Will Theists Accept A God That is Inferior to Another's?

For intuitive and critical discussions, from spirituality to theological doctrines. Fair warning: because the subject matter is personal, moderation is strict.

Moderator: Dan~

Re: Will Theists Accept A God That is Inferior to Another's?

Postby James S Saint » Tue Jan 02, 2018 12:23 am

iambiguous wrote:Once again, my friend, I have managed to reduce you down to retorts.

It's easy to, as you put it, "reduce me to retorts". Merely ask a question that I answer, then reply with your typical BS. After such, I really couldn't care less what you say or think.

Yappy New Here to one and all! :obscene-drinkingbuddies:
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: Will Theists Accept A God That is Inferior to Another's?

Postby Prismatic567 » Tue Jan 02, 2018 3:37 am

iambiguous wrote:From my point of view though, the critical point revolves around distinguishing between perfection we can point to empirically in the world around us, and perfection that is sheer speculation regarding an entity that one merely has faith in the existence of.

Or defines into existence. Or infers into existence by way of an intellectual contraption.
That is my point I raised in the "God is an impossibility" thread, i.e.

1. The empirical perfection is possible - e.g. a 300 pt perfect game in bowling.
2. Absolute perfection - e.g. God which is impossible and moot.


Prismatic567 wrote: Note I mentioned Russell's there is no definite answers in philosophy, thus to expect ALL you need to know with certainty is rather a moot point.
Even if one think they have ALL the answers, there is not such thing a "certain" answers to any question - note Wittgenstein's 'On Certainty'.


Yes, and this is applicable to each and everyone of us, each and every time we speculate about these things. The limitations of philosophy [and even of science so far] seems of paramount importance here.

There's human knowledge able to be verified; and then there's conjecture. Conjecture embedded in the unknown unknowns.
I would say your 'ALL one need to know about existence ..' is at best a speculation of the impossible.

Prismatic567 wrote: I believe it is a mistake to establish an ultimate limit to knowledge and create a GAP out of the difference between the known and the unknown [which is an empirical impossibility] in this particular case. [acceptable perhaps for consideration of morality].

Therefore the way you are setting up the problem will lead you into a wild goose chase.


Okay, but this doesn't make the gap go away. There either is or there is not an "ultimate limit" of knowledge. And that either is or is not within reach of the human species here on earth.

How is it not reasonable then to set up the problem in this manner?

On the other hand, in my view, there are any number of objectivists who "solve" the problem by concocting one or another "world of words"; one or another set of intellectual assumptions. Here what is said to be true basically revolves around the definition and the meaning that they give to the words themselves.

Then others are invited up into the clouds to debate these definitions.
As I wrote somewhere 'GAP management is the most critical aspect of life re planning and controlling the results to what is planned. However we can only plan and manage a GAP effectively with an empirically possible objective or limit. [with one exception re morality].

Your 'ALL knowledge necessary' and 'ultimate limit of knowledge' are impossibility within the empirical-rational reality.

In this particular case of yours it is most optimal to forget about any Gap derived from comparison of an actual to an impossible limit [apples and oranges]. The most effective is to work from the known into the empirical possible to be known to move forward with the best effort [improving] one can.
In your case you are taking a leap across a canyon without support and this is more like dogma than knowledge.

Note from Russell's The History of Western Philosophy :

Philosophy, as I shall understand the word, is something intermediate between theology and science. Like theology, it consists of speculations on matters as to which definite knowledge has, so far, been unascertainable; but like science, it appeals to human reason rather than to authority, whether that of tradition or that of revelation.

All definite knowledge – so I should contend – belongs to science; all dogmas as to what surpasses definite knowledge belongs to theology. But between theology and science there is a No Man’s Land, exposed to attack from both sides, and this No Man’s Land is philosophy. Almost all the questions of most interest to speculative minds are such as science cannot answer, and the confident answers of theologians no longer seem so convincing as they did in former centuries.


As implied from Russell's above, when you think too far ahead beyond the empirically- possible, you are not doing philosophy but something akin to theology from the other side of the non-man's land.

Prismatic567 wrote: I believe if you do a paradigm-shift to such a paradigm you would probably gain more equanimity, comfort and ease in facing whatever the problem.
This is what the Buddha did, i.e. shifted in a 180 degree paradigm shift from relying on an external God for salvation to inward within the self to resolve the existential dilemma.


Okay, but: I have no idea how "for all practical purposes" this is relevant to either the dilemma that I am faced with on this side of the grave or the obliteration of "I" on the other side of it.

How is this sort of "salvation" relevant to the conflicting goods embedded in the issues I raise or to death itself?

And however theists debate the superiority of the Gods, they all have to eventually get around to the part about immortality and salvation. If only because that is basically religion in a nutshell.

Kant understood your kind of dilemma and he stated;

Kant in CPR wrote:... the Ideas produce what, though a mere Illusion, is nonetheless irresistible, and the harmful influence of which we can barely succeed in neutralizing even by means of the severest criticism.
..
They are sophistications not of men but of Pure Reason itself. Even the wisest of men cannot free himself from them. After long effort he perhaps succeeds in guarding himself against actual error; but he will never be able to free himself from the Illusion, which unceasingly mocks and torments him.


I would suggest you do a paradigm shift and reframe your problem and you will not have any dilemma at all in this critical case.
As I had mentioned you have to break down your existing problems into its relevant manageable units, discard the moot points and reframe a feasible and resolvable problem for yourself.
There is a lot of work to do on this regarding theory and practice.
The Generic Problem re 4NT-8FP will be useful guide.


    The Reframing Matrix
    Using Creative Perspectives to Solve Problems

    https://www.mindtools.com/pages/article/newCT_05.htm
    When you're stuck on a problem, it often helps to look at it from another perspective. A "fresh pair of eyes" can be all that you need to come up with a great solution.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1452
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: Will Theists Accept A God That is Inferior to Another's?

Postby James S Saint » Tue Jan 02, 2018 10:41 am

As Anomaly said it, nothing but a sea of linguistic ambiguity.
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: Will Theists Accept A God That is Inferior to Another's?

Postby iambiguous » Thu Jan 04, 2018 4:42 am

James S Saint wrote:
iambiguous wrote:Once again, my friend, I have managed to reduce you down to retorts.

It's easy to, as you put it, "reduce me to retorts". Merely ask a question that I answer, then reply with your typical BS. After such, I really couldn't care less what you say or think.


Come on, James, if this is how you really felt, you would never make the attempts that you occasionally do to engage in actual substantive exchanges with me.

Instead, it appears [to me] more an attempt on your part to yank the exchange up onto the skyhooks -- to attach it more or less didactically to your definitional logic.

When I refuse to go up there, and tug mightily on the exchange in order bring it down to earth -- to gauge your capacity to connect the dots between RM/AO and 1] the behaviors you choose on this side of the grave as they relate to 2] what you imagine your fate to be on the other side -- you abandon the exchange.

Instead, you invariably make me the issue, huffing and puffing with one or another retort.

Over and again I have noted that gap between your generally conservative political values in the SGE forum and your hopelessly abstract "analyses" that tend to pervade the philosophy forum.

How "in your head" do you make a connection between them? That's the focus I wish to explore with you [with all objectivists] by bringing the parts deemed to be philosophical [technically] down into the world of actual human social, political and economic interactions.

And, in particular, when they precipitate behaviors that come into conflict over value judgments out in the is/ought world that seems to revolve by and large around the question, "how ought one to live"?
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 23035
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Will Theists Accept A God That is Inferior to Another's?

Postby iambiguous » Wed Jan 10, 2018 7:03 pm

Prismatic567 wrote: I would say your 'ALL one need to know about existence ..' is at best a speculation of the impossible.


So, you are acknowledging it is likely impossible that any mere mortals will ever know all there is to know about existence itself. And, so, short of that, folks will have to fill in the blanks with more or less sheer conjecture. My point is merely to speculate that the tools of philosophy may well be of limited use as this pertains to human interactions out in any particular is/ought worlds -- as this pertains in turn to any number of conjectures regarding human interaction in either a God or a No God world.

As for the either/or world, consider the points raised in this documentary from the Science Channel: https://www.sciencechannel.com/tv-shows ... holes-real

It is [one suspects] staggering what we are likely not to know about the relationship between a God, the God, my God, the "human condition" and the explanation behind existence itself.

Prismatic567 wrote: In this particular case of yours it is most optimal to forget about any Gap derived from comparison of an actual to an impossible limit [apples and oranges]. The most effective is to work from the known into the empirical possible to be known to move forward with the best effort [improving] one can.
In your case you are taking a leap across a canyon without support and this is more like dogma than knowledge.


I can only point out yet again that I have no clear understanding of what "on earth" you are talking about in this particular "intellectual contraption". As, for instance, it relates to human interactions revolving around the points raised in the OP.

Prismatic567 wrote: I believe if you do a paradigm-shift to such a paradigm you would probably gain more equanimity, comfort and ease in facing whatever the problem.
This is what the Buddha did, i.e. shifted in a 180 degree paradigm shift from relying on an external God for salvation to inward within the self to resolve the existential dilemma.


Okay, but: I have no idea how "for all practical purposes" this is relevant to either the dilemma that I am faced with on this side of the grave or the obliteration of "I" on the other side of it.

How is this sort of "salvation" relevant to the conflicting goods embedded in the issues I raise or to death itself?

And however theists debate the superiority of the Gods, they all have to eventually get around to the part about immortality and salvation. If only because that is basically religion in a nutshell.

Prismatic567 wrote: Kant understood your kind of dilemma and he stated;


Kant in CPR wrote:... the Ideas produce what, though a mere Illusion, is nonetheless irresistible, and the harmful influence of which we can barely succeed in neutralizing even by means of the severest criticism.
..
They are sophistications not of men but of Pure Reason itself. Even the wisest of men cannot free himself from them. After long effort he perhaps succeeds in guarding himself against actual error; but he will never be able to free himself from the Illusion, which unceasingly mocks and torments him.


If only Kant were still around. That way I could ask him to explain what "on earth" he is talking about here. What particular illusion pertaining to what particular error revolving around what particular conflicted human behaviors embedded in what particular context relating to what particular narrative revolving around what particualar rendition of an alleged transcending font?

Pure reason indieed.

Prismatic567 wrote: I would suggest you do a paradigm shift and reframe your problem and you will not have any dilemma at all in this critical case.


On the other hand, when objectivists get around to this part what they invariably mean is this: that only when I shift my thinking to be in fully in alignment with their own, will everything become clearer. About "the future", for example. A world in which everyone thinks like they do.
Last edited by iambiguous on Wed Jan 10, 2018 7:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 23035
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Will Theists Accept A God That is Inferior to Another's?

Postby iambiguous » Wed Jan 10, 2018 7:21 pm

James S Saint wrote:As Anomaly said it, nothing but a sea of linguistic ambiguity.


I tend to agree with this.

On the other hand, for all practical purposes, as it relates to human interactions in the is/ought world, as this relates to the existence of God, how is your own intellectual/scholastic contraption really any different?

Basically, from my frame of mind, your didactic scaffolding here revolves around everyone agreeing that the precision embedded in the "definitional logic" encompassed in RM/AO and the Real God, is, by default, the starting point in any discussion/debate.

You'll challenge folks to go up into the epistemological stratosphere of "knowledge", but when are you really ever willing to take these "technicalities" down off the skyhooks and intertwine them out in the world of actual conflicting human behaviors.

Or, rather, in the manner in which we both might be in sync regarding that which constitutes a substantive exchange.

As this pertains to a world in which either God or No God prevails.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 23035
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Will Theists Accept A God That is Inferior to Another's?

Postby The Eternal Warrior » Wed Jan 10, 2018 7:53 pm

Prismatic567 wrote:Will Theists Accept A God That is Inferior to Another's?


I dont see why not, they've only been doing it all of eternity so far. Doubt they're going to stop today or any other day.

I mean, they accept other people that are inferior to them, why shouldn't they accept inferior Gods? They know it sucks not to have a place to belong.
User avatar
The Eternal Warrior
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2458
Joined: Fri Aug 01, 2014 1:26 am

Re: Will Theists Accept A God That is Inferior to Another's?

Postby Prismatic567 » Thu Jan 11, 2018 5:45 am

iambiguous wrote:
Prismatic567 wrote: I would say your 'ALL one need to know about existence ..' is at best a speculation of the impossible.


So, you are acknowledging it is likely impossible that any mere mortals will ever know all there is to know about existence itself. And, so, short of that, folks will have to fill in the blanks with more or less sheer conjecture. My point is merely to speculate that the tools of philosophy may well be of limited use as this pertains to human interactions out in any particular is/ought worlds -- as this pertains in turn to any number of conjectures regarding human interaction in either a God or a No God world.
The point is perfection, completeness and totalness are impossibilities within the human world.
You are demanding the impossible [i.e. ALL] and thus your point is moot and a non-starter.

Popper stated Scientific Theories are at best polished conjecture[s].
So what we can do is to keep polishing existing polished conjecture[s] with the understanding 'ALL that is need to be known..' is an impossibility.
What we can do is to work with and do our best with whatever polished conjecture [justified] we have at present.

As for the either/or world, consider the points raised in this documentary from the Science Channel: https://www.sciencechannel.com/tv-shows ... holes-real

It is [one suspects] staggering what we are likely not to know about the relationship between a God, the God, my God, the "human condition" and the explanation behind existence itself.


I can't listen to the video, here is a summary.
New discoveries are challenging everything we know about black holes -- astronomers are beginning to question if they even exist. The latest science tries to explain how they work & what they look like, despite the fact we've never actually seen one.

Science is very transparent in declaring what it can do and what are its limits.
As long as we understand such, there is no issue with Science.

Prismatic567 wrote: In this particular case of yours it is most optimal to forget about any Gap derived from comparison of an actual to an impossible limit [apples and oranges]. The most effective is to work from the known into the empirical possible to be known to move forward with the best effort [improving] one can.
In your case you are taking a leap across a canyon without support and this is more like dogma than knowledge.


I can only point out yet again that I have no clear understanding of what "on earth" you are talking about in this particular "intellectual contraption". As, for instance, it relates to human interactions revolving around the points raised in the OP.

My point is your demand for 'ALL that is needed to be known ...' is a non-starter.

If 'ALL is impossible' how can you determine what is the difference between "ALL" and what is actual at present?

For example the typical guesswork, 'humans are only using 15% of their brain potential.'
The problem is we cannot know what is 100% [ALL] of the brain potential.
If we do not know what is 100% how can we know what is 15% and begin to fill up the missing 85%.

In your case you are asking for ALL [100%] of what is needed to be known.
There is no way you can know what that 100% or ALL is, thus an impossibility.

Thus your thesis based on the above is a moot and a non-starter.

What works should be we start from what is known and explore to improve from the known on what is possible.

Hope you get the point?
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1452
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: Will Theists Accept A God That is Inferior to Another's?

Postby Prismatic567 » Thu Jan 11, 2018 6:01 am

iambiguous wrote:
Prismatic567 wrote:
Prismatic567 wrote: I believe if you do a paradigm-shift to such a paradigm you would probably gain more equanimity, comfort and ease in facing whatever the problem.
This is what the Buddha did, i.e. shifted in a 180 degree paradigm shift from relying on an external God for salvation to inward within the self to resolve the existential dilemma.


Okay, but: I have no idea how "for all practical purposes" this is relevant to either the dilemma that I am faced with on this side of the grave or the obliteration of "I" on the other side of it.

How is this sort of "salvation" relevant to the conflicting goods embedded in the issues I raise or to death itself?

And however theists debate the superiority of the Gods, they all have to eventually get around to the part about immortality and salvation. If only because that is basically religion in a nutshell.


Prismatic567 wrote: Kant understood your kind of dilemma and he stated;


Kant in CPR wrote:... the Ideas produce what, though a mere Illusion, is nonetheless irresistible, and the harmful influence of which we can barely succeed in neutralizing even by means of the severest criticism.
..
They are sophistications not of men but of Pure Reason itself. Even the wisest of men cannot free himself from them. After long effort he perhaps succeeds in guarding himself against actual error; but he will never be able to free himself from the Illusion, which unceasingly mocks and torments him.


If only Kant were still around. That way I could ask him to explain what "on earth" he is talking about here. What particular illusion pertaining to what particular error revolving around what particular conflicted human behaviors embedded in what particular context relating to what particular narrative revolving around what particualar rendition of an alleged transcending font?


Pure reason indeed.

There is no need for Kant to be around.
Kant have written many books to explain his points, thus you can read his books to understand [not necessary agree] his point [not easy but one has to strive hard on it].

What Kant is basically saying is,
your proposition re "ALL [100%] to be known .." is an impossibility and illusory and your continual questioning of such an impossibility is tormenting you.


Prismatic567 wrote: I would suggest you do a paradigm shift and reframe your problem and you will not have any dilemma at all in this critical case.


On the other hand, when objectivists get around to this part what they invariably mean is this: that only when I shift my thinking to be in fully in alignment with their own, will everything become clearer. About "the future", for example. A world in which everyone thinks like they do.
I hope you are not thinking I am an "objectivist" as I am not. If any label, then I am an empirical realist.

I am only suggesting you test the reframing of your question by avoiding that impossible element, i.e. that 100% [all] that is to be known. If it is an impossibility, why continue with it.

It is like understanding 'using 15% of 100% of the human brain' is merely a casual statement that is actually meaningless because there is no way we can find out what is 100% of the human brain potential. It would be more effective to know what is our current statue and continually improve on our current ability on a continual improvement basis and looking for quantum jumps in improvement rather than aiming for some teleological end results.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1452
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: Will Theists Accept A God That is Inferior to Another's?

Postby Prismatic567 » Thu Jan 11, 2018 7:03 am

The Eternal Warrior wrote:
Prismatic567 wrote:Will Theists Accept A God That is Inferior to Another's?


I dont see why not, they've only been doing it all of eternity so far. Doubt they're going to stop today or any other day.

I mean, they accept other people that are inferior to them, why shouldn't they accept inferior Gods? They know it sucks not to have a place to belong.
God is an illusion and an impossibility. There are many types of God.

When a God is falsely believed to be 'real' it does make sense to accept a God that is inferior to another.

Say;
A believed in a God-X than no greater exists and created the Whole Universe.
B believed in a lesser God-Y [who created the universe] which is lesser and inferior to God-X.
Now there are two claims of God i.e. X and Y which are of different power.
If dominant God-X had created the Whole Universe, then the lesser God-Y could not have created the Whole Universe.
Therefore God-Y is argued to be a false God.

I have not come across any theist who believed in a God that is lesser than the God of another religion or beliefs. Have you?
Will a Muslim accept their God is lesser than the Christian or other God. Will a Christian do the same?

When cornered and given the knowledge and awareness, theists will normally claim their God is a God than which no greater exists, after all this claim which is mental is so easy.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1452
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: Will Theists Accept A God That is Inferior to Another's?

Postby iambiguous » Fri Jan 12, 2018 8:37 pm

Prismatic567 wrote:
iambiguous wrote:
Prismatic567 wrote: I would say your 'ALL one need to know about existence ..' is at best a speculation of the impossible.


So, you are acknowledging it is likely impossible that any mere mortals will ever know all there is to know about existence itself. And, so, short of that, folks will have to fill in the blanks with more or less sheer conjecture. My point is merely to speculate that the tools of philosophy may well be of limited use as this pertains to human interactions out in any particular is/ought worlds -- as this pertains in turn to any number of conjectures regarding human interaction in either a God or a No God world.


The point is perfection, completeness and totalness are impossibilities within the human world.
You are demanding the impossible [i.e. ALL] and thus your point is moot and a non-starter.


We have a different understanding of these relationships then. Bowling exist in the human world. A "perfect game" is understood in a particular way. And is deemed applicable to all who bowl. You either bowl a perfect game or you don't. But suppose instead of ten frames, bowling consisted of 100 frames. How many perfect games would be bowled then?

Gods are believed to exist by some. By most. But in order to discuss His alleged perfection, there are folks like me who insist that His actually existence must be proven. Now, the fact that I don't believe He does exist does not "settle it". God is one possible explanation for All There Is. So, again, it really comes down to the extent to which those who do believe in God "in their head" are able to demonstrate to those who don't believe it that He does in fact exist.

In other words, until the gap between all that would need to be known about Existence itself and what any particular one of us claims to believe here and now is closed, we are all just exchanging particular demonstrable facts and particular speculative conjectures.

Prismatic567 wrote: Popper stated Scientific Theories are at best polished conjecture[s].
So what we can do is to keep polishing existing polished conjecture[s] with the understanding 'ALL that is need to be known..' is an impossibility.


All this suggests [to me] is that even with respect to mathematics, the laws of nature, the rules of logic etc., there is still Hume's own gap between a seemingly endless correlation of events/interactions and the exactitude embedded in an ontological understanding of cause and effect re a "complete and total" understanding of Existence itself.

In the interim, we take that leap of faith [or whatever you want to call it] in banking on mathematics, the laws of nature and the logical rules of language being the same -- objectively? -- for all of us from day to day to day.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 23035
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Will Theists Accept A God That is Inferior to Another's?

Postby iambiguous » Fri Jan 12, 2018 9:10 pm

Prismatic567 wrote:
iambiguous wrote:If only Kant were still around. That way I could ask him to explain what "on earth" he is talking about here. What particular illusion pertaining to what particular error revolving around what particular conflicted human behaviors embedded in what particular context relating to what particular narrative revolving around what particualar rendition of an alleged transcending font?

Pure reason indeed.


There is no need for Kant to be around.
Kant have written many books to explain his points, thus you can read his books to understand [not necessary agree] his point [not easy but one has to strive hard on it].


What's that got to do with bringing his own "intellectual contraptions" down to earth? In implicating them in what are deemed to be particular illusions and particular errors pertaining to particular contexts in which human behaviors come into conflicts revolving around conflicting goods and conflicting renditions of God.

Prismatic567 wrote: What Kant is basically saying is,
your proposition re "ALL [100%] to be known .." is an impossibility and illusory and your continual questioning of such an impossibility is tormenting you.


Okay, so how does Kant implicate this in a discussion of his own rendition of the "transcending font". And then the relationship between that frame of mind and the frames of mind embedded in any particular mere mortals in any particular historical, cultural and experiential contexts evolving over time in a world awash in contingency, chance and change.

As this relates to actual existential interactions between mere mortals at odds regarding a particular set of conflicting goods that precipitate actual conflicting behaviors.

As for example between those who lie about the whereabouts of the woman in hiding and those who tell the man bent on killing her exactly where she is.

Prismatic567 wrote: I would suggest you do a paradigm shift and reframe your problem and you will not have any dilemma at all in this critical case.


On the other hand, when objectivists get around to this part what they invariably mean is this: that only when I shift my thinking to be in fully in alignment with their own, will everything become clearer. About "the future", for example. A world in which everyone thinks like they do.


Prismatic567 wrote: I hope you are not thinking I am an "objectivist" as I am not. If any label, then I am an empirical realist.


From my perspective, objectivism revolves around the belief that the world can be divided in two --- between "one of us" and "one of them". It is more a psychological contraption than anything else.

My focus of course is on the is/ought world. But even with respect to what is construed by scientists and logicians to encompass the either/or world, there can be no certainty short of grasping a "complete and total" understanding of Existence itself.

Thus what does it mean to be an "empirical realist" regarding the fact of Trump's immigration comments yesterday, and the reaction of folks to the distinction he makes between "shithole countries" and Norway?

You either grasp where I am going with things like this or you don't. With respect to my point about an "objectivist frame of mind".
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 23035
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Will Theists Accept A God That is Inferior to Another's?

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Sat Jan 13, 2018 11:58 am

iambiguous wrote:Thus what does it mean to be an "empirical realist" regarding the fact of Trump's immigration comments yesterday, and the reaction of folks to the distinction he makes between "shithole countries" and Norway?
Trump is an objectivist. Anyone thinking that his remarks are bad, might lead to or exacerbate bad things, is also an objectivist. Good too, for that matter. If you act to make the world a better place by opposing someone, even abstractly, you are an objectivist. If you want to complain, implicitly, like this, about someone on moral grounds you are an objectivist. There are no problems to a non-objectivist. There are merely countless phenomena and these phenomena cannot be distinguished morally or prioritized. Stuff happens is the only possible comment a non-objectivist (or a Buddhist for that matter) on such things. Stuff happens, that is the only possible position for a non-objectivist. All true non-objectivists would be hedonists of some sort. And they certainly would not think any art (taking that category broadly) is better than any other art. A Beethovan symphony or Coke commericials, neither can be judged better than the other aesthetically. Again the channeling toward hedonism as the only way to evaluate a good day. Have a good time. Take it easy. Worry about mortality, I suppose, but not about Trump statements, except to the degree they might lead to a shortening of one's own life. Will the real non-objectivist please stand up and tell me why they are not doing something more pleasurable right now than writing endless arguments in a philosophy forum. Perhaps it is a knowledge failure. Perhaps this seems like hedonism because so few activities are being considered.
Karpel Tunnel
 
Posts: 16
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: Will Theists Accept A God That is Inferior to Another's?

Postby Prismatic567 » Sun Jan 14, 2018 4:09 am

iambiguous wrote:
Prismatic567 wrote:
iambiguous wrote:If only Kant were still around. That way I could ask him to explain what "on earth" he is talking about here. What particular illusion pertaining to what particular error revolving around what particular conflicted human behaviors embedded in what particular context relating to what particular narrative revolving around what particualar rendition of an alleged transcending font?

Pure reason indeed.


There is no need for Kant to be around.
Kant have written many books to explain his points, thus you can read his books to understand [not necessary agree] his point [not easy but one has to strive hard on it].


What's that got to do with bringing his own "intellectual contraptions" down to earth? In implicating them in what are deemed to be particular illusions and particular errors pertaining to particular contexts in which human behaviors come into conflicts revolving around conflicting goods and conflicting renditions of God.
You stated, if Kant is still around, then you will ask him .."
So my reply was, it is not necessary for Kant to be around. You can read his books and philosophy to understand [not necessary agree] generic illusions and errors, which will cover any particular within the almost all-encompassing empirical-rational contexts.

Prismatic567 wrote: What Kant is basically saying is,
your proposition re "ALL [100%] to be known .." is an impossibility and illusory and your continual questioning of such an impossibility is tormenting you.


Okay, so how does Kant implicate this in a discussion of his own rendition of the "transcending font". And then the relationship between that frame of mind and the frames of mind embedded in any particular mere mortals in any particular historical, cultural and experiential contexts evolving over time in a world awash in contingency, chance and change.

As this relates to actual existential interactions between mere mortals at odds regarding a particular set of conflicting goods that precipitate actual conflicting behaviors.

As for example between those who lie about the whereabouts of the woman in hiding and those who tell the man bent on killing her exactly where she is.

I asked before, what do you mean by 'font' in the above case?

I understand what you are asking re frames, particular, context and change. These concepts concern the relative and the subjective of the empirical human conditions and nature's conditions. These are all encompassed within the empirical-rational reality.

Your "ALL [100%] to be known .. of existence" cannot be possible, i.e. it is an impossibility within empirical-rational reality.
This has nothing to do with a person's or subjective frames, particular, context and change. It is as objective as trying to claim 1 + 1 = 5 within the normal arithmetic system.

My point is your "ALL [100%] to be known .. of existence" is an impossibility within empirical-rational reality, thus moot and a non-starter. Thus you cannot raised this point at all. As I stated, one can only start from the known to the possible to be known. Your "ALL [100%] to be known .. of existence" is impossible to be known.

Prismatic567 wrote: I hope you are not thinking I am an "objectivist" as I am not. If any label, then I am an empirical realist.


From my perspective, objectivism revolves around the belief that the world can be divided in two --- between "one of us" and "one of them". It is more a psychological contraption than anything else.
That is "tribalism" and yes it is more psychological than philosophical. To be more precise, it relevant within Evolutionary Psychology and Anthropology.

Note 'objectivity' in the Philosophical Perspective.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_(philosophy)

Wiki wrote:Objectivity is a central philosophical concept, related to reality and truth, which has been variously defined by sources. Generally, objectivity means the state or quality of being true even outside a subject's individual biases, interpretations, feelings, and imaginings. A proposition is generally considered objectively true (to have objective truth) when its truth conditions are met without biases caused by feelings, ideas, opinions, etc., of a sentient subject.

A second, broader meaning of the term refers to the ability in any context to judge fairly, without partiality or external influence. This second meaning of objectivity is sometimes used synonymously with neutrality.


It is not appropriate for you to invent your own definition of 'objectivism' in this case.


My focus of course is on the is/ought world. But even with respect to what is construed by scientists and logicians to encompass the either/or world, there can be no certainty short of grasping a "complete and total" understanding of Existence itself.

Note Hume's - there is no way one can get an 'ought' from "is".
We humans are merely confined within the "is" empirical reality with the ability to think [thought] within the 'ought' via reason.
Thus if you understand Hume [do you] you would never demand for an 'ought' within "is" because that is an impossibility.

How one can reconcile the "ought" with the "is" is to use the concept of complementarity. This what Kant, Yin-Yang, Quantum Physics, Buddhism do to reconcile the two extremes to make them work in complementarity.

either/or world
I am not sure what what this mean. I can sense any relevance of this either/or to the issue since either/or can be reconciled depending on context.

... there can be no certainty short of grasping a "complete and total" understanding of Existence itself.
As stated this require of 'certainty of "complete and total" ' is an impossibility and a non-starter.

Thus what does it mean to be an "empirical realist" regarding the fact of Trump's immigration comments yesterday, and the reaction of folks to the distinction he makes between "shithole countries" and Norway?
Trump is off topic in this case. An "empirical realist" acknowledge the empirical is the real thing as it is.

You either grasp where I am going with things like this or you don't. With respect to my point about an "objectivist frame of mind".
Your points are not tenable, i.e.

1. Your wrong use of 'objectivism' which is not directly philosophical.
2. Your "ALL [100%] to be known .. of existence" cannot be possible, i.e. it is an impossibility within empirical-rational reality.
3. You are stuck with the "IS' and "Ought" dichotomy and not being able to reconcile them.

I suggest you reframe your problem statement and you will be able to make headway and not be stuck in a circular loop.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1452
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: Will Theists Accept A God That is Inferior to Another's?

Postby Prismatic567 » Sun Jan 14, 2018 4:29 am

iambiguous wrote:
Prismatic567 wrote:
The point is perfection, completeness and totalness are impossibilities within the human world.
You are demanding the impossible [i.e. ALL] and thus your point is moot and a non-starter.


We have a different understanding of these relationships then. Bowling exist in the human world. A "perfect game" is understood in a particular way. And is deemed applicable to all who bowl. You either bowl a perfect game or you don't. But suppose instead of ten frames, bowling consisted of 100 frames. How many perfect games would be bowled then?
The point is a 100 frames or 1000 frames bowling game is still an empirical possibility which can be achieved perfectly. The only difference is the odds will be very slim, but it is not an impossibility within an empirical-rational reality.

Gods are believed to exist by some. By most. But in order to discuss His alleged perfection, there are folks like me who insist that His actually existence must be proven. Now, the fact that I don't believe He does exist does not "settle it". God is one possible explanation for All There Is. So, again, it really comes down to the extent to which those who do believe in God "in their head" are able to demonstrate to those who don't believe it that He does in fact exist.
Unlike bowling a 1000 frame game perfectly which is an empirical possibility, the idea of God is non-empirical, it is not empirically possible. Thus there is no question of a possible God within empirical rational reality.

God is one possible explanation for All There Is.
One can think of a God mentally but God is non-empirical. God [non-empirical] cannot be a possible explanation for ALL There Is within an empirical-rational reality.

In other words, until the gap between all that would need to be known about Existence itself and what any particular one of us claims to believe here and now is closed, we are all just exchanging particular demonstrable facts and particular speculative conjectures.
As I had explained your 'all that would need to be known about Existence itself' is an impossibility within empirical-rational reality. Thus this point is moot and a non-starter and there will be no realistic Gap at all to start with.
You can think of such a Gap, but such a Gap is an impossibility.

Prismatic567 wrote: Popper stated Scientific Theories are at best polished conjecture[s].
So what we can do is to keep polishing existing polished conjecture[s] with the understanding 'ALL that is need to be known..' is an impossibility.


All this suggests [to me] is that even with respect to mathematics, the laws of nature, the rules of logic etc., there is still Hume's own gap between a seemingly endless correlation of events/interactions and the exactitude embedded in an ontological understanding of cause and effect re a "complete and total" understanding of Existence itself.
Btw, there is no Gap at all in reference to Hume. Hume's Problem of Induction is only in reference to Science, not Mathematics nor logic.

In the interim, we take that leap of faith [or whatever you want to call it] in banking on mathematics, the laws of nature and the logical rules of language being the same -- objectively? -- for all of us from day to day to day.
There is no big leap of faith re Mathematics, laws of nature and logical rules of language.
We believe 1 + 1 = 2 is true within its Framework and system as far as it is supported by proofs, i.e. reason and empirical. E.g. within the common perspective, when we hold one apple then hold another apple, the result is two apples in our hand which is always true within the defined conditions.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1452
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Previous

Return to Religion and Spirituality



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users