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

Obviously you have no idea how such works. If you run out of things to whine about, you have to face having no excuse - comfort in staying afraid and desperately finding something to whine about.

Exactly.

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

On the other hand, your TOE remains intact. My guess? All the way to the grave.

Unless of course you’re wrong.

Not a chance, right? :wink:

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:

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.

I would say your ‘ALL one need to know about existence …’ is at best a speculation of the impossible.

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 :

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.

Kant understood your kind of dilemma and he stated;

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

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.

As Anomaly said it, nothing but a sea of linguistic ambiguity.

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”?

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: 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 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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

I can’t listen to the video, here is a summary.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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”.

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.

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.

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.

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.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_(philosophy

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

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.

As stated this require of 'certainty of “complete and total” ’ is an impossibility and a non-starter.

Trump is off topic in this case. An “empirical realist” acknowledge the empirical is the real thing as it is.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 mean foundation. That which one can turn to in order to demonstrate/establish one’s moral obligation to the woman.

Some will claim that this is God and offer one or another narrative from one or another religious denomination. Others will claim that this is Reason and offer one or another technically proficient deontological assessment. Or there are those of Satyr’s ilk who insist it all revolves around that which can/must be construed as “natural behavior”.

You claim to understand what I am asking, but you are very, very reluctant to then intergrate your own “empirical-rational reality” out in a particular context out in a particular world. What specifically is the “empirical-rational reality” with respect to, say, the conflicting goods that swirl around issues like DACA. What are the “dreamers” owed?

Or, again, choose your own issue. Surely, there must be occasions when you bump into others that do not share your own values. How, with regard to a specific incident of late, did you encompass “empirical-rational reality” for them in order to argue that your own frame of mind is more conducive with “progressive” human interactions “in the future”?

But then [from my frame of mind] you take the exchange straight back up into the scholastic clouds:

Whether any of this is philosophically/technically true is one thing. Making the assumption that it is philosophically/technically true and then integrating the implications of this truth out in the world of conflicted human interactions is [from my frame of mind] something else entirely different.

To wit:

Some insist that abortion/homosexuality/consuming animal flesh/owning chattel slaves etc., is moral. Others insist that abortion/homosexuality/consuming anomal flesh/owning chattel slaves etc., is immoral.

So, using your own understanding of “empirical-rational reality” as the font/foundation, how would one best go about making a rational distinction between the conflicting oughts that do in fact exist “out in the world” that we now live in, and a moral narrative/political agenda most clearly in sync with that which you construe to be “progressive” interactions among us at some point in the future?

My argument is that until we discover the precise nature of Existence itself, even the either/or world is just a set of assumptions rooted in our current understanding of mathematics, the physical laws of nature, and the rules of logic.

There’s just no getting around this for me. Until and unless, of course, someone is able to convince me that their own understanding of these relationships here and now is in fact in sync with an ontological/teleological understanding of All There Is.

But then of course this: who am I to argue that they are either necessarily right or necessarily wrong? And even this is assuming that I actually have the autonomy necessary to make such distinctions “on my own”.

And then you insist that:

As though in “stating” this, that makes it so. Come on: How on earth could you possibly know this other than as a function of all the assumptions that you make in your own intellectual contraptions/inventions above?

Indeed, as soon as I bring all this down to earth…

…you are quick to demur:

And I can only scratch my head and wonder what that has to do with the consequences — the empirical reality — that may soon be unfolding for the actual flesh and blood human beings that are involved here.

Including the fate of the “dreamers” in America. Hell, the government itself might even be shut down.

On the other hand, sure, what do these folks know about the “technical” issues here?

I agree. But then I make a distinction between this and using the word “perfection” as it is said to be applicable to God. What God? And how do mere mortals [like you and I] go about the business of caculating the odds that He does in fact exist?

Thus:

Way back in time some “primitives” invented bowling: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten-pin_bowling#Origins

Now, before it was invented, it was just an idea in someone’s head. But now it is an empirical reality.

Right?

With God there is the “idea” of His existence. And, sure, that seems rooted in part in human psychology. But noting this is not the same thing as demonstrating that He does not in fact exist. At least not from my frame of mind. Existence does seem to exist. And God is one possible explanation in contemplating its creation. At least until the child comes along and asks, “who created God?”

But, come on, who among us really fucking knows?! Your mind is either completely boggled trying to comprehend it all or you are somehow able to convince yourself that “in your head” you’ve got it all figured out.

And, sure, maybe you do. So, by all means, convince me.

And then this:

Okay, so what does this have to do with the OP? How are science and mathematics and logic intertwined in all of the various conflicted views of inferior/superior Gods as this relates to that which is of most interest to me here: How ought one to live?

How ought one to live morally, righteously, virtuously, progressively etc., in a world of conflicting goods?

For example there is a clear correlation between sexual copulation and pregnancy. There are all of the biological imperatives here that, one way or another, either are or are not in sync with science, mathematics and logic in an either/or world able to be understood precisely in terms of cause and effect.

But what is the precise correlation between copulation, pregnancy, abortion and morality? And how is the “progressive” understanding of this interwined [re cause and effect] in a complete, unequivical understanding of the role that science, mathematics and logic play here?

Re your point;
And how do mere mortals [like you and I] go about the business of calculating the odds that He does in fact exist?

You missed a critical point of mine above, i.e.
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.

The question of whether God exists or not is moot and a non-starter within empirical-rational reality, therefore there is no question of how to calculate the odds that HE does in fact exist?

It is like a square-circle, we do not ask whether such a thing exists or not, because it a contradiction, thus moot and a non-starter.

The question of God is the same as the question of whether a square-circle exists or not, but the idea of God is a bit more subtle.

I hope you get this;
Because the idea of God is an impossibility within empirical-rational reality [proof in the other thread], the question of the odds of whether God exists is moot, a non-starter and rationally - should not be raised.

As I had pointed out the idea of God arose out of psychological factors to deal with an existential psychological problem.