Anyone here a Category 7?

[The Grand Nudger]

Sure, like I said...there are many positions.  I'm marking you down as a 6/7 on your own name though.  

Moving along..isn't the question "does a supercluster of galaxies have free will/is there more power in the supercluster of galaxies than any god?" also a wrong question, when it comes to whether or not it's a god?  How about "does it have agency or cognizance?".....?

If you feel comfortable using the term god for the cosmos....couldn't I also define a god as a hotdog?  If we both, then, on the basis of our definitions..conclude that gods certainly exist, have we said anything non-trivial about gods..?

*Puts on pantheist's cap*
God is the hotdog, yes. But not just the hotdog; everything else, too. You can refer to a post I made in the troll thread "The ontological disproof of God" for further details on that. But I don't see what your issue is there. It's pretty simple. Nothing is not God. In response to your other remark: I never concluded (or began to conclude) that anything certainly existed. Certainty is for you 7's and 1's.

Than the term god is rendered meaningless. The term certainty may also be meaningless, for you.

Does a galaxy have agency or cognizance? I can't really provide an answer for that. I simply don't know. I know for a fact though that the Milky Way galaxy has at least one dim spec of cognizance in it.  Maybe God beholds himself through these weak opsins alone. Again, I do not know.

Part/whole. If this were a useful response than concrete boats couldn't float and I'd be nearly incompressible. Obviously, neither statement is true. I'm confident in asserting that nothing we know or can detect about a galaxy, a god, or about cognizant beings with agency....would lead to the conclusion that all three are in the same set. Additionally, that much that we do know and can detect about each strongly suggests otherwise - even with multiple disparate conceptual groupings. This meets my bar for knowledge.

There was a reason that spinozas critics called him an atheist.

May not really need it's own thread. That there are people in the world who call this or that a god, and that I can agree that this or that exists, doesn't change or challenge the contents of my own knowledge. Trivialities and wordplay.

---

Lemme see if I can split the baby.  I'd say that where pantheism is competent is in showing that much of what is attributed to a god is, more accurately, misattribution.  However, it's incompetence comes from ignoring those things attributed to gods which distinguish them -from- "the universe"...and this is why it's silly to call the universe a god.

Let's say my kids never see me bake cookies, in their ignorance, they think my brother Jake bakes cookies.  If they find out that I'm the one baking the cookies..would it be sensible, then, for them to start calling -me- Jake? Is that the rational way to go on that one?

"Do you agree that Khem exists and bakes cookies? Yes, well..then, Jake exists!" -no.

[sdelsolray]

I'm a 6. Fractions confuse me, particularly when they are expressed in decimal notation.

[Angrboda]

We'll get this out of the way first: There is a 0.1^-157,000 chance that a being like Odin or Yahweh really did create the universe... that's one reason not to be a 7. (Ever heard of a cosmic joke?) Anyhoo, I'd be a 6.999999 on the scale just because of this. But this is besides the point.

I'm going to purposely ignore the latter half of your post. It's an important question, but not what I want to get at right now.

What do you consider knowledge, and do we need 100% certainty that something couldn't have happened to consider that it didn't happen knowledge?

That standard would seem to rule out the possibility of knowledge altogether, which would leave me wondering what you think we mean when we use the word, and whether even using the word at all is appropriate under any circumstance.

[Minimalist]

I go all the way to 11, but never on a first date.

"Mary" wasn't given that option, according to the fairy tale.

[vulcanlogician]

There was a reason that spinozas critics called him an atheist.  

Uh, yeah. Because he was. He not only said all the gods listed in all holy scriptures did not exist; he said they were absurd. And somehow kept his head attached to his body. I love Spinoza. If ever there was a truly righteous philosopher, it was him. His genius stood head and shoulders over his contemporaries, yet he turned down all teaching positions offered to him by prestigious universities. Instead he lived the simple life of a lens grinder, so that he could devote himself fully to his work. A lesser man would have positioned himself behind a lectern and stood before crowds, wowing them with his incredible intellect. But not Spinoza.

Pantheism to me is hardly distinguishable from atheism (disbelief in gods). Except that pantheism is a positive belief, or perhaps more accurately, a reverence and love for nature. Why not love, revere, even perhaps worship nature itself? But not in a crude way. Not like a bunch of old lady wiccans. In a way that demonstrates genuine knowledge of nature, a sincere knowledge won via study and contemplation of science and philosophy.

As I said before, pantheism is materialism seen through a divine lens. It has more to do with the attitude and reverence of the "believer" than it does god-like properties of the universe. Do you revere nature as a supreme and awesome force, and love it with all of your heart? Then you are a pantheist. Do you simply not believe in gods? Then you're an atheist. Spinoza's pantheism isn't a departure from materialism or atheism in the slightest. It is materialism plus. It is atheism plus.

EXCERPT from the Ethics that explains some things concerning Spinoza's reverence and love for God (ie. nature):

---

PROP. XVII. God is without passions, neither is he affected by any emotion of pleasure or pain.

Proof.—All ideas, in so far as they are referred to God, are true (II. xxxii.), that is (II. Def. iv.) adequate; and therefore (by the general Def. of the Emotions) God is without passions. Again, God cannot pass either to a greater or to a lesser perfection (I. xx. Coroll. ii.); therefore (by Def. of the Emotions, ii. iii.) he is not affected by any emotion of pleasure or pain.

Corollary.—Strictly speaking, God does not love or hate anyone. For God (by the foregoing Prop.) is not affected by any emotion of pleasure or pain, consequently (Def. of the Emotions, vi. vii.) he does not love or hate anyone.

PROP. XVIII. No one can hate God.

Proof.—The idea of God which is in us is adequate and perfect (II. xlvi. xlvii.); wherefore, in so far as we contemplate God, we are active (III. iii.); consequently (III. lix.) there can be no pain accompanied by the idea of God, in other words (Def. of the Emotions, vii.), no one can hate God. Q.E.D.

Corollary.—Love towards God cannot be turned into hate.

Note.—It may be objected that, as we understand God as the cause of all things, we by that very fact regard God as the cause of pain. But I make answer, that, in so far as we understand the causes of pain, it to that extent (V. iii.) ceases to be a passion, that is, it ceases to be pain (III. lix.); therefore, in so far as we understand God to be the cause of pain, we to that extent feel pleasure.

PROP. XIX. He, who loves God, cannot endeavour that God should love him in return.

Proof.—For, if a man should so endeavour, he would desire (V. xvii. Coroll.) that God, whom he loves, should not be God, and consequently he would desire to feel pain (III. xix.); which is absurd (III. xxviii.). Therefore, he who loves God, &c. Q.E.D.

PROP. XX. This love towards God cannot be stained by the emotion of envy or jealousy: contrariwise, it is the more fostered, in proportion as we conceive a greater number of men to be joined to God by the same bond of love.

Proof.—This love towards God is the highest good which we can seek for under the guidance of reason (IV. xxviii.), it is common to all men (IV. xxxvi.), and we desire that all should rejoice therein (IV. xxxvii.); therefore (Def. of the Emotions, xxiii.), it cannot be stained by the emotion envy, nor by the emotion of jealousy (V. xviii. see definition of Jealousy, III. xxxv. note); but, contrariwise, it must needs be the more fostered, in proportion as we conceive a greater number of men to rejoice therein. Q.E.D.

---

I'll get to the rest of what you said in a bit.

[The Grand Nudger]

Pantheism to me is hardly distinguishable from atheism (disbelief in gods).

Then it's been miscategorized as theism, just as pantheism miscategorizes the universe as a god.  Get out the whiteout. 

I get that your position is that it has to do with reverence or attitude......but that's not why it's called pantheism. It's called that because the adherents really do think that the universe has the attributes of a god.

A religion of nature is possible, and it's possible without pantheism...just as other religions are possible without any mention of gods. I'll note again that pantheism poses no challenge to my position on gods..because we're still just talking about the universe, whatever a pantheist gets right or wrong about it.

[vulcanlogician]

We'll get this out of the way first: There is a 0.1^-157,000 chance that a being like Odin or Yahweh really did create the universe... that's one reason not to be a 7. (Ever heard of a cosmic joke?) Anyhoo, I'd be a 6.999999 on the scale just because of this. But this is besides the point.

I'm going to purposely ignore the latter half of your post.  It's an important question, but not what I want to get at right now.

What do you consider knowledge, and do we need 100% certainty that something couldn't have happened to consider that it didn't happen knowledge?

That standard would seem to rule out the possibility of knowledge altogether, which would leave me wondering what you think we mean when we use the word, and whether even using the word at all is appropriate under any circumstance.

Kind of a tall order there, Jor, seeing how "What is knowledge?" has been a burning question for philosophers for over twenty centuries.

Of course, I accept the basics of empiricism (ie sensory information gives us all the information we have about the world). But I'm heavily influenced by rationalists like Plato and Spinoza who saw knowledge chiefly  as "that which is intelligible and discernible."

As my logic professor put it: "100% certainty is too high a measure." A 6/7 means "I don't fucking believe in it." I'm a 6/7 on unicorns, leprechauns, pyramid power, dowsing, everything Huggy says etc.

I hope that clarifies. Let me know if I answered your question.

---

Pantheism to me is hardly distinguishable from atheism (disbelief in gods).

Then it's been miscategorized as theism, just as pantheism miscategorizes the universe as a god.  Get out the whiteout. 

I get that your position is that it has to do with reverence or attitude......but that's not why it's called pantheism.  It's called that because the adherents really do think that the universe has the attributes of a god.

A religion of nature is possible, and it's possible without pantheism...just as other religions are possible without any mention of gods.  I'll note again that pantheism poses no challenge to my position on gods..because we're still just talking about the universe, whatever a pantheist gets right or wrong about it.

Let's not get caught up on words. Somewhere along the line somebody coined the term "pantheism." A religion of nature is certainly possible. But "nature worship" usually refers to people who worship the winds, the sun, and other stuff. Pantheism says that THE ALL is divine. Nature AND its laws.

Look at it this way. If I were to sell all my shit, go to India, cast of my sandals and spend my days and nights worshipping some Hari Babakrishna dude. You might say that I consider this Babakrishna guy to be "God." Any outsider might just consider Babakrishna to be a fly-covered, mumbling mess. But not me. The term pantheism fits because what does the pantheist consider God? The all. Hence the term "pantheism" is appropriate in a way.

I admit, it's leading to difficulties in our conversation. The weak point in the pantheist view is that it has a difficult time answering the question: "Why call it God?" I get that. But, as it is, the "belief system" is distinguishable from materialism for the reasons I've laid out. We've got to call it something. Somewhere along the line some dude said "it's pantheism." Sure. I could think of worse words.

One little issue is that it is conflated with "deism where God is material and endowed with human-like individuality." Remember that guy, Quick, who posted for a couple months? He called himself a pantheist, but was hardly a Spinozist. Meh. Whatever. Words are inaccurate.

[The Grand Nudger]

Let's not get caught up on words. Somewhere along the line somebody coined the term "pantheism." A religion of nature is certainly possible. But "nature worship" usually refers to people who worship the winds, the sun, and other stuff. Pantheism says that THE ALL is divine. Nature AND its laws.

Look at it this way. If I were to sell all my shit, go to India, cast of my sandals and spend my days and nights worshipping some Hari Babakrishna dude. You might say that I consider this Babakrishna guy to be "God." The term pantheism fits because what does the pantheist consider God? The all. Hence pantheism is appropriate in a way.

A guy named Babakrishna has things that fit the term god that the universe doesn't.  I agree that pantheism is appropriate in it's own way..but that way is very idiosyncratic.  So much so that the pantheists god is no challenge to my knowledge that there are no gods.  They may as well call themselves hotdogists.

I admit, it's leading to difficulties in our conversation. The weak point in the pantheist view is that it has a difficult time answering the question: "Why call it God?" I get that. But, as it is, the "belief system" is distinguishable from materialism for the reasons I've laid out. We've got to call it something. Somewhere along the lines some dude said "it's pantheism." Sure. I could think of worse words.

One little issue is that it is conflated with "deism where God is material and endowed with human-like individuality." Remember that guy, Quick, who posted for a couple months? He called himself a pantheist, but was hardly a Spinozist. Meh. Whatever. Words are inaccurate.

Some are more inaccurate than others. 

This isn't just a word problem, though....as my earlier example about cookies and my brother demonstrates.  Pantheists consider the universe, or nature, or the all..if you prefer, a god.  Well, my kids might consider me a jake.

I'm not, neither is the universe ( a jake -or- a god, lol)....even if my poor kids misattributed a bunch of shit and feel a sense of reverence in my presence.
(and they -will- feel a sense of reverence...or the punishment will continue until attitudes improve!)

[Angrboda]

If nature has no other qualities beyond being nature then nature is not God.

I'll get back to you on the knowledge question, VL, and I acknowledge that it was a tall order. You don't necessarily have to defend what you think knowledge is in order to describe it. It would seem elementary that in order to say that you don't have knowledge concerning a proposition, you would have to know what does qualify as knowledge. It would seem some definition of knowledge is necessary in order to make the claim in negativo. But more to the point, you seemed to suggest that knowledge is absent if certain questions of probability are answered in the negative. I would have to ask you two questions on that basis. One, how is probability related to knowledge, and two, if knowledge is related to probably, as you seem to be suggesting, can we ever satisfy that condition?

[Dr H]

Having philosophy background, that's a little tricky to answer.

For all practical purposes I would consider myself a "category 7" on that scale.

The difficulty lies in what is being used as a definition for "God".
In debates with theists this is usually almost impossible to pin down, which of course
leaves it open to virtually any interpretation.

If one were, for example, to define "God" as "some hugely advanced intelligence capable of playing with the quantum substructure of reality as casually as we play with marbles", well, that might set me back to a category 6.

And if one were to define "God" as "Laphroaig 10 Year Old single malt", well, then -- Hallelujah! -- I'm a category 1 believer.