Hi Frank, welcome to the forum. Thanks for turning off the font. Word is probably not your friend in that respect. If you need to use it then you can go into the BBCode and strip the formatting as I have done below.
Fair enough, and what you know determines whether you are gnostic or agnostic, a fairly useless label IMO. Every time you use it you have to qualify it with the concept that you are being gnostic/agnostic about. But what do you believe?
I'll let you decide. My stance is that all deities are either:
- Incoherent. The Abrahamic god that's a confusion of mythologies and painfully laden with tribalism and bigotry.
- Inconsistent. A god that is self-refuting by virtue of having characteristics that are contradictory.
- Ineffable. A god that could conceivably exist but cannot be apprehended by mortal minds.
- Irrelevant. A god that is indistinguishable from natural phenomena in every way, shape and form.
- Insufficient. A god that we can't discuss properly because it lacks definition.
On a good day you can manage to hit all five of those in one go.
It's a good start but this falls to insufficiency. This is a statement of a single act, not a proper definition. I'm not trying to be picky here, but what you have outlined could describe any of a number of very different deities. One theist might believe in a deity who wound up the universe and let it go and then buggered off into the void never to be heard from ever again. Their neighbour might believe in a deity that created the universe but is an active, personal god that demands the sacrifice of our firstborn child. Without further information how can we debate the merits of chucking little Timmy into the volcano? Yes, that's a deliberately silly example to highlight the fact that you need to flesh out your definition. Start with power, knowledge, and intent. Those are the big ones that commonly trip deities up.
(June 22, 2021 at 12:14 pm)Frank Apisa Wrote: My personal take on the question, “Are there any gods?” (which seems to be a subset of, “What is the true nature of the REALITY of existence?”) is:
I do not know if any "gods"** exist or not;
I see no reason to suspect gods CANNOT EXIST...that the existence of gods is impossible;
I see no reason to suspect that gods MUST EXIST...that gods are needed to explain existence;
I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess in either direction...
...so I don't.
Fair enough, and what you know determines whether you are gnostic or agnostic, a fairly useless label IMO. Every time you use it you have to qualify it with the concept that you are being gnostic/agnostic about. But what do you believe?
Quote:Is there anyone here who asserts, “No gods exist?”
Is there anyone here who asserts that he/she KNOWS that no gods exist?
Is there anyone here who asserts that it is impossible for gods to exist?
I'll let you decide. My stance is that all deities are either:
- Incoherent. The Abrahamic god that's a confusion of mythologies and painfully laden with tribalism and bigotry.
- Inconsistent. A god that is self-refuting by virtue of having characteristics that are contradictory.
- Ineffable. A god that could conceivably exist but cannot be apprehended by mortal minds.
- Irrelevant. A god that is indistinguishable from natural phenomena in every way, shape and form.
- Insufficient. A god that we can't discuss properly because it lacks definition.
On a good day you can manage to hit all five of those in one go.
Quote:**When I use the word "god" I mean "The entity (or entities) responsible for the creation of what we humans call 'the physical universe'...IF THERE IS SUCH AN ENTITY."
It's a good start but this falls to insufficiency. This is a statement of a single act, not a proper definition. I'm not trying to be picky here, but what you have outlined could describe any of a number of very different deities. One theist might believe in a deity who wound up the universe and let it go and then buggered off into the void never to be heard from ever again. Their neighbour might believe in a deity that created the universe but is an active, personal god that demands the sacrifice of our firstborn child. Without further information how can we debate the merits of chucking little Timmy into the volcano? Yes, that's a deliberately silly example to highlight the fact that you need to flesh out your definition. Start with power, knowledge, and intent. Those are the big ones that commonly trip deities up.
