Theism and its strong points

DefineGod · **#81** by **DefineGod** » Mar 08, 2012 11:28 am

Teuton wrote:"[P]antheism is a concept that invalidates itself, since the concept of a God presupposes as its essential correlative a world different from him. If, on the other hand, the world itself is to take over his role, there remains simply an absolute world without God, and so pantheism is only a euphemism for atheism. …But even the assumption of some cause of the world different therefrom is still not theism. For this demands a world-cause that is not only different from the world, but is intelligent, that is to say, knows and wills, and so is personal and consequently also individual; it is only such a cause that is indicated by the word 'God'. An impersonal God is no God at all, but merely a word wrongly used, a misconception, a contradictio in adjecto, a shibboleth for professors of philosophy, who, having had to give up the thing, are anxious to slip through with the word."

(Schopenhauer, Arthur. "Fragments for the History of Philosophy." In Parerga and Paralipomena. Vol. 1. 1851. Translated by E. F. J. Payne. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1974. pp. 114-5)

@Teuton and @Agrippina
This is an excellent point! Good find. :thumbup:

I do have a soft spot in my heart for "the pessimist." He was one of my first outside readings during my high school days. Along with
Nietzsche, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thus_Spoke_Zarathustra
Fritjof Capra, http://www.scottlondon.com/reviews/capra.html and
D.T. Suzuki, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D._T._Suzuki#Zen_training
:offtopic:

Right, right, back to it.
God as a gentle euphemism for godlessness,(theist instead of the, by definition, "harsh" atheist) http://www.thefreedictionary.com/euphemism God as a shibboleth used between church members (The West Wing!)http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lhwLj2qIT4k, and "sexed-up atheism" http://www.pantheism.net/atheism.htm sure seem reasonable from the outsider's viewpoint. I would venture to say this may persuade many to drop the label of theist.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pantheism/#Ath This is such a great resource for the thread!! Be sure to read it!

I am consistently "inspired by God" (from the Latin divinare) through, I guess to be clear, I would have to call it my "non-personal theism." Is multi-personal the same as non-personal? http://answering-islam.org/Trinity/morey7.html How about both personal and impersonal? http://stephen-knapp.com/god_is_both_%20personal_%28Bhagavan%29_and_impersonal_%28Brahman%29.htm
I am not sure I really know! I am so glad to have gotten to a such a profound intersection. :dance:

The Trinity has been in my case a difficult thing to grasp. There is a section in the Handokai, (this is also referring to an earlier post) here is the link again on Zen Christian link- http://www.scribd.com/doc/55058908/handokai
or a pdf location if you so desire.
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=handokai%20pdf&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCYQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.mercy-center.org%2FPDFs%2FEW%2FCrossingOverTogether.pdf&ei=rIxYT8zwGsKjiQLvmZmYCw&usg=AFQjCNFHeAKOaB7zwjzqXvDkNIlnrlMVIg&cad=rja

Okay A lot of reading whew! Lets see if I can do a quick summary. Using the word "God" in pantheist application to Schopenhauer is a cop out for atheism because he feels that an impersonal god is really not a god. (seems to be what we are debated yes?) One could make a panenthiest argument http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panentheism which differentiates itself from pantheism and precludes his self-invalidation argument regarding the the presupposition mentioned in the first sentence of the quote you cite.
If, in application, the absolute world with God and without God exist together, there is no true conflict,(except what you call it right?) But it then eliminates the meaningfulness of the theist/atheist debate, as mentioned in an earlier post. (Thanks for that contribution)
I must refer back to Wittgenstein here. To save time, one could read number 3 on "The Basis for a Wittgensteinian Approach" to grasp the gist. http://www.criticism.com/da/lw_da.html#section-The-Basis-for-a-Wittgensteinian-Approach To bring out the main point, (and without being a linguist) language is how it is used. At its most fundamental, the arguments against this usage (so far) involve conflict with only the description of the symbol/word God, not the simple fact that it is indeed being used in this way. Its function being a sincere effort to describe reality.
I propose that proponents of the "atheist adjective" would be strategic in effect to embrace the shared view of reality rather than attack with rejection and rejoinder of symbol usage.
I know this post may come across as a bit more windy. I feel like it required the conveyance of soo much information to make as accurate and as coherent of response as I could. (lacking in eloquence, but not in enthusiasm!)
Be sure to read my response using the "10 commandments" as well!
As always keep it up and question! :ask:

Godless Infidel · **#82** by **Godless Infidel** » Mar 08, 2012 11:43 am

Thank you for the reply

The behavioral difference unfortunately does not fit with my experience. Most people at least in my part of the world don't give the question much thought. Active atheists or theists are rare. If pressed about their beliefs these non-actives will answer as atheist, christian, catholic or some vague description of deism. In all other respects their behavior is identical. Until fairly recently non-active atheist would have described me fairly well.

chairman bill · **#83** by **chairman bill** » Mar 08, 2012 12:50 pm

amkerman wrote:... That which is neither derivative nor dependent but which exists necessarily.

You obviously mean The Great Mother Goddess.

DefineGod · **#84** by **DefineGod** » Mar 08, 2012 12:54 pm

@Mr.Samsa

Mr.Samsa wrote:
DefineGod wrote:Hi Mr. Samsa,
Thanks for the response. Yes, OD are quite important when one plans to measure a target behavior. I may indeed guilty of superficial conflation here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflation but not of equivocation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivocation I don't wish to confuse the symbol of God, with what the symbol represents. However, having felt the need to explain the qualities I have included them for simplicity as the same. I again hope the high level of intelligence here is able to navigate this unintentional confusion.

The problem is though, even if the confusion is unintentional, the confusion is entirely unnecessary. Why not just call it the "universe"? There's no need to invoke religious concepts..

I would designate "religious concepts" into behavioral manifestations and foundational (metaphysical) manifestations. But no need if you don't like it.

DefineGod wrote:The word "government" may inspire an image of quite distinct things to an Englishmen, a New Zealander or Japanese national. (Maybe you can think of a more suitable comparison?)

There may be subtle differences in how people understand it, but there will be pretty similar understandings of what "government" is. Now, if I were to suggest that a "government" is "a large vessel that floats on water", then some confusion may arise when I'm complaining about my government. I can help minimise the confusion by defining what I mean by the term and so on, but the point is that the confusion is unnecessary. If I'm trying to refer to "a large vessel that floats on water", why don't I just call it a 'boat'?

Because boats make me seasick. :dopey:

hehe, but I see your point. I say its impossible for one to grasp psychologically, let alone spiritually, the entirety of what is described by one word, even a simple symbolic representation such as "boat" can be set up this way. S+ or S-, "God" as a word exemplifies the inclusion of impossibility. (Do you follow?) A value modifying CMO like a good definition is important to my goal. (of world domination)
http://www.intropsych.com/ch05_conditioning/discriminative_stimuli.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motivating_operation

DefineGod wrote:I do agree with you on this next point. I think theists and atheists can most easily have similar metaphysics. Looking a few posts back #45 I think may clear up some confusion.

That isn't quite what I was getting at. I was more pointing out that if you define 'god' as 'the universe', then practically everyone will be a "theist" because they accept the existence of what they can see.

Yes, world domination. :muahaha:

Muahaha!
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qzZmU0aGmcc[/youtube]

This makes the term "theist" completely meaningless. It's like defining "liberal" as someone who believes that the subject politics exists. This would make everyone a "liberal", but it's meaningless.

It would be nice if we could "un-abstract" a term like "liberal," but since there are many behaviors that one uses to identify oneself as "liberal," it would be...time consuming. (Although I believe we have agreed that an "atheist" is behavior free. Post #68)I think comparing behavioral choice with religious faith directly is spurious and does not add to our working dialogue. :naughty:

DefineGod wrote:I had to look up solipsists! http://www.thefreedictionary.com/solipsists Very interesting idea. I can see potential in "we can have people who don't believe in the existence of "everything", but still believe in god." I know there is something I am not understanding about this. Can you please help me to grasp it? Do you mean that some theists don't see it my way?
"Ah, but a man's reach should exceed his grasp. Or what's a heaven for?" -Robert Browning

My point was just that if you define god as "the universe", then you exclude the theists who don't believe in the universe. That is, there must be some distinguishing factor which makes it wrong to classify god as 'the universe'.

I think I am okay with that exclusion. :shhh:

Maybe my last post will help here :this:

DefineGod wrote:I see a Skinner quote! nice! Spend most of my working time with ABA, yes. Basic research doesn't pay much for a non-academic. How about yourself, are you a RB as well?
Thanks again for the critical reply!

I do most of my work in the experimental side, but currently job hunting. And yep, I'm a radical behaviorist

Yes! excellent choice of study I must say. (I think that means we can jargon each other right?) :lol:

Do you have any specific areas of interest in the field? Thanks for posting and it is a pleasure to make your acquaintance.

DefineGod · **#85** by **DefineGod** » Mar 08, 2012 1:00 pm

Godless Infidel wrote:Thank you for the reply

The behavioral difference unfortunately does not fit with my experience. Most people at least in my part of the world don't give the question much thought. Active atheists or theists are rare. If pressed about their beliefs these non-actives will answer as atheist, christian, catholic or some vague description of deism. In all other respects their behavior is identical. Until fairly recently non-active atheist would have described me fairly well.

I understand you. Can I assume you mean practicing and non-practicing by active and non-active? I want to make sure I understand the rest. I have found similar behavior from many "religious" folk. This can be related to Tillach's faith definition in that "idolatry" is based on ultimate concern in a something other than God. (Taken in vain)
How would you describe yourself now?

chairman bill · **#86** by **chairman bill** » Mar 08, 2012 1:14 pm

Mr.Samsa wrote:
DefineGod wrote:Hi Mr. Samsa,
Thanks for the response. Yes, OD are quite important when one plans to measure a target behavior. I may indeed guilty of superficial conflation here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflation but not of equivocation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivocation I don't wish to confuse the symbol of God, with what the symbol represents. However, having felt the need to explain the qualities I have included them for simplicity as the same. I again hope the high level of intelligence here is able to navigate this unintentional confusion.

The problem is though, even if the confusion is unintentional, the confusion is entirely unnecessary. Why not just call it the "universe"? There's no need to invoke religious concepts..

There's certainly no objective need, but that doesn't allow for aesthetics. Whilst the term 'atheist' describes/defines my lack of belief in god(s), it goes no further than that, and certainly fails to account for any positive beliefs & attitudes. That isn't the case for someone who applies the label Christian or Muslim to themselves.

In terms of positive definitions, I choose the label scientific pantheist, rather than simply, pantheist. For me, the distinction is important, in that a straightforward pantheist may well have a number of supernaturalist beliefs, whereas I have none. The prefix scientific is intended to indicate that my pantheism, such as it is, is grounded in science. But the pantheism bit relates to an aesthetic sense of connectedness, and a feeling of being inextricably a part of the cosmos. Without regarding the cosmos as a deity, I can still stand in awe & wonder at the vastness of it, the beauty of stars & galaxies, right the way down to wonder at the complexity of a human brain, the size of a giant Redwood, or the superb beauty of Kylie's bum. When I think of the natural world as sacred, it isn't some externally imposed rule or tradition, but an aesthetic response to nature. Mediated through my thoughts though it is, I cannot, or will not, ignore the emotional aspect of my being & how I engage with the world around me.

I have little need for religious stuff, but I think there is a case to be made for people needing some means of expressing the feelings they have for nature, and no reason why that shouldn't be in some way seen as religious, or even formalised as religion. I'm with Carl Sagan (Pale Blue Dot),

A religion old or new, that stressed the magnificence of the universe as revealed by modern science, might be able to draw forth reserves of reverence and awe hardly tapped by the conventional faiths. Sooner or later, such a religion will emerge.

DefineGod · **#87** by **DefineGod** » Mar 08, 2012 7:43 pm

chairman bill wrote:
Mr.Samsa wrote:
DefineGod wrote:Hi Mr. Samsa,
Thanks for the response. Yes, OD are quite important when one plans to measure a target behavior. I may indeed guilty of superficial conflation here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflation but not of equivocation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivocation I don't wish to confuse the symbol of God, with what the symbol represents. However, having felt the need to explain the qualities I have included them for simplicity as the same. I again hope the high level of intelligence here is able to navigate this unintentional confusion.

The problem is though, even if the confusion is unintentional, the confusion is entirely unnecessary. Why not just call it the "universe"? There's no need to invoke religious concepts..

There's certainly no objective need, but that doesn't allow for aesthetics. Whilst the term 'atheist' describes/defines my lack of belief in god(s), it goes no further than that, and certainly fails to account for any positive beliefs & attitudes. That isn't the case for someone who applies the label Christian or Muslim to themselves.

Excellent point here. Well done.

In terms of positive definitions, I choose the label scientific pantheist, rather than simply, pantheist. For me, the distinction is important, in that a straightforward pantheist may well have a number of supernaturalist beliefs, whereas I have none. The prefix scientific is intended to indicate that my pantheism, such as it is, is grounded in science. But the pantheism bit relates to an aesthetic sense of connectedness, and a feeling of being inextricably a part of the cosmos. Without regarding the cosmos as a deity, I can still stand in awe & wonder at the vastness of it, the beauty of stars & galaxies, right the way down to wonder at the complexity of a human brain, the size of a giant Redwood, or the superb beauty of Kylie's bum. When I think of the natural world as sacred, it isn't some externally imposed rule or tradition, but an aesthetic response to nature. Mediated through my thoughts though it is, I cannot, or will not, ignore the emotional aspect of my being & how I engage with the world around me.

I have little need for religious stuff, but I think there is a case to be made for people needing some means of expressing the feelings they have for nature, and no reason why that shouldn't be in some way seen as religious, or even formalised as religion. I'm with Carl Sagan (Pale Blue Dot),
A religion old or new, that stressed the magnificence of the universe as revealed by modern science, might be able to draw forth reserves of reverence and awe hardly tapped by the conventional faiths. Sooner or later, such a religion will emerge.

Hmm, quite effectively stated. 8-)

I seem to think using the "scientific pantheism" may help eliminate confusion as it precludes debate or case in point questions about supernatural aspects of religious faith or practice. :clap:

Perhaps it is time to address the relative behavioral aspects of this debate. That would include "emotional aspects" as well as ones personal responses to the world (environment.) What do you think? What do others think?

Byron · **#88** by **Byron** » Mar 08, 2012 9:09 pm

DefineGod wrote:@[color=#CC0000][b]Byron[/b][/color]
Thanks for the source material! It seems like you have done some research as well. Do you have any other recommended reading related or not related to this topic? Gotta ask.

You could trawl through Tillich's Systematic Theology if you like (I haven't). Depends on your dedication level! John Macquarrie's probably the best-known religious modernist of the late 20th century, before the field split into "radical" orthodox and po-mo. (And the much more interesting Christian atheists/Jewish reconstructivists.)

DefineGod · **#89** by **DefineGod** » Mar 08, 2012 10:37 pm

Byron wrote:
DefineGod wrote:@[color=#CC0000][b][color=#CC0000][b]Byron[/b][/color][/b][/color]
Thanks for the source material! It seems like you have done some research as well. Do you have any other recommended reading related or not related to this topic? Gotta ask.

You could trawl through Tillich's Systematic Theology if you like (I haven't). Depends on your dedication level! John Macquarrie's probably the best-known religious modernist of the late 20th century, before the field split into "radical" orthodox and po-mo. (And the much more interesting Christian atheists/Jewish reconstructivists.)

Very interesting, thank you very much, Byron. I am excited to explore his work. :cheers:

A link for those who are interested in a quick biography.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/03/world/europe/03macquarrie.html

Mr.Samsa · **#90** by **Mr.Samsa** » Mar 09, 2012 3:49 am

DefineGod wrote:
Mr.Samsa wrote:The problem is though, even if the confusion is unintentional, the confusion is entirely unnecessary. Why not just call it the "universe"? There's no need to invoke religious concepts..

I would designate "religious concepts" into behavioral manifestations and foundational (metaphysical) manifestations. But no need if you don't like it.

I'd argue that it doesn't matter what you call them, they are still important differences that need to be represented by the labels and categories we use to describe them.

DefineGod wrote:
There may be subtle differences in how people understand it, but there will be pretty similar understandings of what "government" is. Now, if I were to suggest that a "government" is "a large vessel that floats on water", then some confusion may arise when I'm complaining about my government. I can help minimise the confusion by defining what I mean by the term and so on, but the point is that the confusion is unnecessary. If I'm trying to refer to "a large vessel that floats on water", why don't I just call it a 'boat'?

Because boats make me seasick.
hehe, but I see your point. I say its impossible for one to grasp psychologically, let alone spiritually, the entirety of what is described by one word, even a simple symbolic representation such as "boat" can be set up this way. S+ or S-, "God" as a word exemplifies the inclusion of impossibility. (Do you follow?) A value modifying CMO like a good definition is important to my goal. (of world domination)
http://www.intropsych.com/ch05_conditioning/discriminative_stimuli.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motivating_operation

One doesn't need to grasp the entirety of what one word describes, the definition simply needs to have a common understanding with no contradictions and inconsistencies. If "god" includes impossibilities (like A and ~A), then the concept of god is meaningless.

DefineGod wrote:
That isn't quite what I was getting at. I was more pointing out that if you define 'god' as 'the universe', then practically everyone will be a "theist" because they accept the existence of what they can see.

Yes, world domination. Muahaha!

Except that your "domination" is through semantics, not through changing anyone's mind or shaping the world. It's like defining the "king of the world" as "the guy who posts on RatSkep under the pseudonym 'Mr.Samsa'". I'm now the King of the world, but all I've demonstrated is that stretching semantics beyond their usefulness leads us to incoherent results. You may as well claim "domination" by defining "Theist" as a "living, breathing human", and enjoy your success at uniting the world under theism.

DefineGod wrote:
My point was just that if you define god as "the universe", then you exclude the theists who don't believe in the universe. That is, there must be some distinguishing factor which makes it wrong to classify god as 'the universe'.

I think I am okay with that exclusion. Maybe my last post will help here

The problem is that if you make that exclusion, you have to reject your initial definition. "God" can no longer be described as "everything", and instead must be defined as something like, "The belief that everything carries with it a supernatural consciousness".

DefineGod wrote:
I do most of my work in the experimental side, but currently job hunting. And yep, I'm a radical behaviorist

Yes! excellent choice of study I must say. (I think that means we can jargon each other right?) Do you have any specific areas of interest in the field?

Mostly interested in comparative cognition, but mostly did work in choice theory and the concept of reinforcement.

DefineGod wrote:Thanks for posting and it is a pleasure to make your acquaintance.

Likewise.

chairman bill wrote:
Mr.Samsa wrote:The problem is though, even if the confusion is unintentional, the confusion is entirely unnecessary. Why not just call it the "universe"? There's no need to invoke religious concepts..

There's certainly no objective need, but that doesn't allow for aesthetics. Whilst the term 'atheist' describes/defines my lack of belief in god(s), it goes no further than that, and certainly fails to account for any positive beliefs & attitudes. That isn't the case for someone who applies the label Christian or Muslim to themselves.

In terms of positive definitions, I choose the label scientific pantheist, rather than simply, pantheist. For me, the distinction is important, in that a straightforward pantheist may well have a number of supernaturalist beliefs, whereas I have none. The prefix scientific is intended to indicate that my pantheism, such as it is, is grounded in science. But the pantheism bit relates to an aesthetic sense of connectedness, and a feeling of being inextricably a part of the cosmos. Without regarding the cosmos as a deity, I can still stand in awe & wonder at the vastness of it, the beauty of stars & galaxies, right the way down to wonder at the complexity of a human brain, the size of a giant Redwood, or the superb beauty of Kylie's bum. When I think of the natural world as sacred, it isn't some externally imposed rule or tradition, but an aesthetic response to nature. Mediated through my thoughts though it is, I cannot, or will not, ignore the emotional aspect of my being & how I engage with the world around me.

I have little need for religious stuff, but I think there is a case to be made for people needing some means of expressing the feelings they have for nature, and no reason why that shouldn't be in some way seen as religious, or even formalised as religion. I'm with Carl Sagan (Pale Blue Dot),
A religion old or new, that stressed the magnificence of the universe as revealed by modern science, might be able to draw forth reserves of reverence and awe hardly tapped by the conventional faiths. Sooner or later, such a religion will emerge.

I understand your point about wanting to describe your positive beliefs, but I was mostly responding to DG's claim that 'the universe is god'. I can understand wanting to label yourself a scientific pantheist, and I understand that such a label carries no supernatural connotations. It should be noted that scientific pantheism is not really "grounded" in science though, as it makes claims that go beyond science, like the idea that the universe is eternal and that metaphysical naturalism is true. There's obviously no problem believing those things as they aren't particularly wacky or crazy, but obviously they are not supported by science. The position is highly compatible and accepting of science and rationalism though.

chairman bill · **#91** by **chairman bill** » Mar 09, 2012 6:19 am

Mr.Samsa wrote:I understand your point about wanting to describe your positive beliefs, but I was mostly responding to DG's claim that 'the universe is god'. I can understand wanting to label yourself a scientific pantheist, and I understand that such a label carries no supernatural connotations. It should be noted that scientific pantheism is not really "grounded" in science though, as it makes claims that go beyond science, like the idea that the universe is eternal and that metaphysical naturalism is true. There's obviously no problem believing those things as they aren't particularly wacky or crazy, but obviously they are not supported by science. The position is highly compatible and accepting of science and rationalism though.

Agreed, and one of the reasons why I said

chairman bill wrote:... my pantheism, such as it is ...

because my pantheism makes no claims beyond science.

DefineGod · **#92** by **DefineGod** » Mar 09, 2012 11:30 pm

Mr.Samsa wrote:
DefineGod wrote:
Mr.Samsa wrote:The problem is though, even if the confusion is unintentional, the confusion is entirely unnecessary. Why not just call it the "universe"? There's no need to invoke religious concepts..

I would designate "religious concepts" into behavioral manifestations and foundational (metaphysical) manifestations. But no need if you don't like it.

I'd argue that it doesn't matter what you call them, they are still important differences that need to be represented by the labels and categories we use to describe them.

Yes. I think we agree here. Which label we are to use for which situation or what concept requires a common definition or at least common understanding. I do see the problematic implication for those who identify themselves with the "adjective" atheist to use this particular symbol,(God) not merely in rejection of a concept as such but as a self limiting engenderment, preventing expiation or psychological coherence.
An example being:
I am an atheist.
An atheist does not (believe, recognize, accept) God.
I must not (believe, recognize, accept) God.
It becomes that regardless of what defines God, the concept of God, or the application of God in religious practice, an atheist must reject. As a solution to this particular problem some thinkers use or create terms like "Absolute" or "Ultimate Reality" to ameliorate the divide between people who use the labels atheist and theist. Although, as a theist, I may reject these terms as a failure to fully encompass the history and significance of the concept symbolized by God, I understand the intention and can be sympathetic if not accepting of these terms abilities to give common ground in universal ideas which define metaphysical reality.
(whew)

DefineGod wrote:
There may be subtle differences in how people understand it, but there will be pretty similar understandings of what "government" is. Now, if I were to suggest that a "government" is "a large vessel that floats on water", then some confusion may arise when I'm complaining about my government. I can help minimise the confusion by defining what I mean by the term and so on, but the point is that the confusion is unnecessary. If I'm trying to refer to "a large vessel that floats on water", why don't I just call it a 'boat'?

Because boats make me seasick.
hehe, but I see your point. I say its impossible for one to grasp psychologically, let alone spiritually, the entirety of what is described by one word, even a simple symbolic representation such as "boat" can be set up this way. S+ or S-, "God" as a word exemplifies the inclusion of impossibility. (Do you follow?) A value modifying CMO like a good definition is important to my goal. (of world domination)
http://www.intropsych.com/ch05_conditioning/discriminative_stimuli.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motivating_operation

One doesn't need to grasp the entirety of what one word describes, the definition simply needs to have a common understanding with no contradictions and inconsistencies. If "god" includes impossibilities (like A and ~A), then the concept of god is meaningless.

I agree, In fact, I don't think it is possible to grasp.(refer to Robert Browning quote for my stance on "grasping")I think this is one of the reasons why we hear descriptions of God that are "beyond human comprehension" although we have concluded not beyond apprehension. See post #56 and #59 for references to apprehension.
I agree that definitions need to have common understanding while minimizing contradictions and theological inconsistencies. This definitional process/disagreement seems to be the defining topic of this particular thread. I believe we have a number of earlier posts promoting this point as well. Including "non-real" or impossible symbols does not, IMO render the definition meaningless or even less pragmatic as is the case with imaginary numbers in mathematics or understanding God's potential to be an explanatory or foundational force. Some short links on i are below.
http://www.math.toronto.edu/mathnet/answers/imaginary.html
http://www.math.toronto.edu/mathnet/answers/imaghard.html
http://www.kenhaase.com/hands/complex.html

DefineGod wrote:
That isn't quite what I was getting at. I was more pointing out that if you define 'god' as 'the universe', then practically everyone will be a "theist" because they accept the existence of what they can see.

Yes, world domination. Muahaha!

Except that your "domination" is through semantics, not through changing anyone's mind or shaping the world. It's like defining the "king of the world" as "the guy who posts on RatSkep under the pseudonym 'Mr.Samsa'". I'm now the King of the world, but all I've demonstrated is that stretching semantics beyond their usefulness leads us to incoherent results. You may as well claim "domination" by defining "Theist" as a "living, breathing human", and enjoy your success at uniting the world under theism.

Hehe, Please excuse my previous flippancy regarding my use of the word domination. A rather poor attempt on my part to express subject "mastery" as it relates to minimizing the metaphysical differences in the theist/atheist reconciliation rather than ascendency of any kind. This point is accepted. We have indeed been arguing the semantics regarding the basic meanings of "faith," "God," and by extension "atheist/theist" and "religious concepts" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantic_dispute There are many ways to describe what is God as well as what God is not. Do you think its important for the conversation to tangent here? Maybe others can add to this idea also. Can we think of anything that will help us to reduce incoherent results?
Hehe, Maybe we can enjoy it all together? :lol:

I believe quite a few people and/or groups have already attempted or are currently attempting to unite the world under specific perceived reality, however it may be defined to them.
:bowdown:

(Dick Dawkins, the Pope, Bob Marley) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J3Rib1npwvs

Thanks for a fantastic post, King Samsa, I appreciate your addition to the conversation and look forward to more! :thumbup:

Nebogipfel · **#93** by **Nebogipfel** » Mar 10, 2012 10:51 am

Mr.Samsa wrote:
DefineGod wrote:Hi Mr. Samsa,
Thanks for the response. Yes, OD are quite important when one plans to measure a target behavior. I may indeed guilty of superficial conflation here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflation but not of equivocation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivocation I don't wish to confuse the symbol of God, with what the symbol represents. However, having felt the need to explain the qualities I have included them for simplicity as the same. I again hope the high level of intelligence here is able to navigate this unintentional confusion.

The problem is though, even if the confusion is unintentional, the confusion is entirely unnecessary. Why not just call it the "universe"? There's no need to invoke religious concepts..

Calilasseia · **#94** by **Calilasseia** » Mar 10, 2012 11:31 am

I have just one question.

What "strong points" are there about asserting that an entity exists, then treating this assertion as established fact without any supporting evidence?

I.C.37 · **#95** by **I.C.37** » Mar 10, 2012 12:29 pm

The cornerstone of theism is the claim that one or more deities (theos) exist as powerful intentional agents. Can you show that the universe is a deity? Also, can you speculate on how the universe might present itself if it wasn't one?

amkerman · **#96** by **amkerman** » Mar 10, 2012 4:05 pm

What I want to know, @DefineGod, is,

do you think you are a part of God?

This is where we disagree, I think. I say no, it seems you say yes.

I think God is a part of me, but I steadfastly believe I am not a part of God.

1 is a part of 2, but 2 is not a part of 1...

Minds blown... thank me later.

Byron · **#97** by **Byron** » Mar 11, 2012 1:20 am

If the word-symbol "god" points to being-itself, then we are all part of God. All. Every good act, evil act, kindness, selfishness, are incorporated into the all in all.

Being-itself wouldn't be a thing as we are things, though. I don't see how you could reconcile theism with theological modernism. Apples & oranges.

DefineGod · **#98** by **DefineGod** » Mar 11, 2012 1:22 am

Nebogipfel wrote:
Mr.Samsa wrote:
DefineGod wrote:Hi Mr. Samsa,
Thanks for the response. Yes, OD are quite important when one plans to measure a target behavior. I may indeed be guilty of superficial conflation here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflation but not of equivocation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivocation I don't wish to confuse the symbol of God, with what the symbol represents. However, having felt the need to explain the qualities I have included them for simplicity as the same. I again hope the high level of intelligence here is able to navigate this unintentional confusion.

The problem is though, even if the confusion is unintentional, the confusion is entirely unnecessary. Why not just call it the "universe"? There's no need to invoke religious concepts..

The difficulty here is that the more ways one explains something, the more words are used and the more "confusion" that people feel. So I must ask what the problems are specifically.
Is this confusion being caused by me being unclear in my definition? Are you confused because you don't understand?
Perhaps I should have used "unintentional embarrassment/abashment" rather than "unintentional confusion." I apologize for using "confuse" with two different meanings of the word so close together. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/confuse That, I admit, was unclear. (the path to the light should not be taken lightly

) It is important to me to be clear in argument but, when I am clear, I cannot be responsible for lack of understanding.
Are you asking me why I personally choose to use religious language to describe reality? http://www.religioustolerance.org/alt_mean.htm Or are you asking me why I don't only use atheist or anti-theist language or scientific language to describe God? (Obviously I can do both.) I understand that maybe people are uncomfortable using religious language. Refer to post #92 referring to the cognitive dissonance http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance that one may feel using the term "God" while also being an "atheist." (So one uses "Universe, Absolute, Oneness, etc.")
While there may not be any "need" to use religious language, there has been quite a lot of thought, discourse, and experience concerning God or (insert comforting scientific word here,) since the advent of Christianity (and before.) So I ask,why would one want to throw away all that knowledge, just so one would feel secure? :think:

DefineGod · **#99** by **DefineGod** » Mar 12, 2012 5:44 am

@Calilasseia

Calilasseia wrote:I have just one question.

What "strong points" are there about asserting that an entity exists, then treating this assertion as established fact without any supporting evidence?

Hi Calilasseia! Thanks for the post. Its nice to get feedback. (I do try to be assertive!)I hope you find time to read the other posts on this thread also. :angel:

I assume your unpropitious tone is directed toward religion and the specific definition of God being "asserted" that you regard as disagreeable.

In response, I will say I find that denial of existence is not particularly pragmatic (although it can be quite important developmentally.) As I understand skepticism to include "suspended judgement during inquiry," I surely would not "treat this (or any) assertion as established fact," and especially not "without supporting evidence." http://theoatmeal.com/comics/irony

As for strong points of theism, I can only submit what I find to be essential to my own process of systematic faith and doubt. The foundational acceptance of faith in God allows one to participate in a cohesive world with enduring rules. Personal or system precepts will follow. This is where church doctrine and other behavior control environments are established. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experimental_analysis_of_behavior

As far as the difference between atheists and theists on the metaphysics, debate has revealed very little difference here. (Based on the definitions being used in debate.) Although, it is yet to be determined where any particular atheist will choose to put their faith, as with theists who experience "idolatry" See posts #30, #32, #71, and #85 for more on idolatry.

Of course, one may claim that "science" can function equivalently or even more effectively without this acceptance. I must assert that, being a process of inquiry, rather than a system of belief, science itself, lacks the ability to describe anything outside of the method. Evidence abounds for the ability of the scientific method to describe God. (see post #92 for semantics)
The scientific method, as human action aimed at discovering and understanding God, has a huge amount of supporting evidence. As a rational skeptic, I cannot conclude, and I must correct you, as you have incorrectly assumed that I regard the products of science as "FACT." Rather I will withhold ultimate judgement as we become more precise. As Agrippina mentioned in post #56, "I also don't believe in evolution." I will reiterate the general point that science cannot create a structure, as it is merely a tool of knowledge, devoid of resources.

Here is a link to the "god of the gaps" wiki again. Also see post #32 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps The point being to discourage teleological arguments, not to argue from ignorance.

I hope this helps and I look forward to more polite debate!

Godless Infidel · **#100** by **Godless Infidel** » Mar 12, 2012 10:28 am

I'm afraid I'm still confused. All this still looks like semantics to me.

I spend a great deal of my time studying and admiring the universe. I quite like it, though I may be bias being a part of said universe and all.

If I name my universe God I'm a theist? There is no change in the universe. There is no change in my behavior. If I name my universe Fred what am I?

I like the dead mans test for behavior BTW. Thanks for that.

An atheist is one who has no belief in gods.
If a dead man can do it, it ain't behavior.
A dead man can have no belief in gods.
Therefore there is no behavior required to be an atheist.

If the universe=God Idolatry is having a primary concern that is not the universe? The word God is too tied up with meaning beyond What you describe. I think I'll stick to using the term universe. The same is true of words like sin, I find it best to use alternate words to avoid misunderstanding.

DefineGod, I look forward to any comments you care to make on the above.

Theism and its strong points

Re: Theism and its strong points

Re: Theism and its strong points

Re: Theism and its strong points

Re: Theism and its strong points

Re: Theism and its strong points

Re: Theism and its strong points

Re: Theism and its strong points

Re: Theism and its strong points

Re: Theism and its strong points

Re: Theism and its strong points

Re: Theism and its strong points

Re: Theism and its strong points

Re: Theism and its strong points

Re: Theism and its strong points

Re: Theism and its strong points

Re: Theism and its strong points

Re: Theism and its strong points

Re: Theism and its strong points

Re: Theism and its strong points

Re: Theism and its strong points

Who is online