I think I used "should" one or two posts in reference to the OP, trying to meet it on its own terms. I don't think you will find me saying that anyone should care. I typically try to avoid telling people what they should do. I have been trying, instead, to begin with something much more basic: if there is a real relation which exists between you and god, the nature of that relation itself will either cause you to care/value/derive meaning from it, or not. 

Even though the OP is phrased in the "should" form, I understood the underlying question really to be: "If there is a creator, is there a meaningful relationship between god and me?" 

In fact, Rob wrote: "So if I let your arguments stand, and there is a creator, can you tell me what difference it should make to me?"

In other words: "If there is a creator, what significance does that have for my own life?"

I fully recognize that even with knowledge of the relationship exists between god and everything else, it will not be significant to some people.

It isn't that I think people "should" care. They are adults, and they will do as the judge best. I do, however, find the nature of the relationship between god and everything else highly meaningful and a real aspect of my approaching a full life. I want others to experience similar amounts of fulfillment, and so I try to paint a good picture with the tools I have. As you can tell, I often struggle.

The OP itself grants step 1 for the sake of the question, so if you are more interested in step 1, I'd ask you to look at this thread first. Then we can talk about it in a different thread if you'd like.