Possibly Impossible Part One

[William Rea]

William, why are you picking on Frank?

He is a bit scatter brained so give him a break.

Are 'god(s)' defined by how I exchange posts with Frank?

 

[William Rea]

It is becoming more and more apparent that the reason it is so difficult to define gods is that atheist types are anxious to define them in ways that make their existence an impossibility…and theist types are anxious to define them in ways that make their existence inevitable and unquestionable.

And then some of those people throw verbal rocks at agnostic types who say: Who knows what gods are like?

From the proper perspective…it is hilarious to watch.

I may be wrong but, I don't think anyone is particularly interested in your poisoning of the well and how amused you are. Thanks.

 

[William Rea]

Not necessarily true.

All you have done is affirmed your own consequent and created your own straw man with somewhat of a red herring.

Philosophically speaking, instead of what you said, there may be God(s) or there may not be.

Most people do not know one way or the other.

Those people who do know are prophets not ordinary folks.

No one can know that there are NOT God(s) because this would be proving a negative -- which is virtually impossible because you would need to personally search every square inch of the Universe.

Interesting comment there but, for another time and place I think.

 

[William Rea]

Gods have been defined to exist outside the constraints of the universe.

There's lots of things we would have to technically say we don't know exist. From gods to unicorns and all sorts of other mythical beasts and delusions of human imagination. So what's the point? It's not significant. What is significant is proof.

Interesting comment but alas, not for this thread.

 

[William Rea]

Well Einstein was no theist as Frank can point out for you, but I think Einstein would argue that NOTHING can exist outside of the laws of physics -- and thus God(s) IF they exist MUST do so WITHIN those laws just like every body and everything thing else.

Ergo your definition is inherently flawed, as I said before.

Your definition is also inherently biased and Satanic as well.

OK so it's...

1. Basically supernatural where supernatural is defined as within the laws of Physics.
2. Of this Universe where this Universe is defined as all that is and not all that we know about.
3. Imaginary.
4. An emperor.
5. A tree.
6. A cat.
7. A bowl of warm noodles.
8. In the eye of the beholder.
9. Everything has been or could imaginably be.
10. Not of this Universe.
11. Something exist that made this thing we humans call "the universe?'' (this one is uber tentative).
12. A maximally perfect person who is responsible for life.
13. Superheroes.
14. Rises from the dead.
15. Creates things from nothing.
16. Omnipotent.
17. Omniscient.

 

[Riveroaks]

I am sure that they are bigger than that, if they exist but, I can't see how what they think of me is part of defining them unless you are saying that 'god(s)' take an interest and intervene at that level.

According to the ancient Greeks, They The God(s) DO take an interest in humans, yes.

And nobody else has given a better explanation of why there was a creation than the ancient Greeks did.

 

[William Rea]

According to the ancient Greeks, They The God(s) DO take an interest in humans, yes.

And nobody else has given a better explanation of why there was a creation than the ancient Greeks did.

Thanks, I'll add it to the list next time around.

 

[Riveroaks]

So, the starting point is to define what are 'god(s)'? What are their defining attributes? Are there any other points about the definition of 'god(s)' that need to be considered?

You only need one sentence to define what are God(s) --

The God(s) are The Creators.

And until they introduce themselves to you personally, you cannot know anything else about them -- eye color -- hair color -- skin color -- height -- weight -- appearance -- countenance -- demeanor -- personality -- physical appearance -- clothing -- viewpoints -- rules -- etc.

 

[Jerry]

So, the starting point is to define what are 'god(s)'? What are their defining attributes? Are there any other points about the definition of 'god(s)' that need to be considered?

A good read on the topic: The Lucifer Principle: A Scientific Expedition into the Forces of History

"The Lucifer Priciple is a revolutionary work that explores the intricate relationships among genetics, human behavior, and culture to put forth the thesis that “evil” is a by-product of nature’s strategies for creation and that it is woven into our most basic biological fabric. Though this argument is not a new one—it has been brought forth by such great historical figures as St. Paul, Thomas Hobbes, and Raymond Dart—Howard Bloom here takes fresh data from a variety of sources and shapes it into a lens through which listeners can reinterpret the human experience."

 

[William Rea]

You only need one sentence to define what are God(s) --

The God(s) are The Creators.

And until they introduce themselves to you personally, you cannot know anything else about them -- eye color -- hair color -- skin color -- height -- weight -- appearance -- countenance -- demeanor -- personality -- physical appearance -- clothing -- viewpoints -- rules -- etc.

So, 'god(s)' then are necessary and unknowable until they reveal themselves to you? What are the rules for this revelation?

 

[Jerry]

So, the starting point is to define what are 'god(s)'? What are their defining attributes? Are there any other points about the definition of 'god(s)' that need to be considered?

In Buddhism, a god is an aspect of yourself, a personified Jungian archetype. When one prays to such a god they are in fact using guided self talk to bring out that aspect of them-self, just as praying to Buddha at a shrine is in fact praying to yourself, more guided self talk.

The attributes of these gods are as varied and fluid as the attributes of your own personality.

 

[Riveroaks]

In Buddhism, a god is an aspect of yourself, a personified Jungian archetype. When one prays to such a god they are in fact using guided self talk to bring out that aspect of them-self, just as praying to Buddha at a shrine is in fact praying to yourself, more guided self talk.

The attributes of these gods are as varied and fluid as the attributes of your own personality.

That's interesting about Buddhism -- the teachings of the enlightened Prince from India called The Buddha.

He determined somehow that we are all a part of God and that God is a part of us.

 

[Riveroaks]

So, 'god(s)' then are necessary and unknowable until they reveal themselves to you? What are the rules for this revelation?

I did not assert that "God(s) are necessary."

I defined Them simply as our Creators.

It then follows from the single definition that They are Creators, that They also must have powers.

These powers are likely to be completely within the laws of physics as we too know them, only beyond our own comprehension -- which does not make them magical just unfathomable by ourselves.

From our total lack of experience with any God(s) over at least the past 1400 years (since Allah at the latest) or longer (in the case of Other Named God(s)) that Their powers include the ability to conceal Themselves from us -- assuming They who created us are still living.

One of the benefits of having past prophets like Zoroaster, Moses, Jesus, and Allah is that it indicates that the God(s) were still living at those times in the past -- 2000 BCE, 1450 BCE, 30 AD, and/or 600 AD.

You yourself, William my dear friend, are the one who "assumed" God(s) is/are necessary. I did not say that nor tell you it. And there is no way to prove it either.

But IF God(s) exist THEN They surely are our Creator(s) and nothing more or nothing less -- no other certain definitions are even possible until we meet Them personally and are able to speak with Them and listen to Them. Would it not be interesting to hear what They have to say?

Moses claimed that his God(YHVH) gave him the 10 Commandments and many other statutes and rules, some of them if transgressed being punishable by death at the hands of the people of the village and stoning by them.

Jesus claimed that his Father was God and that the commandment from Him was faith, repentance, baptism, and love for all mankind including one's enemies. He promised that those who did so would be saved in His Kingdom in Heaven, and those who did not would be dammed.

Muhammad claimed that Gabriel told him God was Allah and there was no God but Him.

Fascinating messages each one. From a religious point of view this is all very technical.

But philosophically if you cannot choose a prophet to begin your philosophy with, such as San Tomas Aquinas or Saint Augustine, then you can only define God(s) as the Creator(s).

 

[Riveroaks]

A good read on the topic: The Lucifer Principle: A Scientific Expedition into the Forces of History

"The Lucifer Priciple is a revolutionary work that explores the intricate relationships among genetics, human behavior, and culture to put forth the thesis that “evil” is a by-product of nature’s strategies for creation and that it is woven into our most basic biological fabric. Though this argument is not a new one—it has been brought forth by such great historical figures as St. Paul, Thomas Hobbes, and Raymond Dart—Howard Bloom here takes fresh data from a variety of sources and shapes it into a lens through which listeners can reinterpret the human experience."

Interesting.

Would you call the book religious, philosophical, criminology, or genetics then ??

 

[William Rea]

I did not assert that "God(s) are necessary."

I defined Them simply as our Creators.

It then follows from the single definition that They are Creators, that They also must have powers.

These powers are likely to be completely within the laws of physics as we too know them, only beyond our own comprehension -- which does not make them magical just unfathomable by ourselves.

From our total lack of experience with any God(s) over at least the past 1400 years (since Allah at the latest) or longer (in the case of Other Named God(s)) that Their powers include the ability to conceal Themselves from us -- assuming They who created us are still living.

One of the benefits of having past prophets like Zoroaster, Moses, Jesus, and Allah is that it indicates that the God(s) were still living at those times in the past -- 2000 BCE, 1450 BCE, 30 AD, and/or 600 AD.

You yourself, William my dear friend, are the one who "assumed" God(s) is/are necessary. I did not say that nor tell you it. And there is no way to prove it either.

But IF God(s) exist THEN They surely are our Creator(s) and nothing more or nothing less -- no other certain definitions are even possible until we meet Them personally and are able to speak with Them and listen to Them. Would it not be interesting to hear what They have to say?

Moses claimed that his God(YHVH) gave him the 10 Commandments and many other statutes and rules, some of them if transgressed being punishable by death at the hands of the people of the village and stoning by them.

Jesus claimed that his Father was God and that the commandment from Him was faith, repentance, baptism, and love for all mankind including one's enemies. He promised that those who did so would be saved in His Kingdom in Heaven, and those who did not would be dammed.

Muhammad claimed that Gabriel told him God was Allah and there was no God but Him.

Fascinating messages each one. From a religious point of view this is all very technical.

But philosophically if you cannot choose a prophet to begin your philosophy with, such as San Tomas Aquinas or Saint Augustine, then you can only define God(s) as the Creator(s).

I was trying to condense what you said and if I didn't quote you correctly then I retract that. I'm just trying to understand the concept. I do however find it problematic for you to state that they are just 'Creators' and then proceed to derive attributes from that anyway whereas, I am not allowed to derive being 'necessary' from the same starting point. If they are not 'necessary' then we are not 'contingent'.

 

[Jerry]

Interesting.

Would you call the book religious, philosophical, criminology, or genetics then ??

Despite the title it's defiantly not religious. I would call it psychology and sociology.

 

[William Rea]

Despite the title it's defiantly not religious. I would call it psychology and sociology.

It looks interesting but, my local library does not have it so I may look for it online.

Hope it's not just a rehash of The Selfish Gene though.

 

[spud_meister]

God is an explanation for what people find inexplicable.

 

[Ikari]

Interesting comment but alas, not for this thread.

You the Post Police then? I was responding to a comment made at me.

 

[William Rea]

You the Post Police then? I was responding to a comment made at me.

You only have to read the OP.

 

[Riveroaks]

I was trying to condense what you said and if I didn't quote you correctly then I retract that. I'm just trying to understand the concept. I do however find it problematic for you to state that they are just 'Creators' and then proceed to derive attributes from that anyway whereas, I am not allowed to derive being 'necessary' from the same starting point. If they are not 'necessary' then we are not 'contingent'.

In philosophy as a common intelligent convention, we/they MINIMIZE our definitions as much as possible so as to minimize any false assumptions that might creep into our thinking and analysis.

That is why.

In philosophy, we only take as given those things which we can prove.

I can prove to myself that I exist because like Rene Descartes "cogito ergo sum."

I can prove to myself that I am not alone because my senses and feelings tell me there are others on this planet who look like me, who can hurt me, who can help me, who can give me pain, and who can give me happiness, all of which I can see, feel, smell, touch, and therefore know.

I can perform scientific experiments (I did a ton in college chemistry and physics) and mathematical calculations (I did another ton in college and grad school) and logical deductions and probability inductions to expand and increase my knowledge.

The God(s) however are unknown to us and they do not appear on the daily tv and/or radio news or in the newspapers.

The only thing we ever hear about the God(s) are from eccentric odd fellows which we call "prophets" (from the Greek word meaning SPEAKER).

The last such major person to make such claims was Muhammad back in 600 A.D.

Prior to him it was St. Paul, St. John, St. Peter and Jesus.

Prior to them is was The Buddha and Confucius.

Prior to them it was Moses.

And the oldest one we know of was probably Zarathustra.

THUS the God(s) are unknown to us as we are philosophers NOT prophets.

Thus there is very little that we can truly say about the God(s) -- we don't even know if they exist.

We CANNOT prove that the God(s) DO NOT exist -- we can never prove that. It would require searching every square inch of the entire universe to prove this negative, which we cannot do.

We CANNOT prove to ourselves that the God(s) DO exist either.

According to Jesus, we are required to have FAITH in the God(s) ergo our faith is a test under which we are destined to live.

Until the God(s) appear to us face to face, take us by the hands, speak to us, and let us see and know them personally, we will NEVER KNOW that the God(s) exist.

If you are therefore DEFINING the God(s), all you can say is that if they truly exist and if they still live, then they are Creators.

Period.

That's all that you can say in your definition -- and not the other Satanic folklore that infests this planet Earth about the God(s).

I am going to coin a new fallacy about anything that people (who are morons) say about the God(s) from now on that cannot be known and therefore cannot be assumed as part of a definition or analysis -- the fallacy of SATANIC. This word comes from the ancient Hebrew word meaning "false accuser."

 

[Riveroaks]

God is an explanation for what people find inexplicable.

Fallacy: hasty generalization.

If you reword this, you can get away with saying the following:

"God(s) may possibly be simply an explanation for what people find inexplicable."

Otherwise you statement is imply satanic.

 

[Riveroaks]

Despite the title it's defiantly not religious. I would call it psychology and sociology.

Sound like interesting speculation to me then.

There are lots of other books to be read on philosophy, history, and religion required to help anyone who wants to understand about the phenomenon of existence, creation (whether by design or not), evolution, civilization, history, social culture, foreign language (the Bible for instance requires understanding in Hebrew, Greek and Latin to understand where we are today from where it all started with Moses in 1450 BCE.)

I added Latin because the Catholic Church in evolving Her doctrines when through a long Latin phase, lest some sophomoric genius remind me that Latin is not a Biblical language -- although Jesus is a Latin name not Hebrew nor Greek.

It takes at least a year to learn basic Hebrew.

It takes at least 4 years to learn basic Greek.

With Greek behind you Latin takes another year.

Recreational reading for entertainment is not a bad thing but I prefer nonfiction.

 

[Riveroaks]

I was trying to condense what you said and if I didn't quote you correctly then I retract that. I'm just trying to understand the concept. I do however find it problematic for you to state that they are just 'Creators' and then proceed to derive attributes from that anyway whereas, I am not allowed to derive being 'necessary' from the same starting point. If they are not 'necessary' then we are not 'contingent'.

Philosophically speaking, we humans simply do not KNOW if the God(s) are necessary or not.

There is no way to know this, as I tried to explain earlier.

Jesus who was born 2,020 years ago around 5 B.C. during the reign of Herod, which the Romans have spelled out for us, taught around 30 to 33 A.D. that faith was an integral requirement of "salvation" in his "Father's Kingdom."

If this is valid then it explains why the God(s) conceal themselves from us. And they are apparently very good at it -- just look at all the atheists and agnostics who do not believe in anything even though we have had dozens of Christian and Jewish (Hebrew) prophets over the last 4 millennia.

Even certain other likely impostors such as Confucius, The Buddha, and Muhammad have failed to convince at least 10% of the Earth's population -- which is atheist or agnostic.

 

[spud_meister]

Fallacy: hasty generalization.

No, all religions that developed naturally, rather than being invented for profit (like Scientology) developed from primitive cultures that lacked a scientific method to understand the world. Because of this lack, they invented beings to fill the position of natural forces. Even Yahweh was originally one of a number of gods from the Canaanite religion. Religion was a way to understand the world before we acquired the tools to uncover the truth.

If you reword this, you can get away with saying the following:

"God(s) may possibly be simply an explanation for what people find inexplicable."

That's not rewording, that's adding words to change the meaning.

Otherwise you statement is imply satanic.

That doesn't make sense.