Lack of belief in gods.

[Jeremiahcp]

You are just taking a step back. The assumptions are still there.

Here you are trying to tell me what I think again.

 

[Curious George]

Well toasters exist.

They do but this would lead you to the conclusion that God exists unless you could exclude toasters from the definition of god. To do this you would need at least a working definition of god.

 

[Thumper]

They do but this would lead you to the conclusion that God exists unless you could exclude toasters from the definition of god. To do this you would need at least a working definition of god.

No. That leads me to xdf exists.

If you want me to take your weird example back to the conversation about god, then any god which is defined as a toaster and nothing more would exist. But that is an absurd example and therefore a meaningless conclusion.

 

[Curious George]

"We are forced to make assumptions."

I would love to see you prove that.

Your functioning is my proof.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

Your functioning is my proof.

That is circular reasoning.

 

[Curious George]

No. That leads me to xdf exists.

If you want me to take your weird example back to the conversation about god, then any god which is defined as a toaster and nothing more would exist. But that is an absurd example and therefore a meaningless conclusion.

Absurd how? Plenty of people have pointed to physical things and said they are god. A person could call the sun a god. The logic is no different. Xdf is any toaster, toasters exist, therefore xdf exists. god-b is any toaster, toasters exist, therefore god-b exists, therefore at least one god exists. The only way to halt this logic is to acknowledge a working definition of god by which one can say god-b is not a god.

 

[Curious George]

That is circular reasoning.

It was. I will work out a proof for you. It will take some time.

 

[Thumper]

Absurd how? Plenty of people have pointed to physical things and said they are god. A person could call the sun a god. The logic is no different. Xdf is any toaster, toasters exist, therefore xdf exists. god-b is any toaster, toasters exist, therefore god-b exists, therefore at least one god exists. The only way to halt this logic is to acknowledge a working definition of god by which one can say god-b is not a god.

argumentum ad absurdum. That's all you've got. You want to argue for Odin and Thor as reasonable definitions of gods. I'm beginning to think you are nothing more that a troll.

 

[Curious George]

That is circular reasoning.

But I hope you at least appreciate it when delivered as I am not overly fond of positions hunkered down in solipsism.

 

[Curious George]

argumentum ad absurdum. That's all you've got. You want to argue for Odin and Thor as reasonable definitions of gods. I'm beginning to think you are nothing more that a troll.

No, I do not want to argue for Odin or Thor as reasonable definitions of gods. I want to show you that in order to evaluate a god as a god or not a god, one must have at least a working definition of god. To not have such would mean that any definition of god is equally valid or invalid. But you cannot show how they are invalid without a working definition.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

But I hope you at least appreciate it when delivered as I am not overly fond of positions hunkered down in solipsism.

I am not a fan of solipsism, as it is the other extreme. I still have a road to "truth" it is just laid with bricks of uncertainty rather than certainty.

 

[Thumper]

No, I do not want to argue for Odin or Thor as reasonable definitions of gods. I want to show you that in order to evaluate a god as a god or not a god, one must have at least a working definition of god. To not have such would mean that any definition of god is equally valid or invalid. But you cannot show how they are invalid without a working definition.

Not true.

I don't deny the word "god" exist, I simply state that the definition of the word is ambiguous at best and therefore meaningless. Until some sort of unambiguous definition can be agreed on, consideration of existence is absurd.

When you get theologians to agree on a clear set of properties for an entity that can be considered a deity, you let me know.

 

[Curious George]

Not true.

I don't deny the word "god" exist, I simply state that the definition of the word is ambiguous at best and therefore meaningless. Until some sort of unambiguous definition can be agreed on, consideration of existence is absurd.

When you get theologians to agree on a clear set of properties for an entity that can be considered a deity, you let me know.

I am pretty sure most agree on a basic definition of "god." They just have different definitions for the specific gods. Now individuals have a even more varied approach, but statistical consensus is all that should be required. By a long shot most people when discussing a god are talking about some entity, with intelligence that in some way is super human. Now, I would add immortal to this position and I believe most would still agree. That some dude thinks a potato is a god is no reason for us to consider such an option equally. And certainly no reason to assume that a god exists as a consequence. Similarly, because some priest doesn't want to consider angels or faeries gods doesn't mean they should not be considered as such if they fall within the acceptable definition of a god.

 

[Curious George]

I am not a fan of solipsism, as it is the other extreme. I still have a road to "truth" it is just laid with bricks of uncertainty rather than certainty.

You have to see that is what you are advocating here. The idea that you don't fully believe something that is consistently reinforced time and time again is exactly that. Simply because you have a cognitive awareness that you may have perceived something incorrectly does not mean you do not operate with complete confidence in that thing as you perceived it. Were we to perceive a glass falling from the empire state building, hurtling to the ground below, I would have complete confidence that the glass would break. Am I aware that it is possible for something to change, and consequent to that intervention the glass not break? Yes I am aware. We can have completely explicable interventions and inexplicable interventions, but none of that changes my complete confidence that the glass will break. In that instance I have faith the glass will break. In order for me to disturb that faith I have to cognitively intervene in my thought process. I have to make calculations about possibilities and determine the likelihood of those possibilities. Reality as we perceive it does not afford us such time. No one functions like such. No one could function like such. (Still not your proof, just another plea to common sense before I take the time to try to explain how functioning entails complete confidence in at least one thing).

 

[Ekleipsis]

What do you think was the motivation for rulers in Mesopotamia to start deifying themselves as gods on earth in the literature ?

The tradition started with Naram-Sin ( Grandson of Sargon of Akkad, iirc ) circa 2250 BC

We find his name written using the silent determinative " dingir " symbol that translates as " sky " , " heaven " or " god " ( essentially ) as a word, and as a sign of claimed divinity when used as the silent determinative with the name of a ruler

 

[Curious George]

I am not a fan of solipsism, as it is the other extreme. I still have a road to "truth" it is just laid with bricks of uncertainty rather than certainty.

Are you certain of this?

 

[Curious George]

What do you think was the motivation for rulers in Mesopotamia to start deifying themselves as gods on earth in the literature ?

The tradition started with Naram-Sin ( Grandson of Sargon of Akkad, iirc ) circa 2250 BC

We find his name written using the silent determinative " dingir " symbol that translates as " sky " , " heaven " or " god " ( essentially ) as a word, and as a sign of claimed divinity when used as the silent determinative with the name of a ruler

I think the reason for invoking gods or god status was to add an air of authority to one's declarations. Without this, once a ruler or a person issuing a decree ceased to exist so too would their declaration. Further it removes an ability to challenge based on reason.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

You have to see that is what you are advocating here. The idea that you don't fully believe something that is consistently reinforced time and time again is exactly that. Simply because you have a cognitive awareness that you may have perceived something incorrectly does not mean you do not operate with complete confidence in that thing as you perceived it. Were we to perceive a glass falling from the empire state building, hurtling to the ground below, I would have complete confidence that the glass would break. Am I aware that it is possible for something to change, and consequent to that intervention the glass not break? Yes I am aware. We can have completely explicable interventions and inexplicable interventions, but none of that changes my complete confidence that the glass will break. In that instance I have faith the glass will break. In order for me to disturb that faith I have to cognitively intervene in my thought process. I have to make calculations about possibilities and determine the likelihood of those possibilities. Reality as we perceive it does not afford us such time. No one functions like such. No one could function like such. (Still not your proof, just another plea to common sense before I take the time to try to explain how functioning entails complete confidence in at least one thing).

"You have to see that is what you are advocating here."

Far better than you, it is after all my own philosophy and what I used to rebuild my life.

"Reality as we perceive it does not afford us such time. "

It does not give you enough time to step back and go "Oh I am gonna have faith that is happening."

If the aim is to continue life then you act in a practical manner in order to achieve that aim. The analysis was made long before the actual event.

"Still not your proof"

You don't have such proof, and if you could prove it you'd disprove free will.

 

[Ekleipsis]

I think the reason for invoking gods or god status was to add an air of authority to one's declarations. Without this, once a ruler or a person issuing a decree ceased to exist so too would their declaration. Further it removes an ability to challenge based on reason.

" once a ruler or a person issuing a decree ceased to exist so too would their declaration "

Have to admit I've never heard there was a hard and fast rule that made such a thing consistently true in the history of Mesopotamia, but I'm always open to the possibility

A fair bit " decrees " from rulers were merely carryovers from the Sumerian " Mes ", that much is obvious when you break apart " Abrahamic religions "

You can see the same carryovers in things like the code of Hammurabi

Also, within a certain time span of history in Mesopotamia, there was a ruling bloodline/s that supposedly carried the " bloodline of the gods ", to use a cheesy phrase

This included the ability to control the weather with one's breath ( send storms ) etc

You'll even see instances in the literature that essentially say things like " Don't make the king / ruler mad or we will get rained on / storms will come from his breath "

You'll find in the literature over time, things like the modern day " holy spirit " were carried by a select few ruling lines

In the Amarna letters for example

" My king, breath of my life "

Same thing you'll find in writings like the asipu priest Sin-leqi-unninni's 1st person treatment of the so-called " Gilgamesh epic ", where the hero / ruler / king is the " breath of life " itself

Even in writings about " Marduk "

" He who's good breath we breath in a terrible affliction "


All these things and more were the basis for the writings in the Bible ( and other texts )



Fascinating topic, if you care to get more than dilettante with it

 

[Curious George]

"We are forced to make assumptions."

I would love to see you prove that.

Definitions: function: to operate.

If we assume
A) you exist
B) you perceive some state of "reality"
C) the percieved state of "reality" has events that can be used to denote time
D) you can cease to exist in this perceived state.
E) you cease to exist in this perceived state of reality without if you can't function within it.
F) we base choices in our reality not on complete confidence but on probability of certainty.
G) To function in our perceived state probably requires eating.
H) We cease function in our if we never eat.
I) eating requires a choice

Then
1)The choice of eating is based off the probability of assumption G
2)The choice to eat is based on the probability 1
7)the choice to eat is based off the probability of 2
8) the choice to eat is based off the probability of 3...ad infintum



Conclusion: we can not transverse an infinite regress so we can never eat. Consequently, we cease to function and therfore we cease to exist. As we both eat and consequently do not cease to exist, we cannot base our choice on this infinite regress. We must at some point exhibit complete confidence in our ability to continue to function if we eat, in our assessment of the probability to do so, or our assessment of correctness in our probability. Now before you compare this to one of Zeno's paradoxes, take note that the probabilities are equal in amount. That is the probability of the correctness of our probabilityis equal in amount to the original probability. There is no convergence. Thus, to function based on a probability of certainty would require an infinite regress. What we can do however is function on complete confidence and then when we get time question our complete confidence and find it wanting.