Posted: Jan 17, 2019 8:32 am
by Cito di Pense
archibald wrote:“The highest ideal that a person holds - either consciously or subconsciously - that is their god”

Discuss.


Well, look at this fantastic shit:

jamest wrote:That is: God is the totality of existence.


One fellow wants to link god with the words the highest ideal that a person holds, and some other fellow wants to link god to the words the totality of existence. The words are not what Cali or whoever would call assertionist bollocks, except for the attempt to connect the phraseology to the word god. But there's no evidence that we should be looking for to support such assertions.

Whatever, but the words the highest ideals that a person holds and the words the totality of existence are both perfectly good wording for the concepts the highest ideals that a person holds or the totality of existence.

What a wonderful game, just so a person can say he believes in god without being certain he has totally embarrassed himself. It's not as if atheism entails not recognizing the totality of existence or the highest ideals that a person holds.

However, when somebody says "I lack belief in deities", that is not necessarily accounted for. Perhaps what the atheist means to say is that, no, these do not sastify my requirements for calling something god.

Me, I'm not waiting around for something to come along that I might be willing to call god. Do you see the shit that some people can get themselves into, trying to find a phrase that will induce me to call it god, just so they can say they found another person willing to name something god? This is an utter bunch of shit, and anyone who lacks belief in deities knows it.

felltoearth wrote:I have not found one person with a concept of god that does not have huge illogical gaps, paradoxes, or dissidence within their ideation.


That's certainly one way to look at the problem, but in order to critique someone's concept of god as incoherent we have to probe beyond phrases like the totality of existence or the highest ideals that a person holds. Anyone who wants to use such phraseology is then well-advised to stop there. What prevents that, of course, is the extra baggage of wanting existence to be intentional instead of stochastic. Then Hermit or scherado comes along and says, "I have no problem with god having left us a stochastic universe freighted with a purpose we just can't figure out with our limited ape brains".

archibald wrote:
On the other hand, if we are prepared to accept the word nonetheless (as it often colloquially is accepted) then we can still discuss it.


Not, of course, accepting it as a going concern. As Mose Allison sang, "If you must keep talking, please try to make it rhyme".