Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Christian Topic => Topic started by: Walt Zingmatilder on March 31, 2018, 11:34:08 AM
-
Flop has kind of agreed to me setting this thread up subsequent to a post suggesting the hiddenness of God.
So to kick off ,many theists would say that is not their experience.
I know people who on finding God admit to Goddodging, knowing that God was there but not knowing God well, finding what they were looking for..............all hardly hidden.
In what way then is God hidden?
-
Flop has kind of agreed to me setting this thread up subsequent to a post suggesting the hiddenness of God.
So to kick off ,many theists would say that is not their experience.
I know people who on finding God admit to Goddodging, knowing that God was there but not knowing God well, finding what they were looking for..............all hardly hidden.
In what way then is God hidden.
Can you see, hear, or feel it in the real sense of those words?
-
Can you see, hear, or feel it in the real sense of those words?
I think only those who experienced the incarnation could possibly come close to anything like an answer to that.
-
I assume "Flop" is a typo, but I think it's what I'm going to call LR from now on! :D
-
I assume "Flop" is a typo, but I think it's what I'm going to call LR from now on! :D
Thank you dear. :)
-
In what way then is God hidden.
In what way is it (if it exists) not hidden?
No objective evidence and no sound logical arguments. Those who claim to have encountered some sort of god or gods do not agree with each other about which of the many gods (http://www.godchecker.com/) are real, and even those who claim to have found the same one can't agree as to the details of its message.
In short (if there is a god) it is cunningly disguised as a baseless, primitive superstition amongst a whole host of similar baseless, primitive superstitions.
-
In what way is it (if it exists) not hidden?
No objective evidence and no sound logical arguments. Those who claim to have encountered some sort of god or gods do not agree with each other about which of the many gods (http://www.godchecker.com/) are real, and even those who claim to have found the same one can't agree as to the details of its message.
In short (if there is a god) it is cunningly disguised as a baseless, primitive superstition amongst a whole host of similar baseless, primitive superstitions.
That's answering a question with a question isn't it.
I dispute that God is hidden and you cannot have it both ways with a godchecker.....the take away message being that God seems to pop up everywhere.
True to form you seem to alight on the Gods of the primitive, both historical and social as exemplar.
The fallacy of modernity.
-
That's answering a question with a question isn't it.
I dispute that God is hidden and you cannot have it both ways with a godchecker.....the take away message being that God seems to pop up everywhere.
True to form you seem to alight on the Gods of the primitive, both historical and social as exemplar.
The fallacy of modernity.
You dispute that god is hidden, so why can't everyone can actually see, hear and feel it?
-
Can you see, hear, or feel it in the real sense of those words?
Define 'real'?
-
You dispute that god is hidden, so why can't everyone can actually see, hear and feel it?
Why can't everyone see, here and feel a gamma ray?
Answer, it is the way of the world that some things are not felt, heard or seen.
Having said that, we are presented with the incarnation an event hardly hidden for the past two thousand years.
-
Define 'real'?
I want to be able to see, hear and feel it in exactly the same way as I would with a human.
-
Define 'real'?
What's the magic word? Also, a command should not be followed by a question mark.
-
That's answering a question with a question isn't it.
No.
I dispute that God is hidden and you cannot have it both ways with a godchecker.....the take away message being that God seems to pop up everywhere.
Simply untrue. There is no 'God' that pops up everywhere - there are all sorts of very different gods (often several at once) along with all sorts of other mythical beings, that pop up throughout human history. Humans are superstitious and like to invent beings to blame or thank for stuff, is the take away message.
Even if you insist that all these gods are supposed to be a 'God' revealing itself to us - it's doing a seriously shitty job of it.
Once again, if there is an omnipotent, omniscient god, who has a vitally important message for us, why isn't it as plain as day to everybody?
-
I want to be able to see, hear and feel it in exactly the same way as I would with a human.
Why?
God is not 'human'.
-
What's the magic word? Also, a command should not be followed by a question mark.
In LR's case, it should.
-
Why?
God is not 'human'.
So how do we know it exists except in the mind of humans? If it can supposedly create a universe surely it can devise a way of revealing itself to every human in a way, which puts its existence beyond any doubt.
-
So how do we know it exists except in the mind of humans? If it can supposedly create a universe surely it can devise a way of revealing itself to every human in a way, which puts its existence beyond any doubt.
Why?
Christains accept God revealed Himself in Christ.
That, in God's view, was all that was needed.
-
No.
Simply untrue. There is no 'God' that pops up everywhere - there are all sorts of very different gods (often several at once) along with all sorts of other mythical beings, that pop up throughout human history. Humans are superstitious and like to invent beings to blame or thank for stuff, is the take away message.
Even if you insist that all these gods are supposed to be a 'God' revealing itself to us - it's doing a seriously shitty job of it.
Once again, if there is an omnipotent, omniscient god, who has a vitally important message for us, why isn't it as plain as day to everybody?
Let's bring some order to the bouillebase of your thinking.
First of all tidy organise your Gods
Personal Gods
The Gods of individual things or areas
Gods of aspects of life
High gods
Monotheism
Pantheism
Intelligent creators
Now, that's more rationalised even though you love your mess.
-
No.
Simply untrue. There is no 'God' that pops up everywhere - there are all sorts of very different gods (often several at once) along with all sorts of other mythical beings, that pop up throughout human history. Humans are superstitious and like to invent beings to blame or thank for stuff, is the take away message.
Even if you insist that all these gods are supposed to be a 'God' revealing itself to us - it's doing a seriously shitty job of it.
Once again, if there is an omnipotent, omniscient god, who has a vitally important message for us, why isn't it as plain as day to everybody?
<nothing remotely relevant to my points>
Do you want another go?
-
Christains accept God revealed Himself in Christ.
That, in God's view, was all that was needed.
So is this god of yours only interested in a particular type of very gullible people who'll believe in a specific old, fantastical story, while rejecting the others and without any actual evidence or reasoning, is it just incompetent, or does it have some form of communication problem?
-
I want to be able to see, hear and feel it in exactly the same way as I would with a human.
That happened, 2000 years ago.
-
Why?
Christains accept God revealed Himself in Christ.
That, in God's view, was all that was needed.
In which case god is being daft!
-
That happened, 2000 years ago.
Allegedly.
-
That happened, 2000 years ago.
Jesus wasn't a god only a mere human like the rest of us.
-
I don't have any feeling of God being hidden from me. I just see no evidence that any god exists. If God did actually exist then I can only suggest the following:
1) It is incapable of showing itself to me.
2) I am incapable of seeing it(which would be an admittamce of its own failings, unless it wanted me thus).
3) It deliberately keeps itself hidden for some reason which is unknown to me.
4) It shows itself to others, but in such a variety of ways, and under such a myriad of often contrasting and contradictory guises, that it may as well be hidden or show a great deal of confusion in its thinking, perhaps because it is suffering from something similar to a multi-personality disorder.
5) If you wish, please add to this list. I might or might not agree with you, of course.
So, I see no point whatsoever in actually thinking that God is hiding from me, because that would presuppose that I believed in God, which I don't.
-
So is this god of yours only interested in a particular type of very gullible people who'll believe in a specific old, fantastical story, while rejecting the others and without any actual evidence or reasoning, is it just incompetent, or does it have some form of communication problem?
Nope.
The inevitable John 3:16.
No-one forces anyone to accept - or reject.
The offer remains.
-
Nope.
The inevitable John 3:16.
No-one forces anyone to accept - or reject.
The offer remains.
That verse is an unpleasant LIE. There is nothing loving about the god character. Surely if it felt the world needed saving it would have topped itself, not produced a child to die a terrible death even if he did pop up alive three days later.
-
<nothing remotely relevant to my points>
Do you want another go?,
Your points are appeal to ridicule and modernist fallacy.
Yes, there are a classes of Gods that I see cannot fulfil anything what I see as the human predicament. But then there are the God conceptions that just resonate through history and humanity...Platonus' The one, Allah, Yahweh, Tillich's Ground of our being, Rahner's Entelechy. To pretend that these can be wrapped up with Leprechauns is arrant, errant modernist fallacy cobblers.
-
Storm,
Your points are appeal to ridicule and modernist fallacy.
Yes, there are a classes of Gods that I see cannot fulfil anything what I see as the human predicament. But then there are the God conceptions that just resonate through history and humanity...Platonus' The one, Allah, Yahweh, Tillich's Ground of our being, Rahner's Entelechy. To pretend that these can be wrapped up with Leprechauns is arrant, errant modernist fallacy cobblers.
Not if the arguments that lead you to conclude that any of the are real work equally well for leprechauns it's not.
That's the problem you keep running away from remember?
-
No-one forces anyone to accept - or reject.
The offer remains.
That cannot possibly be true. I have absolutely no reason to think that this 'offer' is anything but fiction. If it is actually real, it is so well hidden amongst superstition and contradictory 'messages' that it might as well not exist.
Hence, those of us who take a rational and evidence based approach to matters of fact would be being forced to ignore it and those of us who are inclined towards accepting superstition would have to get lucky in just happening to believe the right message.
A god offering people a free, informed choice is just inconsistent with reality.
-
Nope.
The inevitable John 3:16.
No-one forces anyone to accept - or reject.
The offer remains.
So we only need to assert something anything and because whatever has been asserted it then exists, it's as SIMPLE as that, well I never?
Regards ippy
-
Your points are appeal to ridicule and modernist fallacy.
Untrue.
Yes, there are a classes of Gods that I see cannot fulfil anything what I see as the human predicament. But then there are the God conceptions that just resonate through history and humanity...Platonus' The one, Allah, Yahweh, Tillich's Ground of our being, Rahner's Entelechy. To pretend that these can be wrapped up with Leprechauns is arrant, errant modernist fallacy cobblers.
You're just cherry picking mythology in order to pretend it's a message. Even if you insist that all these versions are a message - it's still well hidden - and there is still no objective evidence and no sound reasoning that distinguishes it from all the other mythical beings.
I'll repeat my question: if there is an omnipotent, omniscient god, who has a vitally important message for us, why isn't it as plain as day to everybody?
-
Why can't everyone see, here and feel a gamma ray?
We can, with the right equipment (https://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/science/toolbox/gamma_detectors2.html).
-
We can, with the right equipment (https://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/science/toolbox/gamma_detectors2.html).
Maybe modern technology will invent a god detector. ;D
-
Maybe modern technology will invent a god detector. ;D
It's always a possibility. The trouble is that the concept of "God" is not well defined, so if a God detector fails to detect God, you can't be sure that it is because God does not exist or if your theory of how to detect God is wrong.
-
It's always a possibility. The trouble is that the concept of "God" is not well defined, so if a God detector fails to detect God, you can't be sure that it is because God does not exist or if your theory of how to detect God is wrong.
Very true.
-
Storm,
Not if the arguments that lead you to conclude that any of the are real work equally well for leprechauns it's not.
That's the problem you keep running away from remember?
Yes it's arguments all the way down with you isn't it and why is the argument the basic ontological unit? Because you've learned to limbo dance in, out, round, over and under 'em and not only that........wearing a top hat too.
-
Maybe modern technology will invent a god detector. ;D
I think the idea is that we are God detectors. It manifests itself first as part of a fight or flight mechanism.
-
I think the idea is that we are God detectors. It manifests itself first as part of a fight or flight mechanism.
How do you work that one out?
-
What's the magic word? Also, a command should not be followed by a question mark.
Now I've seen it all! Someone who believes in the Christian God AND believes in magic!
-
How do you work that one out?
Unreasonable fear and loathing or Goddodging.....and sometimes both together.
-
Unreasonable fear and loathing or Goddodging.....and sometimes both together.
Ehhhhhhhhhh?
-
Storm,
Yes it's arguments all the way down with you isn't it and why is the argument the basic ontological unit? Because you've learned to limbo dance in, out, round, over and under 'em and not only that........wearing a top hat too.
[/quote]
I’ve told you before not to attempt words you don’t understand so why do you keep doing it?
It’s arguments because, without them, all we have is white noise. Why is that difficult for you?
-
Now I've seen it all! Someone who believes in the Christian God AND believes in magic!
Jesus is said to have changed water into wine and also walked on it (water, not wine). Now that's magic.
-
That verse is an unpleasant LIE. There is nothing loving about the god character. Surely if it felt the world needed saving it would have topped itself, not produced a child to die a terrible death even if he did pop up alive three days later.
You really can be spectacularly dim at times. Jesus was God incarnate, not an innocent third party.
-
You really can be spectacularly dim at times. Jesus was God incarnate, not an innocent third party.
And you have the nerve to make that spectacular assertion entirely bereft of any evidence, let alone objective evidence.
-
You really can be spectacularly dim at times. Jesus was God incarnate, not an innocent third party.
Erm...
-
That verse is an unpleasant LIE. There is nothing loving about the god character. Surely if it felt the world needed saving it would have topped itself, not produced a child to die a terrible death even if he did pop up alive three days later.
No, if we are talking an omni father god the thing to do would be to love and forgive unconditionally. The weird thing is the demand of a blood sacrifice first.
-
So we only need to assert something anything and because whatever has been asserted it then exists, it's as SIMPLE as that, well I never?
Regards ippy
You probaby didn't at that.
-
You really can be spectacularly dim at times. Jesus was God incarnate, not an innocent third party.
The default position is that he did not exist, let alone be a god of any sort.
Unless of course you can demonstrate that he was with something more than fantasy
-
And you have the nerve to make that spectacular assertion entirely bereft of any evidence, let alone objective evidence.
According to Christian theology, I mean - I was answering LR's assertion, which was stupid even by her standards.
-
You probaby didn't at that.
You'd know about such things.
Assuming the individuals hearing is O K, people in general must be able to hear themselves asserting all sorts of things, why do it if there's no way of backing up these assertions?
Regards ippy
-
You really can be spectacularly dim at times. Jesus was God incarnate, not an innocent third party.
Standard question Steve: How can you possibly know this?
It'd be interesting to read the evidence you have that backs up this assertion of yours, I'll not be holding my breath.
Regards ippy
-
You really can be spectacularly dim at times. Jesus was God incarnate, not an innocent third party.
They spend a great deal of time and energy being sarky at believers' expense, and spouting dribs and drabs of philosophy almost as though they know what they're talking about, so we all know what they don't believe in, but what are their positive beliefs, and why do we never hear of them?
Nice one SteveH, who is being sarky now? ::)
Where is your evidence to substantiate your claim Jesus was incarnate?
-
That verse is an unpleasant LIE. There is nothing loving about the god character. Surely if it felt the world needed saving it would have topped itself, not produced a child to die a terrible death even if he did pop up alive three days later.
You really can be spectacularly dim at times. Jesus was God incarnate, not an innocent third party.
Yes, that does add a masochistic aspect to the already sadistic tendencies of the Christian god. All in all it's a rather bizarre and twisted tale that doesn't portray god as at all just or loving.
-
Standard question Steve: How can you possibly know this?
It'd be interesting to read the evidence you have that backs up this assertion of yours, I'll not be holding my breath.
Regards ippy
See my post before yours. I was pointing out that LR was making an even more egregious misunderstanding of Christian theology than usual, and putting the correct view - the "God was in Christ, reconciling the world to hiomself", not condemning an innocent third party to death. I wasn't trying to prove it. Anyway, what possible evidence could I provide? it has to be a matter of faith. (Well, there is Lewis's trilemma, I suppose - mad, bad or God - but that's hardly conclusive.)
-
See my post before yours. I was pointing out that LR was making an even more egregious misunderstanding of Christian theology than usual, and putting the correct view - the "God was in Christ, reconciling the world to hiomself", not condemning an innocent third party to death. I wasn't trying to prove it. Anyway, what possible evidence could I provide? it has to be a matter of faith. (Well, there is Lewis's trilemma, I suppose - mad, bad or God - but that's hardly conclusive.)
And I was rightly stating that there is no evidence to substantiate that belief.
-
See my post before yours. I was pointing out that LR was making an even more egregious misunderstanding of Christian theology than usual, and putting the correct view - the "God was in Christ, reconciling the world to hiomself", not condemning an innocent third party to death. I wasn't trying to prove it. Anyway, what possible evidence could I provide? it has to be a matter of faith. (Well, there is Lewis's trilemma, I suppose - mad, bad or God - but that's hardly conclusive.)
Why, oh why, oh why do you want to believe something on faith alone? What possible benefit can this be to you or anyone? It is a delusion. Fine, have delusions, but know that is what they are - delusions, with zero basis in reality.
-
See my post before yours. I was pointing out that LR was making an even more egregious misunderstanding of Christian theology than usual, and putting the correct view - the "God was in Christ, reconciling the world to hiomself", not condemning an innocent third party to death. I wasn't trying to prove it. Anyway, what possible evidence could I provide? it has to be a matter of faith. (Well, there is Lewis's trilemma, I suppose - mad, bad or God - but that's hardly conclusive.)
With the likelihood that any of this god stuff of your's is unlikely to have ever happened, whether you believe it or have some sort of thing you call faith about it, considering there's not even a scintilla of viable evidence to support 99% of it, why do you bother.
Lewis was a gone believer so you can dismiss almost anything he has to say about the subject, like any other believer in bronze age man made stories, certainly there's nothing that would or could support the magical, mystical or the superstition based parts of that belief.
Regards ippy
-
With the likelihood that any of this god stuff of your's is unlikely to have ever happened, whether you believe it or have some sort of thing you call faith about it, considering there's not even a scintilla of viable evidence to support 99% of it, why do you bother.
Lewis was a gone believer so you can dismiss almost anything he has to say about the subject, like any other believer in bronze age man made stories, certainly there's nothing that would or could support the magical, mystical or the superstition based parts of that belief.
Regards ippy
What is a gone believer?
Why can you dismiss something before it's been said.
Bronze Age man talk is modernity fallacy and genetic fallacy.
-
According to Christian theology, I mean - I was answering LR's assertion, which was stupid even by her standards.
Answering an assertion with another assertion without any evidence and also insulting the poster of the first assertion is stupid by any standard.
-
the correct view - the "God was in Christ, reconciling the world to hiomself", not condemning an innocent third party to death.
Why did anybody have to die? If God makes the rules, why would he make a rule that says he can only forgive people by killing himself - and then break the rule by unkilling himself. Nothing about the crucifixion makes any sense.
(Well, there is Lewis's trilemma, I suppose - mad, bad or God - but that's hardly conclusive.)
The problem with the trilemma is that it only works by appeal to people's sense of shock at anybody saying Jesus was deluded or a liar.
-
What is a gone believer?
Why can you dismiss something before it's been said.
Bronze Age man talk is modernity fallacy and genetic fallacy.
What is a gone believer?
Can't see the wood for the trees.
====
Why can you dismiss something before it's been said.
Bronze Age man talk is modernity fallacy and genetic fallacy.
What?
Regards ippy
-
And I was rightly stating that there is no evidence to substantiate that belief.
You were stating nothing of the sort. You were assuming that Christ was an innocent third person.
Why, oh why, oh why do you want to believe something on faith alone? What possible benefit can this be to you or anyone? It is a delusion. Fine, have delusions, but know that is what they are - delusions, with zero basis in reality.
Oh ffs! You obsessive rationalists really piss me off! Have you ever been in love? Do you enjoy certain activities? Do you love some foods and hate others? Prove it! Evidence, Evidence, Evidence! >:( >:( >:(
[Edited, because the original was even ruder, but I don't want to get banned.]
-
You were stating nothing of the sort. You were assuming that Christ was an innocent third person.Oh ffs! You obsessive rationalists really piss me off! Have you ever been in love? Do you enjoy certain activities? Do you love some foods and hate others? Prove it! Evidence, Evidence, Evidence! >:( >:( >:(
[Edited, because the original was even ruder, but I don't want to get banned.]
I accept NOTHING on faith, and think anyone that does is foolish.
Faith to me is accepting something as true without suffient evidence, or in the face of evidence to the contrary.
Faith is not a good way to find out things that are true.
-
I accept NOTHING on faith, and think anyone that does is foolish.
Faith to me is accepting something as true without suffient evidence, or in the face of evidence to the contrary.
Faith is not a good way to find out things that are true.
You presumably accept the reliability of your reasoning powers on faith, there being no other basis for accepting them.
-
You presumably accept the reliability of your reasoning powers on faith, there being no other basis for accepting them.
Eerm, no.
Take a problem from a school maths book; try to solve the equations using your reasoning powers. Then look up the answer at the back; if you got the answer right, then that is evidence that your reasoning powers are sound. We are constantly testing out our reasoning powers.
-
Oh ffs! You obsessive rationalists really piss me off! Have you ever been in love? Do you enjoy certain activities? Do you love some foods and hate others? Prove it! Evidence, Evidence, Evidence! >:( >:( >:(
[Edited, because the original was even ruder, but I don't want to get banned.]
You talk as if evidence were a bad thing. Grand claims should be supported by similarly grand justification; this is a good principle, not a bad one.
-
You presumably accept the reliability of your reasoning powers on faith, there being no other basis for accepting them.
I accept NOTHING on faith.
The basis for accepting them is that they work in the real world that I seem to find myself in.
No faith required, ever.
If you use faith you are silly, as faith can give ANY answer.
-
Eerm, no.
Take a problem from a school maths book; try to solve the equations using your reasoning powers. Then look up the answer at the back; if you got the answer right, then that is evidence that your reasoning powers are sound. We are constantly testing out our reasoning powers.
You got the answer right because maths is an internally consistent system. That doesn't prove that your reasoning powers successfully refer to the real world.
-
You got the answer right because maths is an internally consistent system. That doesn't prove that your reasoning powers successfully refer to the real world.
Maybe not prove, but it does provide evidence that they are sound, and that is all we can hope for in the 'real world'. We constantly test things in controlled conditions before releasing them more widely. This allows us to build confidence in our ideas.
-
You got the answer right because maths is an internally consistent system. That doesn't prove that your reasoning powers successfully refer to the real world.
Science is the application of reasoning (and often mathematics) to the real world - the success of science and the existence of technology is very strong evidence that logical reasoning (and mathematics) are applicable to the real world. Hence your statement that we "...accept the reliability of your reasoning powers on faith, there being no other basis for accepting them." was bollocks.
-
You presumably accept the reliability of your reasoning powers on faith, there being no other basis for accepting them.
I accept the reliability of my reasoning power on the basis that it is usually right.
-
The default position is that he did not exist, let alone be a god of any sort.
Unless of course you can demonstrate that he was with something more than fantasy
Isn't the default that don't know if existed or not?
-
Steve H,
Oh ffs! You obsessive rationalists really piss me off!
Really? If (heaven forfend) you suffered a cardiac arrest in the street one day would you rather an “obsessive rationalist” who’d studied medicine for several years pushed his way to the front of the crowd to help you, or an irrationalist armed with his phial of homeopathic “remedy”, or with a bunch of sage leaves and a box of matches?
See that’s the things when people dismiss rationalism. It’s fine when it’s a free bet if you like that thing, but it really isn’t when it actually matters. Fancy a holiday in Ibiza? Fine. Would you rather fly on a ‘plane designed and built by qualified aeronautical engineers, or constructed by the new school of faith aeronautics where the designers hop backwards in small circles with pencils up their noses off their tits on Benylyn to produce their blueprints?
Have you ever been in love? Do you enjoy certain activities? Do you love some foods and hate others? Prove it!
That’s called a category error. Being “in love” is just a label we attach to an emotional response to a stimulus, generally one that triggers various hormonal activities. What we’re in love with on the other hand – whether it’s a objectively tangible object in the world or a fantasy – is an entirely different matter.
Evidence, Evidence, Evidence!
Simple enough – just take a blood sample and measure the hormones (adrenaline, dopamine, serotonin etc) when the subject thinks of the object of his love:
http://www.youramazingbrain.org/lovesex/sciencelove.htm
[Edited, because the original was even ruder, but I don't want to get banned.]
No need to be rude – just try not to be logically hopeless.
You got the answer right because maths is an internally consistent system. That doesn't prove that your reasoning powers successfully refer to the real world.
Nothing does. What would “the real world” even mean, and how would we know whether we’d identified it? What we actually have is a world we appear to observe, and various ways provisionally to model and make sense of it. Some of those methods produce solutions – ie, answers that appear to be coherent, cogent and consistent such that they enable us to navigate the world we appear to occupy, for example by creating medicines and rockets. Others though (“God” etc) are no more than guessing because they offer no method of testing and investigation.
The former group we call probabilistically “true”, the latter probabilistically not true. If you think of reality as an onion, the guessing is the outer layer – any guess is as epistemically (in)valid as any other: “God”, leprechauns, whatever. Doesn’t matter. The next layer in though is the probable truths layer because it provide functional solutions (aspirin, algebra etc). Now whether there even is a centre of the onion of absolute reality, and how we’d ever know whether we’d found it in any case even if there is is unknowable (the problem of unknown unknowns), but that’s all we have to go on nonetheless.
-
yeT
Isn't the default that don't know if existed or not?
I don't think so.
The default position is that any claim is not true until it can be demonstrated to be so.
This is consistent also with not knowing.
-
Steve H,
Really? If (heaven forfend) you suffered a cardiac arrest in the street one day would you rather an “obsessive rationalist” who’d studied medicine for several years pushed his way to the front of the crowd to help you, or an irrationalist armed with his phial of homeopathic “remedy”, or with a bunch of sage leaves and a box of matches?
See that’s the things when people dismiss rationalism. It’s fine when it’s a free bet if you like that thing, but it really isn’t when it actually matters. Fancy a holiday in Ibiza? Fine. Would you rather fly on a ‘plane designed and built by qualified aeronautical engineers, or constructed by the new school of faith aeronautics where the designers hop backwards in small circles with pencils up their noses off their tits on Benylyn to produce their blueprints?
That’s called a category error. Being “in love” is just a label we attach to an emotional response to a stimulus, generally one that triggers various hormonal activities. What we’re in love with on the other hand – whether it’s a objectively tangible object in the world or a fantasy – is an entirely different matter.
Simple enough – just take a blood sample and measure the hormones (adrenaline, dopamine, serotonin etc) when the subject thinks of the object of his love:
http://www.youramazingbrain.org/lovesex/sciencelove.htm
No need to be rude – just try not to be logically hopeless.
Nothing does. What would “the real world” even mean, and how would we know whether we’d identified it? What we actually have is a world we appear to observe, and various ways provisionally to model and make sense of it. Some of those methods produce solutions – ie, answers that appear to be coherent, cogent and consistent such that they enable us to navigate the world we appear to occupy, for example by creating medicines and rockets. Others though (“God” etc) are no more than guessing because they offer no method of testing and investigation.
The former group we call probabilistically “true”, the latter probabilistically not true. If you think of reality as an onion, the guessing is the outer layer – any guess is as epistemically (in)valid as any other: “God”, leprechauns, whatever. Doesn’t matter. The next layer in though is the probable truths layer because it provide functional solutions (aspirin, algebra etc). Now whether there even is a centre of the onion of absolute reality, and how we’d ever know whether we’d found it in any case even if there is is unknowable (the problem of unknown unknowns), but that’s all we have to go on nonetheless.
I said obsessive rationalists - people who seem to think everything can be explained that way. I'm certinly not dismissing rationalism - it's very important, and I'm alarmed at the rise in irrational nonsense such as flat earth and bonkers conspiracy theories.
-
BR,
I don't think so.
The default position is that any claim is not true until it can be demonstrated to be so.
This is consistent also with not knowing.
But only when the conjecture is true/not true apt. When the assertion is incoherent ("God" etc) we're in not even wrong territory.
-
I don't think so.
The default position is that any claim is not true until it can be demonstrated to be so.
This is consistent also with not knowing.
OK then - demonstrate that you exist.
-
Steve H,
I said obsessive rationalists - people who seem to think everything can be explained that way.
What would a non-obsessive rationalist be? Rational except about dragons? Rational except on Wednesdays half-day closing? What?
I see that you've just ignored most of the explanations and rebuttals I posted by the way. Why is that?
-
OK then - demonstrate that you exist.
To you or to me?
You could meet me to see that I am a real person, unlike your god for example.
-
To you or to me?
You could meet me to see that I am a real person, unlike your god for example.
You might be a hallucination I'm having.
-
You might be a hallucination I'm having.
That's true.
Do you often have hallucinations?
You could meet with other people you know and they would all describe me in the same way.
-
Steve H,
OK then - demonstrate that you exist.
Depends what you mean by "demonstrate". If you mean something like, "show a functional truth by which it's possible to navigate the world we appear to occupy" that's easy; if though you mean "prove", that's not the argument in any case.
-
That's true.
Do you often have hallucinations?
Not as far as I'm aware, but would I necessarily know? Anyway, this Jura 16-year-old is powerful stuff...
You could meet with other people you know and they would all describe me in the same way.
And how would I know that they're not hallucinating, or that they are not part of my hallucination?
-
Not as far as I'm aware, but would I necessarily know? Anyway, this Jura 16-year-old is powerful stuff...And how would I know that they're not hallucinating, or that they are not part of my hallucination?
Depends what you mean by know?
You cannot know anything to 100% certainty.
You could be a brain in a vat being fed sensory data. How would you know?
You cannot know but you have to get on with life as it seems to be, which is why you take the lift from the top floor rather than jumping.
I assume you would not jump?
Why not?
-
Depends what you mean by know?
You cannot know anything to 100% certainty.
You could be a brain in a vat being fed sensory data. How would you know?
You cannot know but you have to get on with life as it seems to be, which is why you take the lift from the top floor rather than jumping.
I assume you would not jump?
Why not?
OK, you've got me there - for now. I'll come back to it in the morning, when I'm sober.
-
Interesting exchange of posts. It is a pity Steve H avoided questions in #74.
-
Depends what you mean by know?
You cannot know anything to 100% certainty.
How then can you be 100% certain of that?
-
Depends what you mean by know?
You cannot know anything to 100% certainty.
You could be a brain in a vat being fed sensory data. How would you know?
There would need to be someone feeding you that information.
-
You cannot know but you have to get on with life as it seems to be, which is why you take the lift from the top floor rather than jumping.
I assume you would not jump?
Why not?
Because the dearth of miracles which are by definition as rare as hens teeth and by dint of the wonderful creation of gravity for getting up and down we are virtually commanded to use the stairs.......
-
Steve H,
What would a non-obsessive rationalist be? Rational except about dragons? Rational except on Wednesdays half-day closing? What?
I see that you've just ignored most of the explanations and rebuttals I posted by the way. Why is that?
Declaring oneself a rationalist is a bit like sewing gold braiding on your jacket.
As Wikipedia has it
''In politics, rationalism, since the Enlightenment, historically emphasized a "politics of reason" centered upon rational choice, utilitarianism, secularism, and irreligion – the latter aspect's antitheism later softened by politic adoption of pluralistic rationalist methods practicable regardless of religious or irreligious ideology.
In this regard, the philosopher John Cottingham noted how rationalism, a methodology, became socially conflated with atheism, a worldview''
-
Interesting exchange of posts. It is a pity Steve H avoided questions in #74.
I didn't avoid them; I just couldn't be arsed to answer them. This is what usually happens on these threads - the nerdy antheistic obsessives bang on and on relentlessly, spouting their dribs and drabs of philosophy, until everyone except themselves is bored stiff and gives up for the sake of their sanity, then proclaim themselves the winners.
-
I didn't avoid them; I just couldn't be arsed to answer them. This is what usually happens on these threads - the nerdy antheistic obsessives bang on and on relentlessly, spouting their dribs and drabs of philosophy, until everyone except themselves is bored stiff and gives up for the sake of their sanity, then proclaim themselves the winners.
Attacking the posters with pejorative language is a poor substitute for engagement with the ideas. It's lazy.
-
I didn't avoid them; I just couldn't be arsed to answer them. This is what usually happens on these threads - the nerdy antheistic obsessives bang on and on relentlessly, spouting their dribs and drabs of philosophy, until everyone except themselves is bored stiff and gives up for the sake of their sanity, then proclaim themselves the winners.
You really take the biscuit SH...! You were squawking about the behaviour of non-believers, in my opinion you are the rudest poster by far on this forum. >:(
-
I don't think so.
The default position is that any claim is not true until it can be demonstrated to be so.
This is consistent also with not knowing.
Certainly, if a claim is made then it cannot be said to be true unless supported by evidence but saying something is not demonstrated to be true isn't the same as saying it isn't true is it? I don't know but seems different to me.
-
You really take the biscuit SH...! You were squawking about the behaviour of non-believers, in my opinion you are the rudest poster by far on this forum. >:(
Rude, maybe; sarcastic not (or only occasionally).
-
Certainly, if a claim is made then it cannot be said to be true unless supported by evidence but saying something is not demonstrated to be true isn't the same as saying it isn't true is it? I don't know but seems different to me.
Quite. Be rational, BeRational!
-
Rude, maybe; sarcastic not (or only occasionally).
You are RUDE! >:(
-
Certainly, if a claim is made then it cannot be said to be true unless supported by evidence but saying something is not demonstrated to be true isn't the same as saying it isn't true is it? I don't know but seems different to me.
Yes but if you claim something is false you need to show falsification I would have thought.
If you say God does not exist you similarly need to show falsification.
The default position is ''not proven/demonstrated physically.''
We are still left with the lack of justification for why ''God doesn't exist'' is the default position.
-
Yes but if you claim something is false you need to show falsification I would have thought.
If you say God does not exist you similarly need to show falsification.
The default position is ''not proven/demonstrated.''
We are still left with the lack of justification for why ''God doesn't exist'' is the default position.
Yes. Not sure why you put the 'but' in there though since we seem to be saying the same thing. Will be interested to hear the argument for the default being God doesn't exist.
-
Yes. Not sure why you put the 'but' in there though since we seem to be saying the same thing. Will be interested to hear the argument for the default being God doesn't exist.
Yes IMHO there has always been a fair amount of moving on swiftly on this.
-
I said obsessive rationalists - people who seem to think everything can be explained that way. I'm certinly not dismissing rationalism - it's very important, and I'm alarmed at the rise in irrational nonsense such as flat earth and bonkers conspiracy theories.
How do you explain something without using rationalism?
-
How do you explain something without using rationalism?
I think the problem is the equation of rationalism with atheism.
-
The default position is ''not proven/demonstrated.''
We are still left with the lack of justification for why ''God doesn't exist'' is the default position.
I dunno Vlad, this has been explained to you so many times and yet you still seem confused. If a claim is made but no actual evidence or sound reasoning is available to support it but it also cannot be falsified, then logically it cannot be ruled out but there is also no reason to take the claim seriously so the default, working assumption would be that it isn't true.
That is what the philosophical burden of proof (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy)) is about and what Russell's teapot (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot) is an illustration of.
As I said in the other thread, by default we assume no fairies, leprechauns, ghosts, or orbiting teapots but by default we also assume no atoms, no electromagnetic radiation, and no Higgs bosons. The difference being evidence and/or reasoning that support the view that they exist.
-
I think the problem is the equation of rationalism with atheism.
How about answering the question?
-
I dunno Vlad, this has been explained to you so many times and yet you still seem confused. If a claim is made but no actual evidence or sound reasoning is available to support it but it also cannot be falsified, then logically it cannot be ruled out but there is also no reason to take the claim seriously so the default, working assumption would be that it isn't true.
That is what the philosophical burden of proof (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy)) is about and what Russell's teapot (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot) is an illustration of.
As I said in the other thread, by default we assume no fairies, leprechauns, ghosts, or orbiting teapots but by default we also assume no atoms, no electromagnetic radiation, and no Higgs bosons. The difference being evidence and/or reasoning that support the view that they exist.
But the point is is what is seen by people like you as sound reasoning proceeds from a conflation of rationalism, a methodology with atheism, a world view.
Your argument sets up a weird universe in which that which exists only does so through what you describe as ''sound reasoning''.
-
How about answering the question?
I have nothing against reasoning and a God is a reasonable suggestion as is the atheist position.
People who say there is no reasoning for God are wrong and there are some around here who didn't help their claim by suggesting that there was a simulator who may have created our universe as a simulation was reasonable.
-
I dunno Vlad, this has been explained to you so many times and yet you still seem confused. If a claim is made but no actual evidence or sound reasoning is available to support it but it also cannot be falsified, then logically it cannot be ruled out but there is also no reason to take the claim seriously so the default, working assumption would be that it isn't true.
That is what the philosophical burden of proof (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy)) is about and what Russell's teapot (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot) is an illustration of.
As I said in the other thread, by default we assume no fairies, leprechauns, ghosts, or orbiting teapots but by default we also assume no atoms, no electromagnetic radiation, and no Higgs bosons. The difference being evidence and/or reasoning that support the view that they exist.
God doesn't exist is a claim and needs evidence to support it.
-
People who say there is no evidence or reasoning for God are wrong ......
Can't agree with that.
-
But the point is is what is seen by people like you as sound reasoning proceeds from a conflation of rationalism, a methodology with atheism, a world view.
Not entirely sure what this word salad is supposed to mean but I used the word sound in the technical sense - logically valid with correct (supported by evidence) premisses.
Your argument sets up a weird universe in which that which exists only does so through what you describe as ''sound reasoning''.
Nonsense. What exists exists - a rational and evidence based approach is how we can have confidence in our beliefs about it.
-
Can't agree with that.
Fair Do's
can you say what your disagreement is.
-
I have nothing against reasoning and a God is a reasonable suggestion as is the atheist position.
People who say there is no evidence or reasoning for God are wrong and there are some around here who didn't help their claim by suggesting that there was a simulator who may have created our universe as a simulation was reasonable.
If you want to explain how aeroplanes fly: “god keeps them aloft” is not satisfactory.
-
God doesn't exist is a claim and needs evidence to support it.
Yes (and a proper definition of 'god') - but I do not know of anybody who is making that positive claim, rather than the claim that there is no reason to think that any of the many gods on offer exist.
-
Not entirely sure what this word salad is supposed to mean
That is because IMHO your knowledge of philosophy and religion and rationality is appaling.
-
People who say there is no reasoning for God are wrong...
It's a claim that is easy to falsify - just produce the reasoning.
...and there are some around here who didn't help their claim by suggesting that there was a simulator who may have created our universe as a simulation was reasonable.
Oh FFS!
-
It's a claim that is easy to falsify - just produce the reasoning.
Oh FFS!
The reasoning has been provided and is out their you are blind to it as you are seemingly blind to the claims of Be Rational.
-
The reasoning has been provided...
Where?
-
It's a claim that is easy to falsify - just produce the reasoning.
Stranger says.
It's easy for me to falsify it......go and falsify it for me.
-
Where?
There's no point in telling you.
-
There's no point in telling you.
I'd like to know - so, spill the beans, Vlad.
-
I'd like to know - so, spill the beans, Vlad.
Feser of course.
But if you are prepared to hang around I can go through the objections to the objections to Feser.
I am doing a you a favour Gordon since we don't know what your beliefs are.
-
Stranger says.
It's easy for me to falsify it......go and falsify it for me.
Seriously? Do you really need to have everything explained to you in minute detail? It's easy to falsify in the sense that it is open to falsification in a simple and straightforward way.
You said that "People who say there is no reasoning for God are wrong..." - if they are, it's easy to demonstrate it by producing the reasoning.
-
Feser of course.
We did that - laughably contrived.
-
Seriously? Do you really need to have everything explained to you in minute detail? It's easy to falsify in the sense that it is open to falsification in a simple and straightforward way.
You said that "People who say there is no reasoning for God are wrong..." - if they are, it's easy to demonstrate it by producing the reasoning.
There is Feser the refutation of whom is summarised as a delusion in those who think they have bested him.
-
In what way then is God hidden?
If there is God and this advice from the Bible is pertinent 'Be still and know that I am being', then it could be hidden by all the distractions created by an unstill mind. All you are aware of are mental forms and forces including a 'God' form if you have created one.
-
Feser of course.
But if you are prepared to hang around I can go through the objections to the objections to Feser.
I am doing a you a favour Gordon since we don't know what your beliefs are.
I recall the Feser stuff: is that the best you can do?
-
I recall the Feser stuff: is that the best you can do?
It was never properly refuted.
Also during the debates my opponent disappeared as did Gonnagle's.
As I said if anybody thinks they have a refutation of Feser or cares to appeal to that Hume I am more than willing to discuss it with them.
-
There is Feser the refutation of whom is summarised as a delusion in those who think they have bested him.
See: #26368 in "Searching for GOD..." (http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=10333.msg715909#msg715909) for a link to a Feser video and subsequent discussion of its self-contradiction and laughably contrived arguments.
To return to this topic - even if we accept for a moment and for the sake of argument (I'm not conceding it) that hidden in the depth of a philosophical argument, there is a reason to think a god of some kind might exist, then god and its message is still well hidden.
If the message is important and the god just and fair, why is it hiding? Why is this god and its message not plain to everybody?
-
See: #26368 in "Searching for GOD..." (http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=10333.msg715909#msg715909) for a link to a Feser video and subsequent discussion of its self-contradiction and laughably contrived arguments.
To return to this topic - even if we accept for a moment and for the sake of argument (I'm not conceding it) that hidden in the depth of a philosophical argument, there is a reason to think a god of some kind might exist, then god and its message is still well hidden.
If the message is important and the god just and fair, why is it hiding? Why is this god and its message not plain to everybody?
Atheism and particularly antitheism has a poor record in philosophy.
I am willing to discuss which points you think you have refuted Feser on.
Arseclenching triumphalism like you present here helps no one.
-
Yes but if you claim something is false you need to show falsification I would have thought.
If you say God does not exist you similarly need to show falsification.
The default position is ''not proven/demonstrated physically.''
We are still left with the lack of justification for why ''God doesn't exist'' is the default position.
The Biblical god is as credible as any other mythical creature, which is why its existence is in doubt. As has been pointed out so many times, it is for those who proclaim god exists to produce verifiable evidence to substantiate its existence.
-
It was never properly refuted.
Also during the debates my opponent disappeared as did Gonnagle's.
Nonsense - you spent most of the discussion totally ignoring the counterarguments, then lost track of it entirely, and then, shortly afterwards, disappeared from it: #26426 (http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=10333.msg716320#msg716320).
Not sure what you mean about Gonnagle but he joined in with some entirely different points and stopped talking to me after I mentioned Russell's "fecking" teapot.
I am willing to discuss which points you think you have refuted Feser on.
It's all in the previous discussion - if you think you've something new to say, then do so. However, this thread is about the hiddenness of god and you've ignored my point about that...
-
Nonsense - you spent most of the discussion totally ignoring the counterarguments, then lost track of it entirely, and then, shortly afterwards, disappeared from it: #26426 (http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=10333.msg716320#msg716320).
Not sure what you mean about Gonnagle but he joined in with some entirely different points and stopped talking to me after I mentioned Russell's "fecking" teapot.
It's all in the previous discussion - if you think you've something new to say, then do so. However, this thread is about the hiddenness of god and you've ignored my point about that...
You see this is the trouble. If you have a refutation or an argument you should be able to repeat it at a moments notice instead of giving us a theatrical critique on who performed and how.
-
You see this is the trouble. If you have a refutation or an argument you should be able to repeat it at a moments notice instead of giving us a theatrical critique on who performed and how.
To speed things up then: you'll have, at the drop of the proverbial hat, and momentarily, a cogent argument for 'God' that we can all get stuck into?
-
You see this is the trouble. If you have a refutation or an argument you should be able to repeat it at a moments notice instead of giving us a theatrical critique on who performed and how.
Pot, kettle, black. If you have an argument for god, you should be able to repeat it at a moment's notice instead of referring us to Feser, asserting that it wasn't "properly refuted" and falsely claiming that people "disappeared".
The fact is that Feser's main tactic seems to be to bore us into submission - he takes 30 minutes just to get to the point, his argument is then comically contrived and self-contradictory.
And once again, you've totally ignored the point relevant to this thread (about hiddenness) which is that even if such a convoluted, contrived argument did give us reason to think there might be a god (which it doesn't) - it would still mean that god and its message are hidden.
-
Fair Do's
can you say what your disagreement is.
That there is no evidence for God. There is none that I know of.
-
Yes (and a proper definition of 'god') - but I do not know of anybody who is making that positive claim, rather than the claim that there is no reason to think that any of the many gods on offer exist.
People have said that the default position is that there is no God.
-
People have said that the default position is that there is no God.
See #104.
-
See #104.
Seen it. There is a difference though between saying that the claim that there is a God is not shown to be true to saying there is no God isn't there?
-
Steve H,
I didn't avoid them; I just couldn't be arsed to answer them. This is what usually happens on these threads - the nerdy antheistic obsessives bang on and on relentlessly, spouting their dribs and drabs of philosophy, until everyone except themselves is bored stiff and gives up for the sake of their sanity, then proclaim themselves the winners.
Translation: “Oh-oh – there he goes with his ideas and arguments and stuff that I can’t rebut, so I’ll try an ad hom/pejorative language combo instead and hope no-one notices while I make good my escape.”
Just to be clear, Reply 74 wasn’t “philosophy” so much as some basic logic that undid you. If you won’t or can’t respond to it then fair enough, but throwing mud at it in the hope that some sticks is very poor.
-
No one can say for sure there is no god, but it doesn't seem likely humans are in communication with it.
-
Seen it. There is a difference though between saying that the claim that there is a God is not shown to be true to saying there is no God isn't there?
It's the Russell's teapot situation: if the suggestion has no evidence or reasoning to support it, you would not believe that it was true even if you couldn't falsify it.
IIRC the point was that the default position was to assume no gods (and remain open to arguments or evidence). It's why atheism is often described as a lack of belief in gods, rather than a belief in no gods.
-
Gordon,
To speed things up then: you'll have, at the drop of the proverbial hat, and momentarily, a cogent argument for 'God' that we can all get stuck into?
Vlad provide an argument for “God”? Well, that’d be novel I suppose.
Seems unlikely though given his preferred method of naming authorities he thinks agree with him, then when their arguments are refuted just lying about or ignoring the refutations, then weeks or months later claiming the refutations weren’t produced at all. That and just flat out lying about what people like Neil DeGrasse Tyson actually say of course. As that’s his comfort zone why would he risk ever actually making an argument for something?
-
It's the Russell's teapot situation: if the suggestion has no evidence or reasoning to support it, you would not believe that it was true even if you couldn't falsify it.
IIRC the point was that the default position was to assume no gods (and remain open to arguments or evidence). It's why atheism is often described as a lack of belief in gods, rather than a belief in no gods.
Yes, I am fully aware of the burden of proof and of the celestial teapot scenario, but it is the statement that the default position is that God doesn't exist with which I have issue. To me the default is that we don't know either way.
-
Stranger,
It's the Russell's teapot situation: if the suggestion has no evidence or reasoning to support it, you would not believe that it was true even if you couldn't falsify it.
IIRC the point was that the default position was to assume no gods (and remain open to arguments or evidence). It's why atheism is often described as a lack of belief in gods, rather than a belief in no gods.
But that’s the big, fat, fur-lined, 240 carat, ocean-going lie Vlad, Sword and occasionally some others here rely on – that “atheism” is the claim that gods don’t exist. And in Vlad’s case he invents an entire lexicon of personal re-definitions (“scientism”, “methodological materialism” etc) to support the lie.
Hilariously when he references Wiki for authority it almost invariably blows up in his face too, but that’s another matter.
-
Flop has kind of agreed to me setting this thread up subsequent to a post suggesting the hiddenness of God.
So to kick off ,many theists would say that is not their experience.
I know people who on finding God admit to Goddodging, knowing that God was there but not knowing God well, finding what they were looking for..............all hardly hidden.
In what way then is God hidden?
God is hidden by life, consumerism, wrong living, science to a degree, attitude, money, anything that keeps our focus on us and our needs..
-
Yes, I am fully aware of the burden of proof and of the celestial teapot scenario, but it is the statement that the default position is that God doesn't exist with which I have issue. To me the default is that we don't know either way.
I don't believe that there is an orbiting teapot and I see no reason to take the idea seriously, so "we don't know either way" doesn't (to my mind) express the situation adequately - even though I can't falsify the idea.
The same goes for gods. I also object to the singular phrase "God doesn't exist" because it implies that we have only one alternative to no gods, which also isn't the case.
-
Maeght,
Yes, I am fully aware of the burden of proof and of the celestial teapot scenario, but it is the statement that the default position is that God doesn't exist with which I have issue. To me the default is that we don't know either way.
Actually the “default before the default” is that it’s for the person proposing “God” to tell us what he means by it in a coherent manner. No-one to my knowledge ever has, so the primary logical response is ignosticism – ie, “I have no idea what you’re talking about and nor have you, so your white noise “God” isn’t truth apt in any case”.
For practical reasons most discussion on matters religious skips this stage (ie, we just assume for now that “God” had been given a coherent meaning), which leads us to the second stage default. That second stage, absent any prior knowledge, must be either that everything that can be imagined (and indeed everything that can’t) does exist, or that everything that can be imagined (and indeed everything that can’t) doesn’t exist. As for the former is incoherent, we have to continue on the basis of the latter not as a statement of absolute epistemic truth but rather as the only practical basis on which to proceed.
And once we do that we can move from “probably not true” to “probably true" on a case-by-case by investigating the claims using the only tools available to us – reason and evidence.
And that’s where the claim “God” (and for that matter “leprechauns”) always collapses because no such tools are ever forthcoming that would enable a disinterested observer to investigate them (which is why Vlad et al always run away when asked for some).
-
God is hidden by life, consumerism, wrong living, science to a degree, attitude, money, anything that keeps our focus on us and our needs..
So if there is a just and fair, omniscient and omnipotent god, who has an important message for us, why isn't it making itself more obvious?
-
God is hidden by life, consumerism, wrong living, science to a degree, attitude, money, anything that keeps our focus on us and our needs..
Far better to focus on reality rather than fantasy!
-
Grace,
God is hidden by life, consumerism, wrong living, science to a degree, attitude, money, anything that keeps our focus on us and our needs..
Thank you for that statement of personal faith. Can you think of any reason for anyone else to think you're right about any of it?
-
God is hidden by life, consumerism, wrong living, science to a degree, attitude, money, anything that keeps our focus on us and our needs..
Agreed. Notice how now we accept all the advertising for gambling on tv and programmes encouraging gambling such as 'Deal or No Deal'. Shopping 24/7; fast-food restaurants advocating poor nutrition; all leading folk away from good-living, it's in our faces.
-
Agreed. Notice how now we accept all the advertising for gambling on tv and programmes encouraging gambling such as 'Deal or No Deal'. Shopping 24/7; fast-food restaurants advocating poor nutrition; all leading folk away from good-living, it's in our faces.
So why is god (if it exists) so feeble that it can't get its (very important, so we're told) message through anyway?
-
I don't believe that there is an orbiting teapot and I see no reason to take the idea seriously, so "we don't know either way" doesn't (to my mind) express the situation adequately - even though I can't falsify the idea.
You don't believe it but cannot say it doesn't exist - that is the point.
The same goes for gods. I also object to the singular phrase "God doesn't exist" because it implies that we have only one alternative to no gods, which also isn't the case.
Is saying God doesn't exist the default position in your view?
-
Agreed. Notice how now we accept all the advertising for gambling on tv and programmes encouraging gambling such as 'Deal or No Deal'. Shopping 24/7; fast-food restaurants advocating poor nutrition; all leading folk away from good-living, it's in our faces.
I ignore advertising of any sort.
-
Maeght,
You don't believe it but cannot say it doesn't exist - that is the point.
He knows that.
Is saying God doesn't exist the default position in your view?
You’re not getting it still. There’s a difference between the strict epistemic statement, “categorically X doesn’t exist” and the practical working statement, “we have no choice but to proceed on the basis that X doesn’t exist, at least until we’re given a cogent reason to think otherwise”.
For practical purposes a-teapotists work on the basis that the orbiting teapot does not exist (pending evidence to the contrary) but cannot say categorically that it doesn’t. Same thing for a-theists and "God".
Russell’s teapot incidentally just illustrates the fallacy of “but you can’t disprove it” having anything to say to a claim’s truth value. Vlad is fond of the “but you can’t disprove it” line for example as if that makes a point of some kind, but denies it when it’s explained to him that he’s attempting the negative proof fallacy.
-
You don't believe it but cannot say it doesn't exist - that is the point.
Indeed.
Is saying God doesn't exist the default position in your view?
Saying that I don't believe in any gods (or orbiting teapots) is my default position. Making no gods (or orbiting teapots) the default belief.
I don't even recognise a single concept called 'God'.
-
Agreed. Notice how now we accept all the advertising for gambling on tv and programmes encouraging gambling such as 'Deal or No Deal'. Shopping 24/7; fast-food restaurants advocating poor nutrition; all leading folk away from good-living, it's in our faces.
it is clear to see, media force feeds us all sorts of rubbish..
-
Maeght,
He knows that.
I'm sure he can answer for himself thanks.
You’re not getting it still. There’s a difference between the strict epistemic statement, “categorically X doesn’t exist” and the practical working statement, “we have no choice but to proceed on the basis that X doesn’t, at least until we’re given a cogent reason to think otherwise”.
For practical purposes we work on the basis that the orbiting teapot does not exist (pending evidence to the contrary) but we cannot say categorically that it doesn’t.
Russell’s teapot incidentally just illustrates the fallacy of “but you can’t disprove it” having anything to say to a claim’s truth value. Vlad is fond of the “but you can’t disprove it” line for example as if that makes a point of some kind, but denies it when it’s explained to him that he’s attempting the negative proof fallacy.
You're not getting what I'm asking based on that.
-
Grace,
Thank you for that statement of personal faith. Can you think of any reason for anyone else to think you're right about any of it?
yep, when is the last time you saw God in any of the adverts for Christmas, Easter or anything else, when was the last time schools had morning prayers or sang hymns, when is the last time the God of the bible was taught as anything but fairy tale...
-
Indeed.
Saying that I don't believe in any gods (or orbiting teapots) is my default position. Making no gods (or orbiting teapots) the default belief.
I don't even recognise a single concept called 'God'.
People on here have stated that the default position is that God doesn't exist. They have not suggested it is their position but the position. Do you think that is right?
-
Grace,
it is clear to see, media force feeds us all sorts of rubbish.
That may be true, but what does it have to do with your earlier claim about "God"?
-
I ignore advertising of any sort.
you think you do and I am not saying that to be offensive, advertising does more to us than we know..
-
Maeght,
You're not getting what I'm asking based on that.
Yes I am - try reading it again. Proceeding on the basis that there are no gods is where rational enquiry inevitably leads. That's the "default" for anyone who follows the reasoning. It's also the case though that there's not rational basis for a default, "there definitively are no gods (or leprechauns)".
-
Maeght,
Yes I am - try reading it again. Proceeding on the basis that there are no gods is where rational enquiry inevitably leads. That's the "default" for anyone who follows the reasoning. It's also the case though that there's not rational basis for a default, "there definitively are no gods (or leprechauns)".
So is 'God doesn't exist' the default position?
-
Grace,
yep, when is the last time you saw God in any of the adverts for Christmas, Easter or anything else, when was the last time schools had morning prayers or sang hymns, when is the last time the God of the bible was taught as anything but fairy tale...
Actually I see lots of intrusions by “God” stories into secular life, but your assertion was that, “God is hidden by…” etc. Did you actually mean something like, “the narratives about the god in which I believe get less coverage than they used to in advertising etc”?
-
People on here have stated that the default position is that God doesn't exist. They have not suggested it is their position but the position. Do you think that is right?
I should clarify that the default belief position is that gods do not exist. This is the default belief position for everything not just gods.
You move from the default belief position when the evidence shows other wise.
-
God is hidden by life, consumerism, wrong living, science to a degree, attitude, money, anything that keeps our focus on us and our needs..
That is painting god rather as if it were a state of human mind, a facet of human perception and perspective. If we remove humans would God then cease to be hidden ? Was god evident in the Triassic ?
-
you think you do and I am not saying that to be offensive, advertising does more to us than we know..
Not for us, if a thing is heavily advertised we ignore it. Before we make any major purchase we consult, 'WHICH'. Our children had to hope, when they were kids, that nothing on their wish lists had been advertised on TV, because they certainly wouldn't be having it if that had been the case.
-
Not for us, if a thing is heavily advertised we ignore it. Before we make any major purchase we consult, 'WHICH'. Our children had to hope, when they were kids, that nothing on their wish lists had been advertised on TV, because they certainly wouldn't be having it if that had been the case.
You have to be careful because this means that you are affected by advertising.
-
Maeght,
So is 'God doesn't exist' the default position?
No, it's a default position. It's the default for the only way pragmatically to proceed on a reasoned basis - ie, as if god(s) do not exist.
What it cannot be though is the default strict epistemic statement, "god(s) definitively do not exist" because there's no way to exclude an unknown unknown that could demonstrate otherwise.
-
You have to be careful because this means that you are affected by advertising.
In a negative not a positive way, which is good.
-
In a negative not a positive way, which is good.
Perhaps, but the thing being advertised might be the best option, and you do not choose it for the wrong reason.
Advertising brings it to your attention, your investigations inform you whether it us a good buy.
Simply not buying it because it was advertised removes the rational reasoning of its merits, if it has any.
-
People on here have stated that the default position is that God doesn't exist.
I still don't recognise 'God' as a single concept.
However, the default belief about the existence of anything is that it doesn't exist - including (as I said before) things we now know exist (have strong evidence for), like atoms, electromagnetic radiation, and Higgs bosons.
-
you think you do and I am not saying that to be offensive, advertising does more to us than we know..
One of the little bonuses about blindness is that I don't see adverts, on the internet or on TV - well, I dn't turn on TV!
-
Perhaps, but the thing being advertised might be the best option, and you do not choose it for the wrong reason.
Advertising brings it to your attention, your investigations inform you whether it us a good buy.
Simply not buying it because it was advertised removes the rational reasoning of its merits, if it has any.
Why do I want something brought to my attention? I buy what I want and need, nothing else.
-
To speed things up then: you'll have, at the drop of the proverbial hat, and momentarily, a cogent argument for 'God' that we can all get stuck into?
Nope.
He said "if you have a refutation of an argument..." He doesn't have a refutation of the "there is no god" argument.
-
Why do I want something brought to my attention? I buy what I want and need, nothing else.
How do you know what shop to go to?
-
Why do I want something brought to my attention? I buy what I want and need, nothing else.
Sometimes it's useful to know something is available that you did not know.
It's all just information
-
How do you know what shop to go to?
The one which offers the best value for money for the goods we wish to buy, we compare prices on-line.
-
The one which offers the best value for money for the goods we wish to buy, we compare prices on-line.
Sometimes I see something useful, and think I must look I to that. It does not mean no buy the one being advertised, but I may do once I have seen what is out there.
-
The one which offers the best value for money for the goods we wish to buy, we compare prices on-line.
That's a form of advertising. The name above the shop is a form of advertising.
-
Sometimes I see something useful, and think I must look I to that. It does not mean no buy the one being advertised, but I may do once I have seen what is out there.
As I said we have no interest in being tempted into buying something we don't really need. The fact that we haven't given into whimsical buying over the years and only bought things we really needed, means we are reasonably comfortable in our old age. Blimey this is way off topic! ::)
-
you think you do and I am not saying that to be offensive, advertising does more to us than we know..
This may be the only time I will agree with GoG. That was my reaction to LR's post, as well.
-
Our children had to hope, when they were kids, that nothing on their wish lists had been advertised on TV, because they certainly wouldn't be having it if that had been the case.
That seems incredibly mean to me.
-
That seems incredibly mean to me.
Why? We knew for a fact the toys the children thought they wanted wouldn't give them satisfaction, whereas what they actually got certainly did. :) In fact some of their toys are still around to this day, as they were much loved and played with by their own children, who also delighted in them. Our eldest girl, the vicar, still has her hobby horse and uses it as an illustration, from time to time, when doing kid's services.
-
I didn't avoid them; I just couldn't be arsed to answer them. This is what usually happens on these threads - the nerdy antheistic obsessives bang on and on relentlessly, spouting their dribs and drabs of philosophy, until everyone except themselves is bored stiff and gives up for the sake of their sanity, then proclaim themselves the winners.
I have sympathy with this post of yours Steve, it's the sematic pedants that are the worst.
I'm sure we all have our hang ups, but those types that pick you up for saying, it's a nice day today, and the next thing you can then get is, what do you mean by a nice day? I just give up on those.
Regards ippy
-
ipster,
I have sympathy with this post of yours Steve, it's the sematic pedants that are the worst.
I'm sure we all have our hang ups, but those types that pick you up for saying, it's a nice day today, and the next thing you can then get is, what do you mean by a nice day? I just give up on those.
Nope – see Reply 139 for what he was actually up to.
-
Grace,
Actually I see lots of intrusions by “God” stories into secular life, but your assertion was that, “God is hidden by…” etc. Did you actually mean something like, “the narratives about the god in which I believe get less coverage than they used to in advertising etc”?
what I meant was things stop people considering God and even things that should highlight God's existence are used just to sell
-
Grace,
what I meant was things stop people considering God…
Distract people from considering various beliefs about various gods perhaps, but introducing “God” here as if it had already been demonstrated is called begging the question.
…and even things that should highlight God's existence…
Why should they highlight that, and what makes you think that “God” exists at all?
…are used just to sell
Well yes, that is what advertising is for but your complaint seems to be that they’re trying to sell their products rather than sell your belief in a god.
-
So is 'God doesn't exist' the default position?
No, it's just that there isn't suficiant evidence around anywhere that would make it worth the effort to go looking for any such thing as a he she or it thing people often refer to as a god.
The idea of a god is as unlikey as the idea of an orbiting teapot.
The default is, untill there is some evidence produced from somwhere that would make it worth looking for this supposed god figure there's no such thing as a god.
I can't see why you're having any difficulty understanding this fact.
Regards ippy
-
Grace,
Distract people from considering various beliefs about various gods perhaps, but introducing “God” here as if it had already been demonstrated is called begging the question.
Why should they highlight that, and what makes you think that “God” exists at all?
Well yes, that is what advertising is for but your complaint seems to be that they’re trying to sell their products rather than sell your belief in a god.
I can't decide if you are just deliberately trying to misunderstand me or not..
the op is about God hiding, so I assumed we were discussing the God of the bible, as most of the time that is the case..
I did not consider this thread was debating the existence of the God of the bible but was more assuming the existence..
I do not expect them to advertise my God, my point is they advertise anything but....
-
Why do I want something brought to my attention? I buy what I want and need, nothing else.
Annoying as it is, advertising works and keeps people in their jobs, there's no need work it out, who in their right mind would spend the money they do on advertising if it didn't work.
It p's me off too, L R.
Regards ippy
-
No, it's just that there isn't suficiant evidence around anywhere that would make it worth the effort to go looking for any such thing as a he she or it thing people often refer to as a god.
The idea of a god is as unlikey as the idea of an orbiting teapot.
The default is, untill there is some evidence produced from somwhere that would make it worth looking for this supposed god figure there's no such thing as a god.
I can't see why you're having any difficulty understanding this fact.
Regards ippy
so you wouldn't consider eternity a good reason to investigate,...
how would you know it is not worth investigating, other than you just deciding it isn't?
-
I do not expect them to advertise my God, my point is they advertise anything but....
But why would an omnipotent, omniscient, just and fair god, with a vitally important message for us (which is what most Christian gods are supposed to be) - need advertising?
Why isn't it making itself and its message totally obvious to everybody so they can make an informed choice?
-
Grace,
I can't decide if you are just deliberately trying to misunderstand me or not..
the op is about God hiding, so I assumed we were discussing the God of the bible, as most of the time that is the case..
I did not consider this thread was debating the existence of the God of the bible but was more assuming the existence..
I do not expect them to advertise my God, my point is they advertise anything but....
But why then would a god of the omnis with an important message for mankind have to rely on Saatchi & Saatchi or WPP to do the advertising/PR job for him rather than cut out the middle men and go direct to his audience?
-
Grace,
so you wouldn't consider eternity a good reason to investigate,...
Sounds like Pascal's wager to me, and in any case you'd need first to provide a method to do the investigating. What would you propose?
...how would you know it is not worth investigating, other than you just deciding it isn't?
Wrong question. Anything might be worth investigating - problem is though, there's no means to do it.
-
I have sympathy with this post of yours Steve, it's the sematic pedants that are the worst.
I'm sure we all have our hang ups, but those types that pick you up for saying, it's a nice day today, and the next thing you can then get is, what do you mean by a nice day? I just give up on those.
Regards ippy
:D
-
so you wouldn't consider eternity a good reason to investigate,...
how would you know it is not worth investigating, other than you just deciding it isn't?
For what reason do you think anyone should be considering eternity? I don't see any relevance eternity has to that last posting of mine?
When as you must know that there's no viable evidence to be found anywhere that would support this god idea of yours, there's no evidence, none, zero evidence, it only makes sense to find some evidence first before you go looking for something as unlikely to be found as a god, lets face it G O G, surly you wouldn't go looking for a unicorn, a pixie an orbiting teapot or a god without some sort of indication that there was good reason to think they were there to make it worth the effort trying to find these things before you go looking for them in the first place?
Regards ippy
-
No, it's just that there isn't suficiant evidence around anywhere that would make it worth the effort to go looking for any such thing as a he she or it thing people often refer to as a god.
The idea of a god is as unlikey as the idea of an orbiting teapot.
The default is, untill there is some evidence produced from somwhere that would make it worth looking for this supposed god figure there's no such thing as a god.
I can't see why you're having any difficulty understanding this fact.
Regards ippy
Because saying there is no such thing as God is a statement which needs supporting evidence. You cannot prove a negative. You cannot say God definitely doesn't exist. So how is it the default position?
-
Because saying there is no such thing as God is a statement which needs supporting evidence. You cannot prove a negative. You cannot say God definitely doesn't exist. So how is it the default position?
Because saying there is no such thing as God X is a statement which needs supporting evidence. You cannot prove a negative. You cannot say God X definitely doesn't exist. So how is it the default position?
You can substitute anything you like for X in that statement and it works just as well as putting "God" in. You have just argued that we must believe in anything we can imagine provided it in not logically inconsistent.
-
so you wouldn't consider eternity a good reason to investigate,...
how would you know it is not worth investigating, other than you just deciding it isn't?
Why not leave it to the cosmologists ? That the cosmos was artificially 'created' by some being operating in some external domain of reality is a claim that comes within the purview of cosmology. Cosmology brings a level of discipline to enquiry and their findings are more likely to be authoritative. As amateurs, the likes of me and you, with no equipment and no training would more likely end up finding what we want to believe rather than any sort of objective truth.
-
Because saying there is no such thing as God X is a statement which needs supporting evidence. You cannot prove a negative. You cannot say God X definitely doesn't exist. So how is it the default position?
You can substitute anything you like for X in that statement and it works just as well as putting "God" in. You have just argued that we must believe in anything we can imagine provided it in not logically inconsistent.
I think that what Maeght is saying is that the default position for anything is agnosticism. However, in many cases, non-belief is the obvious option in pracrice, eg with orbiting teapots. Russell once wrote that he was an agnostic in theory, but an atheist to all intents and purposes.
-
Because saying there is no such thing as God is a statement which needs supporting evidence. You cannot prove a negative. You cannot say God definitely doesn't exist. So how is it the default position?
You're still talking about 'God' as if it's a thing. "God exists" by itself and without further qualification, is a meaningless statement. In fact 'God' represents a whole host of loosely related and often mutually exclusive claims - none of which have (in my experience) any evidential or rational basis. I'm also not aware of anybody claiming that all of them definitely don't exist - just that that is the default starting assumption.
-
Because saying there is no such thing as God X is a statement which needs supporting evidence. You cannot prove a negative. You cannot say God X definitely doesn't exist. So how is it the default position?
You can substitute anything you like for X in that statement and it works just as well as putting "God" in. You have just argued that we must believe in anything we can imagine provided it in not logically inconsistent.
I have not said we must believe in anything. No idea where uou got that from. What I am saying is that 'we don't know' is the default position.
-
You're still talking about 'God' as if it's a thing. "God exists" by itself and without further qualification, is a meaningless statement. In fact 'God' represents a whole host of loosely related and often mutually exclusive claims - none of which have (in my experience) any evidential or rational basis. I'm also not aware of anybody claiming that all of them definitely don't exist - just that that is the default starting assumption.
I am responding to other people's comments anoutGod's existence. Ofcourse, in that situation, I am going to use the same word they have used.
-
I think that what Maeght is saying is that the default position for anything is agnosticism. However, in many cases, non-belief is the obvious option in pracrice, eg with orbiting teapots. Russell once wrote that he was an agnostic in theory, but an atheist to all intents and purposes.
I'm saying the default position is that we don't know - not the same thing as agnosticism. Non belief is a default position too but thst is different to saying the default us that God doesn't exist.
-
I'm saying the default position is that we don't know - not the same thing as agnosticism. Non belief is a default position too but thst is different to saying the default us that God doesn't exist.
I agree, we have no idea if a god or gods actually exist.
The default position is to not accept the claim that they do, and therefore not believe.
Not accepting (or believing) the claim, does not mean that you do believe the opposite is true.
I could use my blades of grass on my lawn analogy, but I am sure you get the point.
-
so you wouldn't consider eternity a good reason to investigate,...
how would you know it is not worth investigating, other than you just deciding it isn't?
I know of the concept of eternity why would I particularly want investigate it? It's not like I'm doing any research into the subject nor am I likely to do so but I'm sure there will be some that want to investigate this subject, although it sounds a bit of a dry one to me.
Regards ippy
-
I think that what Maeght is saying is that the default position for anything is agnosticism. However, in many cases, non-belief is the obvious option in pracrice, eg with orbiting teapots. Russell once wrote that he was an agnostic in theory, but an atheist to all intents and purposes.
Atheism and agnosticism are different.
One is about believe, the other about knowledge.
They are not mutually exclusive, as I am an agnostic atheist.
Agnostics are not half way between theist and atheist, as I am sure you know.
-
Atheism and agnosticism are different.
One is about believe, the other about knowledge.
They are not mutually exclusive, as I am an agnostic atheist.
Agnostics are not half way between theist and atheist, as I am sure you know.
Indeed.
-
ipster,
Nope – see Reply 139 for what he was actually up to.
I've had a look, I'm not sure what it is I've missed, but I've had to endure a little of this semantic nit picking just lately and must admit I'm a bit quick on the trigger, shooting from the hip etc, at the mere mention, I'll get over it.
Regards ippy
-
Because saying there is no such thing as God is a statement which needs supporting evidence. You cannot prove a negative. You cannot say God definitely doesn't exist. So how is it the default position?
If you pick off a part of the sentence I wrote and just pick out the piece where I said there is no such thing as a god, it does make me look like the familiar, just another religious believer making more of their usual assertions, only this time a non-believer doing the asserting.
Now if you were to be honest about it Maeight, you could have quoted the whole sentence that conveyed exactly the thing I was actually saying, which was: 'The default is, until there is some evidence produced from somewhere that would make it worth looking for this supposed god figure there's no such thing as a god', not an exactly honest thing to do was it? Must be a sin or whatever it is you call these things in your dingy world.
Regards ippy
-
If you pick off a part of the sentence I wrote and just pick out the piece where I said there is no such thing as a god, it does make me look like the familiar, just another religious believer making more of their usual assertions, only this time a non-believer doing the asserting.
Now if you were to be honest about it Maeight, you could have quoted the whole sentence that conveyed exactly the thing I was actually saying, which was: 'The default is, until there is some evidence produced from somewhere that would make it worth looking for this supposed god figure there's no such thing as a god', not an exactly honest thing to do was it? Must be a sin or whatever it is you call these things in your dingy world.
Regards ippy
I wasn't referring directly to your post but to the general point I was discussing.
I am not dishonest and am unhappy you think so. Sorry if you saw it that way.
I am not a believer so have no concept of sin nor do I live in a dingy world I think.
-
I wasn't referring directly to your post but to the general point I was discussing.
I am not dishonest and am unhappy you think so. Sorry if you saw it that way.
I am not a believer so have no concept of sin nor do I live in a dingy world I think.
I'm O K with all three points.
Regards ippy
-
If you pick off a part of the sentence I wrote and just pick out the piece where I said there is no such thing as a god, it does make me look like the familiar, just another religious believer making more of their usual assertions, only this time a non-believer doing the asserting.
Now if you were to be honest about it Maeight, you could have quoted the whole sentence that conveyed exactly the thing I was actually saying, which was: 'The default is, until there is some evidence produced from somewhere that would make it worth looking for this supposed god figure there's no such thing as a god', not an exactly honest thing to do was it? Must be a sin or whatever it is you call these things in your dingy world.
Regards ippy
I disagree. I think the default position is “there is no objective evidence for a god” as opposed to “there is no such thing as a god” unless by “thing” you mean a natural thing as opposed to a supernatural thing.
-
Blimey people.
1. Absent any cogent reason to do otherwise, I proceed on the basis that there are no gods (or leprechauns). Thus I have a functional truth of "no gods" (and no leprechauns).
2. In strict epistemic terms however it's not possible to demonstrate the non-existence of something (gods, leprechauns etc) because there's no means to eliminate the possibility of an unknown unknown that could falsify that position, and so I cannot say that any of these things categorically do not exist.
3. Prior to either option 1. or 2. though, those who would posit gods (or leprechauns, or for that matter four-sided triangles) have a coherence problem - ie, their claims are incoherent and so are not truth apt in any case. Thus, strictly, the response to the claim "god" should be ignosticism - ie, "I have no idea what you mean by "God" (and nor so far have you) so the question is void a priori".
-
I disagree. I think the default position is “there is no objective evidence for a god” as opposed to “there is no such thing as a god” unless by “thing” you mean a natural thing as opposed to a supernatural thing.
We're never going to agree on this one Gabriella, that's fine with me.
I'm not that keen on being quoted out of context, but in this case it's all there for all to see so it's not so bothersome.
Regards ippy
-
We're never going to agree on this one Gabriella, that's fine with me.
I'm not that keen on being quoted out of context, but in this case it's all there for all to see so it's not so bothersome.
Regards ippy
wouldn't it be nice occasionally to see direct questions responded to with direct answers?!!
Seems to me that there is a touch of woolliness in believers' responses.
-
wouldn't it be nice occasionally to see direct questions responded to with direct answers?!!
Seems to me that there is a touch of woolliness in believers' responses.
That's an easy one Doris, they clutch at straws, that's all they have and nothing else that involves viable evidence.
Regards ippy
-
Why not leave it to the cosmologists ? That the cosmos was artificially 'created' by some being operating in some external domain of reality is a claim that comes within the purview of cosmology. Cosmology brings a level of discipline to enquiry and their findings are more likely to be authoritative. As amateurs, the likes of me and you, with no equipment and no training would more likely end up finding what we want to believe rather than any sort of objective truth.
So are you saying things can only exist or can only be considered worthy of the possibility of existence if science says so...
-
So are you saying things can only exist or can only be considered worthy of the possibility of existence if science says so...
Science is much more likely to come up with the answer than religion, imo.
-
Grace,
So are you saying things can only exist or can only be considered worthy of the possibility of existence if science says so...
No, he's saying that - so far at least - "science" is the only method we know of reliably to investigate whether or not something exists. If you can think of another one though, by all means propose it.
-
So are you saying things can only exist or can only be considered worthy of the possibility of existence if science says so...
If we want to get to the truth of some or other matter, we would do well to use structured and disciplined methods to do so. Anything less would be negligent.
-
I think that what Maeght is saying is that the default position for anything is agnosticism. However, in many cases, non-belief is the obvious option in pracrice, eg with orbiting teapots. Russell once wrote that he was an agnostic in theory, but an atheist to all intents and purposes.
To suggest that God is not one of the many cases, is special pleading.
-
To suggest that God is not one of the many cases, is special pleading.
It would be if anyone had but they haven't, so it isn't.
-
It would be if anyone had but they haven't, so it isn't.
Wrong. My statement was factually correct even if nobody has made the suggestion yet.
Anyway its is good to see that you, at least, acknowledge that not believing in God is the default position until somebody presents some credible evidence.
-
Wrong. My statement was factually correct even if nobody has made the suggestion yet.
Anyway its is good to see that you, at least, acknowledge that not believing in God is the default position until somebody presents some credible evidence.
Any believer of moderate intelligence and education would.
-
Steve H,
Any believer of moderate intelligence and education would.
Would what?
-
Steve H,
Would what?
Seems fairly simple that SteveH is agreeing 'that not believing in God is the default position until somebody presents some credible evidence.'
-
NS,
Seems fairly simple that SteveH is agreeing 'that not believing in God is the default position until somebody presents some credible evidence.'
His comment, "Any believer of moderate intelligence and education would" was in response to, "Anyway its is good to see that you, at least, acknowledge that not believing in God is the default position until somebody presents some credible evidence".
I presume that he's implying that he is one such "believer of moderate intelligence and education" and that his default position has therefore changed because he (apparently) has "some credible evidence". I just wanted to be sure that that is indeed what he meant though.
-
NS,
His comment, "Any believer of moderate intelligence and education would" was in response to, "Anyway its is good to see that you, at least, acknowledge that not believing in God is the default position until somebody presents some credible evidence".
I presume that he's implying that he is one such "believer of moderate intelligence and education" and that his default position has therefore changed because he (apparently) has "some credible evidence". I just wanted to be sure that that is indeed what he meant though.
That seems to me an unjustified assumption. He merely commented on what the default position might be, nothing about his position. I think you are conflating a default with any person 's actual position. Further, one doesn't necessarily move from the position that is the default on purely rationalist grounds. I may be reading SteveH's posts wrongly, and please SteveH correct me if I get this wrong, but I done think he sees his belief in his god as an exclusively rationalist position.
-
I presume that he's implying that he is one such "believer of moderate intelligence and education" and that his default position has therefore changed because he (apparently) has "some credible evidence". I just wanted to be sure that that is indeed what he meant though.
Steve reappeared on the forum as a believer in the 'non-realist God' (which to me is an oxymoron and tantamount to atheism). He recently quipped that he was thinking of changing to a belief in a God who is real, purely because he was put off by the obsessive and sometimes (to him) silly comments of some of the atheists here. Seems a rather weak reason for altering one's beliefs about something so significant.
Truth is, though, that Steve has always confessed to wavering between the non-realist and realist position, as long as I've known him posting anywhere.
If he has now moved over positively to the realist position, it would be nice to see an in-depth exposition of his credible evidence. As far as I can judge, the realist position he might have adopted would be something on the lines of process theology or the theistic evolutionism of Teilhard de Chardin, bolstered up with valid observations about the perplexing realities of human love, profound aesthetic response etc, which don't yield too easily to scientific reductionism. (Argumentum ad......incredibilem :) )
Maybe I'm putting too many words in his mouth, so I'll shut the fuck up and let him respond in his own way.
-
NS,
That seems to me an unjustified assumption. He merely commented on what the default position might be, nothing about his position. I think you are conflating a default with any person 's actual position. Further, one doesn't necessarily move from the position that is the default on purely rationalist grounds. I may be reading SteveH's posts wrongly, and please SteveH correct me if I get this wrong, but I done think he sees his belief in his god as an exclusively rationalist position.
As I said, his meaning isn't "fairly simple" to understand at all - or at least not to me - which is why I asked him to clarify. How for example would he align rationalism (if a rationalist he thinks himself to be) with his self-professed irrealism? No doubt he'll tell us in due course.
-
NS,
As I said, his meaning isn't "fairly simple" to understand at all - or at least not to me - which is why I asked him to clarify. How for example would he align rationalism (if a rationalist he be) with his self-professed irrealism? No doubt he'll tell us in due course.
That's using the 'fairly simple' out of context. His original statement seems fairly simple I.e. that he was agreeing 'that not believing in God is the default position until somebody presents some credible evidence'. That given his belief in a god you can then ask questions about how he gets there is valid but it doesn't seem to me that it's worth making assumptions about whether he is a rationalist or not. Instead of asking about what he meant by a 'farly simple' statement, it would seem better how he combines belief in that and in a god.
-
NS,
That's using the 'fairly simple' out of context. His original statement seems fairly simple I.e. that he was agreeing 'that not believing in God is the default position until somebody presents some credible evidence'.
He said, “Any believer of moderate intelligence and education would” and I still don’t know what he meant by that – that such a person would only be a believer in the first place if he already had credible evidence? That the believer would provide the evidence? That he is just such a person? Dunno.
That given his belief in a god you can then ask questions about how he gets there is valid but it doesn't seem to me that it's worth making assumptions about whether he is a rationalist or not.
Seems a bit odd given that you yourself said in Reply 231, “I may be reading SteveH's posts wrongly, and please SteveH correct me if I get this wrong, but I done think he sees his belief in his god as an exclusively rationalist position” but fair enough.
Instead of asking about what he meant by a 'farly simple' statement, it would seem better how he combines belief in that and in a god
I was hoping that his clarification might lead to such a discussion, but I didn’t want to base those questions on assumptions that could be wrong. Thanks for telling me how better to ask my questions though! ;)
-
Steve H,
Would what?
Acknowledge that not believing in God (or anything) is the default position.
-
Steve reappeared on the forum as a believer in the 'non-realist God' (which to me is an oxymoron and tantamount to atheism). He recently quipped that he was thinking of changing to a belief in a God who is real, purely because he was put off by the obsessive and sometimes (to him) silly comments of some of the atheists here. Seems a rather weak reason for altering one's beliefs about something so significant.
Truth is, though, that Steve has always confessed to wavering between the non-realist and realist position, as long as I've known him posting anywhere.
If he has now moved over positively to the realist position, it would be nice to see an in-depth exposition of his credible evidence. As far as I can judge, the realist position he might have adopted would be something on the lines of process theology or the theistic evolutionism of Teilhard de Chardin, bolstered up with valid observations about the perplexing realities of human love, profound aesthetic response etc, which don't yield too easily to scientific reductionism. (Argumentum ad......incredibilem :) )
Maybe I'm putting too many words in his mouth, so I'll shut the fuck up and let him respond in his own way.
I'm still a non-realist...I think.
-
Steve H,
Acknowledge that not believing in God (or anything) is the default position.
Fair enough. Thanks.
I'm still a non-realist...I think.
Non-realist (and “irrealist”) are terms I see quite often in a religious context, though there doesn’t seem to be much of an agreed view on what they mean.
If you feel like doing so, would you mind explaining what you mean by "non-realist", and what process took you from the default to non-realist belief?
Thanks again.
-
Steve H,
Non-realist (and “irrealist”) are terms I see quite often in a religious context, though there doesn’t seem to be much of an agreed view on what they mean.
If you feel like doing so, would you mind explaining what you mean by "non-realist", and what process took you from the default to non-realist belief?
Thanks again.
What I mean by non-realist, in a Christian context, is admitting that there is, objectively speaking, no God, but that humans in general have a religious capacity and need, and consequently practising Christianity for its own sake. It's similar to the theology of Paul Tillich and John A.T.Robinson. There can also be non-realist jews, Muslims, Hindus, etc as well, of course. I think it is older and commoner than is often realised.
I remember arch-evangelical Nicky Gumgel, of 'Alpha', accidentally giving the game away in a videoed talk, when he said that many people who completed the Alpha course and made a commitment to Christianity were prone to saying things like "Christianity is true for me". He felt it necessary to correct them, and say that it is true full stop, but if he encounters that attitude frequently, there must be many other who, in a crude sort of way, are non-realists.
-
'Non Realist', therefore, is surely a euphemism, a phrase that hides the paradox of believing something that we don't really believe.
-
http://www.doncupitt.com/non-realism
-
I thought that one sense of non-realism is a symbolic view. This means taking Christian stories as psychological insights, not historical facts. Jung did this quite a lot.
-
I thought that one sense of non-realism is a symbolic view. This means taking Christian stories as psychological insights, not historical facts. Jung did this quite a lot.
Yes, it is.
-
Steve H,
What I mean by non-realist, in a Christian context, is admitting that there is, objectively speaking, no God, but that humans in general have a religious capacity and need, and consequently practising Christianity for its own sake. It's similar to the theology of Paul Tillich and John A.T.Robinson. There can also be non-realist jews, Muslims, Hindus, etc as well, of course. I think it is older and commoner than is often realised.
I remember arch-evangelical Nicky Gumgel, of 'Alpha', accidentally giving the game away in a videoed talk, when he said that many people who completed the Alpha course and made a commitment to Christianity were prone to saying things like "Christianity is true for me". He felt it necessary to correct them, and say that it is true full stop, but if he encounters that attitude frequently, there must be many other who, in a crude sort of way, are non-realists.
Thanks for this, and for the link to Cupitt. He’s so much more an interesting and nuanced thinker I find than the crude “God is really there if only you could see Him”, “the resurrection is as factually true a the battle of Waterloo is factually true” etc efforts we see here that always collapse into incoherence, contradiction of common-or-garden fallacy when the proponent is asked for a validating argument. I’ve asked several times here before now whether there are any arguments for religious belief worth considering, and Cupitt (and presumably the others you reference) seem to me to come closer to it than most. That said though…
…I’m at a loss to know what this “God” is (or perhaps “these gods are” given that any one that provides meaning to the individual seems to be as valid as any other) other than a useful placemarker for, “I find it functionally useful to live my life as if the god that suits me best is real”. As a teenager for example (ie a very long time ago) I came across the Greek system of ethics eudaemonsim – essentially that the way to a good life is to leave everyone you meet a little happier for the encounter (I’m paraphrasing here) – that has always seemed like a good idea to me. Elizabeth Anscombe revived the idea I think in the 1950s when she introduced the idea of virtue ethics – ie, as there’s no longer a “god the lawgiver” we need a different basis to establish morality.
Why then would I want to attach the label “God” to the way I prefer to live my life as it seems to work pretty well without it? That is, what does “god” bring to the story if I’ve just created him for myself as a re-branding exercise anyway rather than relied on theology or doctrine for his characteristics?
-
Why then would I want to attach the label “God” to the way I prefer to live my life as it seems to work pretty well without it? That is, what does “god” bring to the story if I’ve just created him for myself as a re-branding exercise anyway rather than relied on theology or doctrine for his characteristics?
I think within many religions there is a recognition that much of the conflict and lack of peace in the world derives from egocentric or self centred humans and that this can be overcome by submitting to a (non human) higher power. The initiators of those religions lived at a time when probably very few people could say 'my life seems to work pretty well' and they discovered a way of fostering an inner well being without the desire for what promotes self righteousness, self seeking, self centred life styles. Some advocate submitting to a God, as Abrahamic religions do and some have other views as the following quotes show. One of the problems with organised religions is that there have been 'self' centred leaders creating 'self' centred theologies.
Socrates ...... Individual must experience life directly and not depend upon logic or borrowed learning. Experience and achieve union with ultimate love by first knowing the beauty of the body, then the beauty of the soul and at last the impersonal beauty of the universe pulsating inside and outside the silent being.
Swami Ramdas [a Hindu Bhakta] The changing mind of man cannot be satisfied permanently with anything. What he likes at one time, he does not like at another. What he wants now, he does not want later. The only way for a man to be always happy is to submit to God's will, and leaving everything to Him, be content with the condition in which He places him. From changing circumstances we cannot get real happiness. Happiness lies within .... Surrender means inner contentment and peace.
Sri Ramana Maharshi [a Hindu sage] It is enough that one surrenders one's self. Surrender is to give oneself up to the original cause of one's being. Do not delude yourself by imagining such source to be some God outside you. One's source is within oneself. Give your self up to it. That means you should seek the source and merge in it.
-
Steve H,
Why then would I want to attach the label “God” to the way I prefer to live my life as it seems to work pretty well without it? That is, what does “god” bring to the story if I’ve just created him for myself as a re-branding exercise anyway rather than relied on theology or doctrine for his characteristics?
Hi blue
To put it bluntly (as it seems to me), it's a way of making old skeletons dance. A great deal has been invested in the Christian belief system, personally and socially. It is still a source for good in many ways. But for those who no longer believe, but feel that they want to belong to some social group or other, and maybe do something good in the world via group activity, then attaching the label 'god' to the focus of their efforts is a way of prolonging the life of such religious systems.
However, the Christian God who, beyond space and time, brought the universe into being, and who became incarnate in Jesus and went on to die for our sins - this non-realist 'god' sure ain't that at all.
-
An assertion, not a fact.
Do you think that the traditional Christian God is the same as the non-realist god that SteveH is talking about then?
Or did you just misread my post and think I've suddenly become a believer?
-
A great deal has been invested in the Christian belief system, personally and socially. It is still a source for good in many ways. But for those who no longer believe, but feel that they want to belong to some social group or other, and maybe do something good in the world via group activity, then attaching the label 'god' to the focus of their efforts is a way of prolonging the life of such religious systems.
I guess I could sort of see that if the Christian god, as portrayed in the bible, was actually good and if the "Jesus died for me" stuff made coherent sense as a story about a good and loving god, but it isn't and it doesn't. Interpreting something as a sort of ideal, rather than a literal reality, is one thing, but pretending that a nonsensical, inconsistent story, actually makes sense, is quite another...
-
Do you think that the traditional Christian God is the same as the non-realist god that SteveH is talking about then?
Or did you just misread my post and think I've suddenly become a believer?
I misread your post, SORRY! :-[ I will remove it immediately.
-
Hi Ekim,
I think within many religions there is a recognition that much of the conflict and lack of peace in the world derives from egocentric or self centred humans and that this can be overcome by submitting to a (non human) higher power. The initiators of those religions lived at a time when probably very few people could say 'my life seems to work pretty well' and they discovered a way of fostering an inner well being without the desire for what promotes self righteousness, self seeking, self centred life styles. Some advocate submitting to a God, as Abrahamic religions do and some have other views as the following quotes show. One of the problems with organised religions is that there have been 'self' centred leaders creating 'self' centred theologies.
Socrates ...... Individual must experience life directly and not depend upon logic or borrowed learning. Experience and achieve union with ultimate love by first knowing the beauty of the body, then the beauty of the soul and at last the impersonal beauty of the universe pulsating inside and outside the silent being.
Swami Ramdas [a Hindu Bhakta] The changing mind of man cannot be satisfied permanently with anything. What he likes at one time, he does not like at another. What he wants now, he does not want later. The only way for a man to be always happy is to submit to God's will, and leaving everything to Him, be content with the condition in which He places him. From changing circumstances we cannot get real happiness. Happiness lies within .... Surrender means inner contentment and peace.
Sri Ramana Maharshi [a Hindu sage] It is enough that one surrenders one's self. Surrender is to give oneself up to the original cause of one's being. Do not delude yourself by imagining such source to be some God outside you. One's source is within oneself. Give your self up to it. That means you should seek the source and merge in it.
But surely the point of irrealism is that there is no "non-human higher power" to submit to isn't it?
-
Hi Dicky,
To put it bluntly (as it seems to me), it's a way of making old skeletons dance.
Nice phrase! And yes, that's how it seems to me too.
A great deal has been invested in the Christian belief system, personally and socially. It is still a source for good in many ways. But for those who no longer believe, but feel that they want to belong to some social group or other, and maybe do something good in the world via group activity, then attaching the label 'god' to the focus of their efforts is a way of prolonging the life of such religious systems.
Yes, it smacks to me of "OK, all that religious facts stuff is clearly a busted flush now but if we can't hold the line on that any more, maybe there's some way we can salvage something from it for the feels?".
However, the Christian God who, beyond space and time, brought the universe into being, and who became incarnate in Jesus and went on to die for our sins - this non-realist 'god' sure ain't that at all.
Well no. As I understand it, the irrealist "god" is a label you attach to the way you'd live if there was a god, only there isn't one. Or something. But then it seems to me you've just shifted the problem sideways - what is it about this god that, if it was real, would enable you to live a better life? How would you decide? If you're a loving person anyway presumably you'd live your life as if there was a loving god; if you're a hating person, you'd live your life as if there was a hateful god etc. What then does the notion "god" bring to the party?
-
Hi Ekim,
But surely the point of irrealism is that there is no "non-human higher power" to submit to isn't it?
Then those who believe in the concept of irrealism will live their lives accordingly. All I am saying is that perhaps for many people, in order to overcome an egocentric or self centred driven lifestyle they find it easier to do so by submitting to a non-human higher power, real or imagined. Unfortunately there are pitfalls, like fatalism, High Priests, autocrats and dictators using indoctrination as a means of control. There is an interesting article which has appeared on the BBC site today ..... http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/resources/idt-sh/spirituality
-
ekim,
Then those who believe in the concept of irrealism will live their lives accordingly. All I am saying is that perhaps for many people, in order to overcome an egocentric or self centred driven lifestyle they find it easier to do so by submitting to a non-human higher power, real or imagined. Unfortunately there are pitfalls, like fatalism, High Priests, autocrats and dictators using indoctrination as a means of control. There is an interesting article which has appeared on the BBC site today ..... http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/resources/idt-sh/spirituality
But the problem with that surely is that, if they don't think any of these possible gods actually exist, they have no reference for something to submit to. Do they look to supposedly "holy" books, to philosophy, to fiction, to whatever pops into their heads, to what?
However vulnerable to reason the claims of religious literalists might be they at least have something(s) they can argue (however badly) to be real on which they can hang their various hats as the objects that will guide the way they live their lives. The irrealists on the other hand have at best - according to their own beliefs - competing works of fiction to choose from, or perhaps whatever they choose to make up that suits the purpose. Again, I fail to see what calling these various fictional characters "god" brings to the way they live their lives in any case. What's the point of it?
-
Then those who believe in the concept of irrealism will live their lives accordingly. All I am saying is that perhaps for many people, in order to overcome an egocentric or self centred driven lifestyle they find it easier to do so by submitting to a non-human higher power, real or imagined. Unfortunately there are pitfalls, like fatalism, High Priests, autocrats and dictators using indoctrination as a means of control. There is an interesting article which has appeared on the BBC site today ..... http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/resources/idt-sh/spirituality
Interesting article, I listened to all the comments. It is such a great pity that nearly all of them seem to see an inextricable link between spirituality and religious beliefs. This view is, as far as I can see, pervasive and should be challenged at every point.
every human being is spiritual to a greater or lesser degree, since all humans have imagination, and, as I am wont to say, I defy anyone to say that atheists are not spiritual.
-
SD years ago I thought i would play the "spiritual"name game to my brain but in the end i stopped using it because ive never once heard or read anything that defines "spiritual". Another religious nonsense word im afraid IMO.
-
ekim,
But the problem with that surely is that, if they don't think any of these possible gods actually exist, they have no reference for something to submit to. Do they look to supposedly "holy" books, to philosophy, to fiction, to whatever pops into their heads, to what?
However vulnerable to reason the claims of religious literalists might be they at least have something(s) they can argue (however badly) to be real on which they can hang their various hats as the objects that will guide the way they live their lives. The irrealists on the other hand have at best - according to their own beliefs - competing works of fiction to choose from, or perhaps whatever they choose to make up that suits the purpose. Again, I fail to see what calling these various fictional characters "god" brings to the way they live their lives in any case. What's the point of it?
As regards your last question, the only answer I can tentatively give is based upon the origin of the word 'god', which if I remember correctly is 'that which is to be invoked'. This means that anything or quality can be a god and subject to worship (given our whole hearted attention). In order to focus attention on the desired result, objective or quality it was probably easier to personify it in order to sharpen and sustain that focus. If you desire wealth or riches then Mammon was your god. If you desired qualities like power, love, strength, peace, protection, immortality etc., there was a god for it to focus the attention upon. The Abrahamic (One) God is different in that it has all qualities e.g. YHWH-Yireh ... God the provider, YHWH-Rapha ... God the healer, YHWH-Shalom ... God our peace. There are the so called 99 names of God in the Qur'an which appear to be basically attributes and the Christian 'God is Love'. In days gone by, it was perhaps discovered that it was easier to unify tribes if there was one god to worship rather than each tribe having its own god. Today you can see the same kind (but perhaps more ego driven) of worship of celebrities and the use of the term 'role models'.
-
Ekim,
As regards your last question, the only answer I can tentatively give is based upon the origin of the word 'god', which if I remember correctly is 'that which is to be invoked'. This means that anything or quality can be a god and subject to worship (given our whole hearted attention). In order to focus attention on the desired result, objective or quality it was probably easier to personify it in order to sharpen and sustain that focus. If you desire wealth or riches then Mammon was your god. If you desired qualities like power, love, strength, peace, protection, immortality etc., there was a god for it to focus the attention upon. The Abrahamic (One) God is different in that it has all qualities e.g. YHWH-Yireh ... God the provider, YHWH-Rapha ... God the healer, YHWH-Shalom ... God our peace. There are the so called 99 names of God in the Qur'an which appear to be basically attributes and the Christian 'God is Love'. In days gone by, it was perhaps discovered that it was easier to unify tribes if there was one god to worship rather than each tribe having its own god. Today you can see the same kind (but perhaps more ego driven) of worship of celebrities and the use of the term 'role models'.
All very nice no doubt for those who like that sort if thing, but it still misses the central problem: I can “invoke” anything I like - a hamburger that never runs out, a pet unicorn, a holiday on a desert island with Felicity Kendall, you name it. So what though? What does calling any of these things “god” bring to the desire for any of them to be true? I might for example choose to call myself a “never-ending hamburger irrealist” if I was so inclined, but it seems to me that calling it “god” instead is to freight it with significance it hasn’t earned.
What then is the point of the re-branding exercise of religious irrealism?
-
Ekim,
All very nice no doubt for those who like that sort if thing, but it still misses the central problem: I can “invoke” anything I like - a hamburger that never runs out, a pet unicorn, a holiday on a desert island with Felicity Kendall, you name it. So what though? What does calling any of these things “god” bring to the desire for any of them to be true? I might for example choose to call myself a “never-ending hamburger irrealist” if I was so inclined, but it seems to me that calling it “god” instead is to freight it with significance it hasn’t earned.
What then is the point of the re-branding exercise of religious irrealism?
If you think you can invoke the things you have mentioned and that they will enhance your life then the thing to do is try it. Keeeeep praying! You could start by joining the other acolytes in the Felicity Kendall fan club. If you are deemed worthy you might get your desired holiday. However, the major religions tend to be about invoking the inner qualities I mentioned in my last post so that the individual is transformed by those qualities and lives in tune with whatever he/she believes is the source of those qualities. As regards your last question, I don't really know about the rebranding exercise and only have a passing interest in '-isms' so that I can avoid them. If realism is taken to mean the sensible world of matter and energy then a number of religions have words or expressions which vaguely point beyond that state. The Old Testament have two words translated as 'God'. One is Elohim which I believe can be loosely translated as 'the powers that be' and the tetragrammaton YHVH which can be translated as 'He is being'. All very vague and irreal. If there is a rebranding exercise, it might be in deference to the 2nd Commandment about not creating terrestrial nor subconscious images e.g. concepts of the inconceivable or trying to describe the absolute in relative terms.