Searching for GOD...

[Dicky Underpants]

3: The third crock you expect us to buy is that any talk of God is as meaningful as a random string of numbers and letters. That is just hyperbolic nonsense on your part.......but since that is a positive assertion you can of course justify it.

Well, could you try and point out the 'lowest common denominator' in this lot (which is but mere taster)?

The Lakota Native Americans speak of 'The Great Mysterious' - which is nice, but I'm not sure gets us much further that Brian Cox saying "It's amazing".
The Mormons believe in a plurality of gods, with 'God the Father' as a 'refined material 'something'' in this universe.
The Hindus believe that the human soul 'Atman' is commensurate with the godhead 'Brahman' (who may or may not be in a panentheist relationship with everything, as well as embracing a host of lesser deities).
The Gnostics, believed that the ultimate godhead was pure spirit, beyond the universe, and not polluted by gross matter in any way. However, there was another god who created the material world and our material bodies - the demiurge, who believes he is the ultimate creator. Sometimes, the latter is equated with Jehovah, as he is in the work of Marcion. Jesus was not incarnate, but pure spirit.
Well, you know perfectly well about the beliefs of traditional Christianity - but don't forget 'Filioque' - it's so important to know whether the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, or from the Father only.
Arius - remember him - what a fine fellow, anal prolapse and all. Christ wasn't there as part of the Trinity from the beginning...but of course he was, you say, "God has spoken to me".

The Void is always full, and when it gets cold, I turn my heating on (though wiggi "chops wood and carries water").

And furthermore:
"IT'S TURTLES ALL THE WAY DOWN"

[bluehillside Retd.]

Hi Dicky,

Well, could you try and point out the 'lowest common denominator' in this lot (which is but mere taster)?

The Lakota Native Americans speak of 'The Great Mysterious' - which is nice, but I'm not sure gets us much further that Brian Cox saying "It's amazing".
The Mormons believe in a plurality of gods, with 'God the Father' as a 'refined material 'something'' in this universe.
The Hindus believe that the human soul 'Atman' is commensurate with the godhead 'Brahman' (who may or may not be in a panentheist relationship with everything, as well as embracing a host of lesser deities).
The Gnostics, believed that the ultimate godhead was pure spirit, beyond the universe, and not polluted by gross matter in any way. However, there was another god who created the material world and our material bodies - the demiurge, who believes he is the ultimate creator. Sometimes, the latter is equated with Jehovah, as he is in the work of Marcion. Jesus was not incarnate, but pure spirit.
Well, you know perfectly well about the beliefs of traditional Christianity - but don't forget 'Filioque' - it's so important to know whether the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, or from the Father only.
Arius - remember him - what a fine fellow, anal prolapse and all. Christ wasn't there as part of the Trinity from the beginning...but of course he was, you say, "God has spoken to me".

The Void is always full, and when it gets cold, I turn my heating on (though wiggi "chops wood and carries water").

And furthermore:
"IT'S TURTLES ALL THE WAY DOWN"

Ah but the difference between these folks and our Vlad is that Vlad actually "intuits" his god. And his intuition is of course necessarily true for the rest of us but the intuitions of the rest are not because...

...well...

....you know...

....reasons.

So there we have it then.

[jeremyp]

What is it about God that makes him mythical.

That's easy to answer: he doesn't exist.

Why do you think the question is hard?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

That's easy to answer: he doesn't exist.

Why do you think the question is hard?

Such a bonfire of smugness needs pissing on so here goes
................Jeremy, how are you defining existence ?

[bluehillside Retd.]

jeremy,

That's easy to answer: he doesn't exist.

Why do you think the question is hard?

I was about to caution you that our Vlad will just topple straight into his his misunderstanding of the burden of proof issue, but I see he's already fallen in. His next line will be that you've made the "positive assertion" so it's up to you to validate it.

It's better just to remind him that "god" is the "positive assertion" and so it's for him first to define what he means by it, and then to suggest a method to take us from his "intuited" speculation about it to something more solid. He always heads for the exit at that point, which at least gives the rest of us some respite from his disordered thinking.

Be nice though if he would at least try to suggest why his intuition about "god" should be treated differently from someone else's intuition about, say, Thor.

Ah well, I guess we'll never know...   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

jeremy,

I was about to caution you that our Vlad will just topple straight into his his misunderstanding of the burden of proof issue, but I see he's already fallen in. His next line will be that you've made the "positive assertion" so it's up to you to validate it.

It's better just to remind him that "god" is the "positive assertion" and so it's for him first to define what he means by it, and then to suggest a method to take us from his "intuited" speculation about it to something more solid. He always heads for the exit at that point, which at least gives the rest of us some respite from his disordered thinking.

Be nice though if he would at least try to suggest why his intuition about "god" should be treated differently from someone else's intuition about, say, Thor.

Ah well, I guess we'll never know...

Ere we go again. I am just asking Jeremy how he defines existence.

He could have as crap a definition for existence as Gordon has for the term mythical.

What is your definition of a positive assertion.........?.............perhaps that definition is just as crap?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlunderer,

Ere we go again. I am just asking Jeremy how he defines existence.

Why? The standard meaning of "other than imaginary" is fine.

He could have as crap a definition for existence as Gordon has for the term mythical.

Gordon doesn't have a "crap definition" of the term "mythical". He uses it in the standard way. The only crap definition here - or indeed the total absence of a definition of any kind - concerns you and your term "god".

What is your definition of a positive assertion.........?.............perhaps that definition is just as crap?

No, it's the bog standard definition of it.

As there's a whole new year just around the corner, how about you doing that rarest of things and actually answering a question that's been put to you? Here it is again: Why should your intuition about (whatever you mean by the term) "god" be taken any more seriously by the rest of us than anyone else's intuition about anything else? 

Go on, why not finally take the plunge and actually try to answer something? If nothing else, it'll give you a break from demanding answers from everyone else...

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlunderer,

Why? The standard meaning of "other than imaginary" is fine.

.....and that being a positive assertion, you!ll have no trouble proving that then Hillside.

[Alan Burns]

Quote from: Alan Burns on December 27, 2015, 01:27:01 PM
 If you ask ten philosophers to define the truth, you will get ten different answers, but there is only one truth, and mankind's intellect alone is not capable of finding it.

Muddled thinking.  There is no single 'thing' that we could call 'Truth'.  Truth is a concept, not a thing; a proposition can be described as being 'true' or 'false', so more correctly, truth is a descriptive property of a proposition.  Describing truth as if it were a thing makes no more sense than talking about 'very', or 'purple', as if they were things

The truth I was implying relates to the origins of our existence and what we comprise of.
for example,
Were we brought into existence by a creator?
Do we have a soul which gives awareness an free will?

In these contexts there can only be one truth.

[Gordon]

Vlad

Here is a definition of 'myth'- seems to fit well with 'Gods' in general (whichever one you choose), leprechauns and unicorns.

1 : a story often describing the adventures of superhuman beings that attempts to describe the origin of a people's customs or beliefs or to explain mysterious events (as the changing of the seasons)
2 : a person or thing that exists only in the imagination <the dragon is a myth>
3 : a popular belief that is false or unsupported

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/myth

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlunderer,

.....and that being a positive assertion, you!ll have no trouble proving that then Hillside.

Could you to least try to be not so jaw-droppingly obtuse? "Exist" meaning "not imaginary" is a standard definition of the term - any dictionary will tell you that, or something very similar to it.

Good grief man, you really have lost it now haven't you.

I see by the way that you've just ignored yet again the question I asked you while still demanding answers from others.

What does that say about you do you think?

[Shaker]

Muddled thinking.  There is no single 'thing' that we could call 'Truth'.  Truth is a concept, not a thing; a proposition can be described as being 'true' or 'false', so more correctly, truth is a descriptive property of a proposition.  Describing truth as if it were a thing makes no more sense than talking about 'very', or 'purple', as if they were things

The truth I was implying relates to the origins of our existence and what we comprise of.
for example,
Were we brought into existence by a creator?
Do we have a soul which gives awareness an free will?

In these contexts there can only be one truth.

No evidence whatever of either.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad

Here is a definition of 'myth'- seems to fit well with 'Gods'

How?

[Gordon]

How?

For the reasons stated - so if your 'God' accords with 1, 2 or 3 (or combinations of these) then we are in myth territory, as is the case with leprechauns or unicorns.

So, you'll need a definition that contains more than this and, importantly, is sufficient to verify your 'God' claim as being distinct from 'God' claims that are myth (as defined in the link) - so, over to you to provide a definition that isn't mere myth.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

For the reasons stated - so if your 'God' accords with 1, 2 or 3 (or combinations of these) then we are in myth territory, as is the case with leprechauns or unicorns.

So, you'll need a definition that contains more than this and, importantly, is sufficient to verify your 'God' claim as being distinct from 'God' claims that are myth (as defined in the link) - so, over to you to provide a definition that isn't mere myth.

If you are going then to insist that God only exists in the imagination you need to demonstrate that since it is a positive assertion.

Also since these are meaningful definitions you are wrong about there.not being meaningful definitions.

[Gordon]

If you are going then to insist that God only exists in the imagination you need to demonstrate that since it is a positive assertion.

Also since these are meaningful definitions you are wrong about there.not being meaningful definitions.

Don't be silly, Vlad.

I'm simply providing a definition of myth that you haven't challenged so I'll assume you accept it as being workable for the purposes of this discussion. Now, I'm sure you'd agree with me that the 'Gods' known as Thor and Zeus fit this definition - if not then perhaps you'd explain why they don't - and the Christian version of 'God' seems to fit on the same basis as Zeus and Thor. So, if there is more to the Christian 'God' than myth then over to you to define any additional elements.

These are indeed meaningful definitions of myths but they are not meaningful definitions of things that aren't myths: this is the critical difference that you are either avoiding or are blind to. So, put simply, if the Christian 'God is a myth then these definitions fit quite nicely - but if the Christian 'God' isn't a myth, as you seen to think, then you need to define it in terms that are mutually exclusive from these definitions of myth - so, again, over to you.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Don't be silly, Vlad.

I'm simply providing a definition of myth that you haven't challenged so I'll assume you accept it as being workable for the purposes of this discussion. Now, I'm sure you'd agree with me that the 'Gods' known as Thor and Zeus fit this definition - if not then perhaps you'd explain why they don't - and the Christian version of 'God' seems to fit on the same basis as Zeus and Thor. So, if there is more to the Christian 'God' than myth then over to you to define any additional elements.

These are indeed meaningful definitions of myths but they are not meaningful definitions of things that aren't myths: this is the critical difference that you are either avoiding or are blind to. So, put simply, if the Christian 'God is a myth then these definitions fit quite nicely - but if the Christian 'God' isn't a myth, as you seen to think, then you need to define it in terms that are mutually exclusive from these definitions of myth - so, again, over to you.

Demonstrate God fits any of your definitions of myth then.

[Gordon]

Demonstrate God fits any of your definitions of myth then.

Certainly - that Jesus was dead for three days and was then alive again due to a divine miracle fits number 3: this is perhaps the most important claim made by Christians yet it fit the definition of myth perfectly - unless of course you can supply a definition that fits better.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Hi Gordon,

How?

SPOILER ALERT: Just to note that, however you answer that, our Vlad will just respond with a, "but that's not what I mean by "God"". Of course he'll never tell us what he does mean by it because that way he can maintain his flasher behind the bus stop strategy - only popping out when it suits him and never, ever, explaining himself.

He also seems wilfully to ignore the problem he has that stories he does accept as myth - about Zeus or King Arthur for example - have exactly the same evidential basis as his god (personal "intuition"), yet he has to indulge in special pleading to demand that others explain why they attribute mythic status to one conjecture and not to the rest.

It's either deeply stupid or deeply dishonest (or possibly both) but that's our Vlad for you.   

[Alan Burns]

The great sadness is that so many people seem unable to even accept the possibility that they were brought into existence, not by accident, but for a purpose.  A purpose totally beyond our human understanding, but which will be fully understood when we reach our true spiritual home.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Certainly - that Jesus was dead for three days and was then alive again due to a divine miracle fits number 3: this is perhaps the most important claim made by Christians yet it fit the definition of myth perfectly - unless of course you can supply a definition that fits better.

Demonstrate falsehood and unsupported ness then Gordon.
Remember saying it is false and unsupported because that is your preference will not actually do.
It may conceivably fit definition 1. Although a resurrection having a natural explanation is a bit of a stretch.
That other divine figures seem to resurrect doesn't! Necessarily mean that this is myth. Bob Holness is credited as sax phone player on Gerry Rafferty,s Baker Street. That is an Urban Myth which does not detract that somebody played Sax.
In any case you seem to have a perfectly working definition of God which belies your claim that there isn't one.
Similarly both you and Hillside have defined God as imaginary. That is also a definition which is also a positive assertion. You will be able to evidence that of course.

It seems to me that you are prepared to offer meaningful definitions for God when you think you can knock them down but reject God having any meaning when definitions come along that you can't.

That of course as I've pointed out to Hillside is the Ultimate finger in the Ear and La la la gambit.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Hi Gordon,

SPOILER ALERT: Just to note that, however you answer that, our Vlad will just respond with a, "but that's not what I mean by "God"". Of course he'll never tell us what he does mean by it because that way he can maintain his flasher behind the bus stop strategy - only popping out when it suits him and never, ever, explaining himself.

He also seems wilfully to ignore the problem he has that stories he does accept as myth - about Zeus or King Arthur for example - have exactly the same evidential basis as his god (personal "intuition"), yet he has to indulge in special pleading to demand that others explain why they attribute mythic status to one conjecture and not to the rest.

It's either deeply stupid or deeply dishonest (or possibly both) but that's our Vlad for you.

Hillside
What you are doing is claiming validity for arguments against God and meaninglessness for arguments which support it.

Note meaningless, the word you use not invalidity because you know that would be challenged.

It seems you are trying to gussy up the fingers in the Ear and la la la argument.

Please demonstrate Your idea that God is imaginary.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Hi Gordon,

SPOILER ALERT: Just to note that, however you answer that, our Vlad will just respond with a, "but that's not what I mean by "God"". Of course he'll never tell us what he does mean by it because that way he can maintain his flasher behind the bus stop strategy - only popping out when it suits him and never, ever, explaining himself.

He also seems wilfully to ignore the problem he has that stories he does accept as myth - about Zeus or King Arthur for example - have exactly the same evidential basis as his god (personal "intuition"), yet he has to indulge in special pleading to demand that others explain why they attribute mythic status to one conjecture and not to the rest.

It's either deeply stupid or deeply dishonest (or possibly both) but that's our Vlad for you.

I think Zeus and King Arthur may themselves be myths and therefore that would impute mythical status on their acts.
I should qualify that by saying that Zeus may be a model albeit rudimentary for God.
Also I have no experience of Zeus or Arthur.

I think that your claim therefore that I think about Zeus and Arthur in the same way that you think about all religions is merely another of your fancies.

[Leonard James]

It's either deeply stupid or deeply dishonest (or possibly both) but that's our Vlad for you.

So don't feed him ... ignore him completely. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So don't feed him ... ignore him completely. 

Good morning Leonard.