Lugh
Sophomore
@dcu
Posts: 848
Likes: 77
|
Post by Lugh on Feb 24, 2018 18:13:58 GMT
What would be a definition of God that has a "useful purpose"? One that distinguishes it from other things which we already have names for. The use being that we could then discuss it with one another and all know what the hell we were talking about. If something has a definition then it's obvious what is being talked about.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 24, 2018 18:26:11 GMT
One that distinguishes it from other things which we already have names for. The use being that we could then discuss it with one another and all know what the hell we were talking about. If something has a definition then it's obvious what is being talked about. But if the definition of one word is taken and then applied to the other word, at best it introduces an unnecessary complication; more likely, confusion will result. Like I said, I can define god as a banana. Then say things like "Last night I had a look at my god, and he was going a bit brown but I figured he was still good, so I ate him." Most likely, people will just misunderstand me. If I'm careful to point out that I'm really talking about my banana here, then we can have a conversation. But what exactly is the point of what I'm doing? I'm just jerking people around for no reason whatsoever. Just call it a damn banana, for Pete's sake. If you want to talk about the universe then talk about the universe. Don't jerk people around for no reason.
|
|
Lugh
Sophomore
@dcu
Posts: 848
Likes: 77
|
Post by Lugh on Feb 24, 2018 18:47:42 GMT
If something has a definition then it's obvious what is being talked about. But if the definition of one word is taken and then applied to the other word, at best it introduces an unnecessary complication; more likely, confusion will result.. Which isn't happening at all. I am not defining god as the universe.
|
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,676
Likes: 1,301
|
Post by The Lost One on Feb 24, 2018 18:52:46 GMT
Might take me a while to get through that! Anything in particular about it that struck a chord with you? Yes, it is long - I found it while searching some ideas here that reminded me of Whitehead and his conception of God as a "fellow sufferer." I think what most applies to the 2 threads I mentioned is his thought on the "problem of evil" as expressed on pages 18 - 20: I must admit Whitehead is a philosopher I know next to nothing about bar his "footnotes to Plato" comment. I should really look into him more.
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Feb 25, 2018 2:40:51 GMT
Because there are multiple monotheistic gods which would make it a category if including all of them; but if you're only picking one and saying that is God (and there are no others), it really doesn't make sense to use it as a category since then there's only the one, and X (the universe, in this case) is it. Then it's not really a category. Because you keep saying you're "describing how it is," and you're not describing how something is by categorizing it. Categorizing it is a way of organizing our maps, not really "describing reality." Re maps. So what? That's not an excuse not to be a theist. All I am saying is God has a set of properties normally associated with the signifier "god". If you believe God has the properties described ahove then you are not an atheist but really a theist. To me a theist is not someone who believes in a being that they call god but someone who believes in a being with the properties normally associated with god. Saying "these are only mental categories and not describing how the world really is" is like saying matter is only a mental category and that therefore materialism is wrong. No. God is not a proper name. That's why atheists say things like "Your god is not real and neither are any gods". I think you're misunderstanding me and mixing up different discussion points. The "maps" thing was in relation to describing the universe as one thing, with me saying that in reality the universe is actually every particle in every position that makes it up. The "god" thing was me saying that the word "god" often has certain connotations (a being with intentions) that the universe doesn't. If someone is an atheist, they obviously believe the universe/nature is the cause of everything, so I don't see what calling it "god" adds to that worldview. You can say "to you a theist isn't..." if you want, but words aren't about what they are "to you," they're about what people mean when they use them. God isn't a proper name when it's being used as a category for all possible gods (the way atheists use it in your phrase), but when you're calling one thing God, it's not a category, it's a proper name. I don't know of any categories with only a single member that's identified as being the same as the category.
|
|
Lugh
Sophomore
@dcu
Posts: 848
Likes: 77
|
Post by Lugh on Feb 25, 2018 13:31:01 GMT
Re maps. So what? That's not an excuse not to be a theist. All I am saying is God has a set of properties normally associated with the signifier "god". If you believe God has the properties described ahove then you are not an atheist but really a theist. To me a theist is not someone who believes in a being that they call god but someone who believes in a being with the properties normally associated with god. Saying "these are only mental categories and not describing how the world really is" is like saying matter is only a mental category and that therefore materialism is wrong. No. God is not a proper name. That's why atheists say things like "Your god is not real and neither are any gods". "If someone is an atheist, they obviously believe the universe/nature is the cause of everything, so I don't see what calling it "god" adds to that worldview" Well nothing of course, except semantical consistency. Atheists are really theists then if they believe that. "words aren't about what they are "to you," they're about what people mean when they use them. " I have no idea what you mean when you say "arent about". "God isn't a proper name when it's being used as a category for all possible gods (the way atheists use it in your phrase), but when you're calling one thing God, it's not a category, it's a proper name. I don't know of any categories with only a single member that's identified as being the same as the category. " Ok maybe it isn't a category in the way I am using it but the word has a meaning and the meaning isn't its reference. 'God' is a fluid designator as Kripke would call it. In another world I would call 'Allah' or 'Yahweh' god. Therefore the meaning of 'god' is not identical with its reference. "The Universe" is not synonymous with "god". An analogy would be the phrase "John's son" and the name "Michael" (who is John's son). By your own logic it serves no purpose and is completely pointless to label Michael as "John's son".
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Feb 25, 2018 13:53:47 GMT
"If someone is an atheist, they obviously believe the universe/nature is the cause of everything, so I don't see what calling it "god" adds to that worldview" Well nothing of course, except semantical consistency. Atheists are really theists then if they believe that. "words aren't about what they are "to you," they're about what people mean when they use them. " I have no idea what you mean when you say "arent about". "God isn't a proper name when it's being used as a category for all possible gods (the way atheists use it in your phrase), but when you're calling one thing God, it's not a category, it's a proper name. I don't know of any categories with only a single member that's identified as being the same as the category. " Ok maybe it isn't a category in the way I am using it but the word has a meaning and the meaning isn't its reference. 'God' is a fluid designator as Kripke would call it. In another world I would call 'Allah' or 'Yahweh' god. Therefore the meaning of 'god' is not identical with its reference. "The Universe" is not synonymous with "god". An analogy would be the phrase "John's son" and the name "Michael" (who is John's son). By your own logic it serves no purpose and is completely pointless to label Michael as "John's son". Basically you're just making a case for eliminating the word atheist completely, but the word is useful because it refers to people who do not believe in supernatural deities, the most common (at least currently) conceptions of gods. I mean that words words are communally defined and used, so you saying a word isn't about something to you is pretty pointless. But you've said throughout this thread that the universe IS god.
|
|
Lugh
Sophomore
@dcu
Posts: 848
Likes: 77
|
Post by Lugh on Feb 25, 2018 14:26:32 GMT
"If someone is an atheist, they obviously believe the universe/nature is the cause of everything, so I don't see what calling it "god" adds to that worldview" Well nothing of course, except semantical consistency. Atheists are really theists then if they believe that. "words aren't about what they are "to you," they're about what people mean when they use them. " I have no idea what you mean when you say "arent about". "God isn't a proper name when it's being used as a category for all possible gods (the way atheists use it in your phrase), but when you're calling one thing God, it's not a category, it's a proper name. I don't know of any categories with only a single member that's identified as being the same as the category. " Ok maybe it isn't a category in the way I am using it but the word has a meaning and the meaning isn't its reference. 'God' is a fluid designator as Kripke would call it. In another world I would call 'Allah' or 'Yahweh' god. Therefore the meaning of 'god' is not identical with its reference. "The Universe" is not synonymous with "god". An analogy would be the phrase "John's son" and the name "Michael" (who is John's son). By your own logic it serves no purpose and is completely pointless to label Michael as "John's son". Basically you're just making a case for eliminating the word atheist completely, but the word is useful because it refers to people who do not believe in supernatural deities, the most common (at least currently) conceptions of gods. I mean that words words are communally defined and used, so you saying a word isn't about something to you is pretty pointless. But you've said throughout this thread that the universe IS god. Yes the universe is god but they are not synonymous the same way Michael is John's son but those two things are not synonymous either. 'God' is a title just like 'President of the United States' is.
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Feb 25, 2018 14:32:19 GMT
Basically you're just making a case for eliminating the word atheist completely, but the word is useful because it refers to people who do not believe in supernatural deities, the most common (at least currently) conceptions of gods. I mean that words words are communally defined and used, so you saying a word isn't about something to you is pretty pointless. But you've said throughout this thread that the universe IS god. Yes the universe is god but they are not synonymous the same way Michael is John's son but those two things are not synonymous either. 'God' is a title just like 'President of the United States' is. OK, I guess if that works for you.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Feb 25, 2018 14:33:51 GMT
The Case for Dialectical Monism
Dialectical monism is the view that all of reality is one thing. The same way the computer I am using is one thing and the chair I am sitting on is one thing. However the dialectical monist does not deny the existence of individual things within reality the same way a blender does not not contain individual things. A blender is made of individual things but is also a seperate thing (the blender). The same could but said for the constituents of all of reality, they are individual things but also make up another individual thing, reality (or the universe).
Everything in reality consists of atoms. Eberything may be very different on the surface but underneath we contain the same basic properties. All things in the universe are made of the same basic elements.
The whole of the universe is also connected. The universe could be said to be like a giant brick. A brick is an individual thing because it is composed of the same material everywhere in the brick and there is no spaces in between that individual brick (to the naked eye). If we were to split this brick in half it would be two bricks. The universes has no splits and everything in it is in constant contact with everything else in it. You cannot separate a chair from its surroundings, only move it through its surroundings. A chair is always in constant contact with the rest of reality whether it be in contact with the floor or in suspension while in contact with gases.
The Universe Is Omnipotent
Considering the universe is the sum total of all existing things it logically follows that the universe is the cause of all things that have happened, are happening and will happen. All things that have happened have been determined by the universe itself. The Universe has determined and will continue to determine the fate of all of reality, which is itself.
The Universe Is God
The idea of god is a vague one but most gods have the qualities of omnipotence and being responsible for the fate of mankind and the universe. Considering the universe is an individual thing the same way a blender is, it logically follows that the universe is god. (1) Who has an ontology that's different from "dialectical monism" as you're describing it? I'm asking because it seems like the idea that this is saying something unique seems like it would be based on straw man versions of other ontologies. There's a possibility of something it could be distinguished from if we get into details more, but I'll wait to see your answer before I explain that. (2) What would this depiction of God have to do with morality, which is usually one of the aspects of God/religion that people are most concerned with?
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Feb 25, 2018 14:36:32 GMT
Basically you're just making a case for eliminating the word atheist completely, but the word is useful because it refers to people who do not believe in supernatural deities, the most common (at least currently) conceptions of gods. I mean that words words are communally defined and used, so you saying a word isn't about something to you is pretty pointless. But you've said throughout this thread that the universe IS god. Yes the universe is god but they are not synonymous the same way Michael is John's son but those two things are not synonymous either. 'God' is a title just like 'President of the United States' is. What is the semantic difference then? Are you just referring to the difference between the usually-believed fictions and what you'd be saying is the reality?
|
|
Lugh
Sophomore
@dcu
Posts: 848
Likes: 77
|
Post by Lugh on Feb 25, 2018 14:39:45 GMT
The Case for Dialectical Monism
Dialectical monism is the view that all of reality is one thing. The same way the computer I am using is one thing and the chair I am sitting on is one thing. However the dialectical monist does not deny the existence of individual things within reality the same way a blender does not not contain individual things. A blender is made of individual things but is also a seperate thing (the blender). The same could but said for the constituents of all of reality, they are individual things but also make up another individual thing, reality (or the universe).
Everything in reality consists of atoms. Eberything may be very different on the surface but underneath we contain the same basic properties. All things in the universe are made of the same basic elements.
The whole of the universe is also connected. The universe could be said to be like a giant brick. A brick is an individual thing because it is composed of the same material everywhere in the brick and there is no spaces in between that individual brick (to the naked eye). If we were to split this brick in half it would be two bricks. The universes has no splits and everything in it is in constant contact with everything else in it. You cannot separate a chair from its surroundings, only move it through its surroundings. A chair is always in constant contact with the rest of reality whether it be in contact with the floor or in suspension while in contact with gases.
The Universe Is Omnipotent
Considering the universe is the sum total of all existing things it logically follows that the universe is the cause of all things that have happened, are happening and will happen. All things that have happened have been determined by the universe itself. The Universe has determined and will continue to determine the fate of all of reality, which is itself.
The Universe Is God
The idea of god is a vague one but most gods have the qualities of omnipotence and being responsible for the fate of mankind and the universe. Considering the universe is an individual thing the same way a blender is, it logically follows that the universe is god. (1) Who has an ontology that's different from "dialectical monism" as you're describing it? I'm asking because it seems like the idea that this is saying something unique seems like it would be based on straw man versions of other ontologies. There's a possibility of something it could be distinguished from if we get into details more, but I'll wait to see your answer before I explain that. (2) What would this depiction of God have to do with morality, which is usually one of the aspects of God/religion that people are most concerned with? (1) I know this sounds like voodoo metaphysics but I would consider myself to be the universe. If all of the universe is one thing and humans are a part of the universe then it follows that I am the universe, I am a part of a greater whole. I have heard very few people make this claim. (2) Well I suppose you could say the universe (god) unintentionally pushes people in the right direction with regards to acting moral. People are encouraged to be nice to people because of the benefits they receive. This is the universe's (god) work. The Universe caused to humans to be such a way so that they act in kindness when they receive kindness.
|
|
Lugh
Sophomore
@dcu
Posts: 848
Likes: 77
|
Post by Lugh on Feb 25, 2018 14:46:50 GMT
Yes the universe is god but they are not synonymous the same way Michael is John's son but those two things are not synonymous either. 'God' is a title just like 'President of the United States' is. What is the semantic difference then? Are you just referring to the difference between the usually-believed fictions and what you'd be saying is the reality? 'God' is a thing that has the properties we would normally associate with gods.'The Universe' is the sum total of all things. To bring it back to John. 'John McCarthy's only son' is defined as the single person who is his son whereas 'Michael McCarthy' is well Michael McCarthy. If John MacCarthy had married a different woman and had a different son 'John McCarthy's only son' would apply to him, so obviously there is a semantical difference there.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Feb 25, 2018 15:12:31 GMT
(1) Who has an ontology that's different from "dialectical monism" as you're describing it? I'm asking because it seems like the idea that this is saying something unique seems like it would be based on straw man versions of other ontologies. There's a possibility of something it could be distinguished from if we get into details more, but I'll wait to see your answer before I explain that. (2) What would this depiction of God have to do with morality, which is usually one of the aspects of God/religion that people are most concerned with? (1) I know this sounds like voodoo metaphysics but I would consider myself to be the universe. If all of the universe is one thing and humans are a part of the universe then it follows that I am the universe, I am a part of a greater whole. I have heard very few people make this claim. (2) Well I suppose you could say the universe (god) unintentionally pushes people in the right direction with regards to acting moral. People are encouraged to be nice to people because of the benefits they receive. This is the universe's (god) work. The Universe caused to humans to be such a way so that they act in kindness when they receive kindness. Re (1), you're missing my point. It doesn't sound like "voodoo" metaphysics at all. Who doesn't believe that they're a part of a greater whole? Or in other words, who believes that they're somehow separate from the universe? Re (2), but people murder and rape and so on, too. That's all just as much a part of the universe. A naturalistic view of things has no prescriptions. Just descriptions. Re the other thing (I'll combine them into one post), the properties we normally associate with gods, where there would be a semantic difference, are fictional properties, no?
|
|
Lugh
Sophomore
@dcu
Posts: 848
Likes: 77
|
Post by Lugh on Feb 25, 2018 15:26:46 GMT
(1) I know this sounds like voodoo metaphysics but I would consider myself to be the universe. If all of the universe is one thing and humans are a part of the universe then it follows that I am the universe, I am a part of a greater whole. I have heard very few people make this claim. (2) Well I suppose you could say the universe (god) unintentionally pushes people in the right direction with regards to acting moral. People are encouraged to be nice to people because of the benefits they receive. This is the universe's (god) work. The Universe caused to humans to be such a way so that they act in kindness when they receive kindness. Re (1), you're missing my point. It doesn't sound like "voodoo" metaphysics at all. Who doesn't believe that they're a part of a greater whole? Or in other words, who believes that they're somehow separate from the universe? Re (2), but people murder and rape and so on, too. That's all just as much a part of the universe. A naturalistic view of things has no prescriptions. Just descriptions. Re the other thing (I'll combine them into one post), the properties we normally associate with gods, where there would be a semantic difference, are fictional properties, no? (1) Fair enough (2) Yeah "the properties we normally associate with gods, where there would be a semantic difference, are fictional properties, no?" Some of them like omnibenevolence and omnisicence are, yes. The Universe is omnipotent, omnipresent etc
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Feb 26, 2018 16:44:26 GMT
tpfkar Without some kind of cognizance and intentionality involved, it's pretty much empty chatter. Mulu
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 26, 2018 18:52:52 GMT
"If someone is an atheist, they obviously believe the universe/nature is the cause of everything, so I don't see what calling it "god" adds to that worldview" Well nothing of course, except semantical consistency. Atheists are really theists then if they believe that. Ridiculous.
|
|
|
Post by drystyx on Feb 27, 2018 0:13:25 GMT
Sorry, but that's a "zero" on the logic scale. You couldn't be further from reality or logic.
Your Original Post smacks of "trying to force some argument into what you're hoping is real". It's like the nerd imaging the cheerleader is just dating the jock because she really wants the nerd and is trying to make the nerd jealous.
You naturalists and materialists need to realize that just "wishing" your hopes for materialism to be true fall on empty ears at best, and that you sound like whiny dreamers to those of us with horse sense.
|
|