I am an a-theist because I do not believe in a deity with a personality. As I've said.
A billion times.
But what Poldy has been trying to say, I think, and what I am saying is as follows:
"You deny all Gods because you do not believe in one particular type of God. That is problematic."
Think of it this way: There are a great many types of dog. Your statement, in terms of dogs, is "I do not like dogs because I do not like Golden Retrievers."
One's God need not have a personality. One's God need not be an invisible man in the sky.
"I do not believe in a deity with a personality."
Ok, cool. Do you believe in a deity which does not have a personality? Do you believe in Being? Do you believe in That Than Which A Greater Cannot Be Thought?
I am an a-theist because I do not believe in a deity with a personality. As I've said.
A billion times.
But what Poldy has been trying to say, I think, and what I am saying is as follows:
"You deny all Gods because you do not believe in one particular type of God. That is problematic."
Think of it this way: There are a great many types of dog. Your statement, in terms of dogs, is "I do not like dogs because I do not like Golden Retrievers."
One's God need not have a personality. One's God need not be an invisible man in the sky.
"I do not believe in a deity with a personality."
Ok, cool. Do you believe in a deity which does not have a personality? Do you believe in Being? Do you believe in That Than Which A Greater Cannot Be Thought?
Have you read the thread? Or just the page you happen to be on when you post in it? If you read the thread, you might find the answers you seek.
MikeMan on
0
Options
Podlyyou unzipped me! it's all coming back! i don't like it!Registered Userregular
Do we really have any idea what THAT THAN WHICH A GREATER CANNOT BE THOUGHT would be like? What kind of an entity is it?
I'm going with "the universe".
Possibly "the multiverse".
That would be Spinoza's answer, yes.
That Than Which A Greater Cannot Be Thought would be That Than Which A Greater Cannot Be Thought. One has to understand the terms. If one hears "That Than Which A Greater Cannot Be Thought" and their question is, "Ok...so...is it purple?" I think one has fundamentally missed the point of the conversation.
We are not talking about the particular predicates applicable to the thing. We are discussing the ontological status of the thing. That Than Which A Greater Cannot Be Thought is the thing than which a greater cannot be thought; the greatest thing.
We're not talking about purpleness. We're not talking about its personality or lack thereof. We're not talking about its intentions. We're simply talking about THAT THAN WHICH A GREATER CANNOT BE THOUGHT.
Ignore predicates. Just talk about the ontological status of the thing.
I am an a-theist because I do not believe in a deity with a personality. As I've said.
A billion times.
But what Poldy has been trying to say, I think, and what I am saying is as follows:
"You deny all Gods because you do not believe in one particular type of God. That is problematic."
Think of it this way: There are a great many types of dog. Your statement, in terms of dogs, is "I do not like dogs because I do not like Golden Retrievers."
One's God need not have a personality. One's God need not be an invisible man in the sky.
"I do not believe in a deity with a personality."
Ok, cool. Do you believe in a deity which does not have a personality? Do you believe in Being? Do you believe in That Than Which A Greater Cannot Be Thought?
The problem is that the idea of a personality is so intrinsicly a part of what "God" means that this is like criticising someone for saying they don't believe in vampires when what they actually don't believe in are undead bloodsucking monsters. If you take away those properties you'd really be better off using another word to ease confusion.
The problem is that the idea of a personality is so intrinsicly a part of what "God" means that this is like criticising someone for saying they don't believe in vampires when what they actually don't believe in are undead bloodsucking monsters. If you take away those properties you'd really be better off using another word to ease confusion.
We have a winner.
MikeMan on
0
Options
Podlyyou unzipped me! it's all coming back! i don't like it!Registered Userregular
I am an a-theist because I do not believe in a deity with a personality. As I've said.
A billion times.
perhaps the billion and oneth time will be fruitful.
You do not believe in a deity with a personality. I am inclined to believe this as well. But is that what atheist means "I reject that a God with a personality exists?" Is atheism that restricted?
Yes.
Huh. I guess that means that I am an atheist who believes in God.
See, now it looks like the tables have turned. I shall argue that being an atheist means not believing in God. Your specific conception of atheism is so far removed from the atheism of 99% if atheists that you are being dishonest.
I am an a-theist because I do not believe in a deity with a personality. As I've said.
A billion times.
perhaps the billion and oneth time will be fruitful.
You do not believe in a deity with a personality. I am inclined to believe this as well. But is that what atheist means "I reject that a God with a personality exists?" Is atheism that restricted?
Yes.
Huh. I guess that means that I am an atheist who believes in God.
See, now it looks like the tables have turned. I shall argue that being an atheist means not believing in God. Your specific conception of atheism is so far removed from the atheism of 99% if atheists that you are being dishonest.
...No it's not? I don't believe in God. I never said I did.
If you believe in God you are not an atheist. End of story.
The problem is that the idea of a personality is so intrinsicly a part of what "God" means that this is like criticising someone for saying they don't believe in vampires when what they actually don't believe in are undead bloodsucking monsters. If you take away those properties you'd really be better off using another word to ease confusion.
We have a winner.
Not really. Perhaps "God" in a Christian society...but we are not talking about cultural understandings. We are talking about the thing in itself.
When one engages in philosophical conversation one must be open to the possibility that the terms used do not necessarily mean what one thinks they mean. If one reads Spinoza thinking of "God" as some man in the sky one will be fundamentally confused. This is not the fault of Spinoza. This is the fault of the reader who brought its own pre-conceptions into the conversation.
"God" is a placeholder term. It does not, inherently, mean anything. One needs to engage the term and its meanings as they are understood within the conversation rather than bring other understandings into the conversation.
Also, Mikeman? Could you stop being a dismissive twat and be accomodating towards questions and provide answers when you have answers to provide? It would really behoove the conversation. Sure, you could reply "Have your read teh thread cocksdicksolol" when one asks a question. But it is far more beneficial and far less words to simply answer the damn question with a "yes" or "no".
_J_ on
0
Options
Podlyyou unzipped me! it's all coming back! i don't like it!Registered Userregular
I am an a-theist because I do not believe in a deity with a personality. As I've said.
A billion times.
perhaps the billion and oneth time will be fruitful.
You do not believe in a deity with a personality. I am inclined to believe this as well. But is that what atheist means "I reject that a God with a personality exists?" Is atheism that restricted?
Yes.
Huh. I guess that means that I am an atheist who believes in God.
See, now it looks like the tables have turned. I shall argue that being an atheist means not believing in God. Your specific conception of atheism is so far removed from the atheism of 99% if atheists that you are being dishonest.
...No it's not? I don't believe in God. I never said I did.
If you believe in God you are not an atheist. End of story.
But you just said that atheism is restricted to not believing in a god with a personality. I do not believe in a good with a personality. That would mean that I am an atheist. Yet, nevertheless, I believe in God.
But you just said that atheism is restricted to not believing in a god with a personality. I do not believe in a good with a personality. That would mean that I am an atheist. Yet, nevertheless, I believe in God.
If you do not believe in a God with a personality, you do not believe in God. Sorry.
"God" is a placeholder term. It does not, inherently, mean anything. One needs to engage the term and its meanings as they are understood within the conversation rather than bring other understandings into the conversation.
Wait, hang on. If "God" doesn't mean anything, how can one engage its meaning?
WotanAnubis on
0
Options
Podlyyou unzipped me! it's all coming back! i don't like it!Registered Userregular
But you just said that atheism is restricted to not believing in a god with a personality. I do not believe in a good with a personality. That would mean that I am an atheist. Yet, nevertheless, I believe in God.
If you do not believe in a God with a personality, you do not believe in God. Sorry.
And yet nevertheless I believe in one God, father the almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all that is seen and unseen. I believe in a singular being that is omnipresent, omniscient, perfect, infinite, and wholly good.
What the hell do I believe in? Please, Mike, you seem to know my beliefs far better than I do. Tell me.
The problem is that the idea of a personality is so intrinsicly a part of what "God" means that this is like criticising someone for saying they don't believe in vampires when what they actually don't believe in are undead bloodsucking monsters. If you take away those properties you'd really be better off using another word to ease confusion.
We have a winner.
Not really. Perhaps "God" in a Christian society...but we are not talking about cultural understandings. We are talking about the thing in itself.
When one engages in philosophical conversation one must be open to the possibility that the terms used do not necessarily mean what one thinks they mean. If one reads Spinoza thinking of "God" as some man in the sky one will be fundamentally confused. This is not the fault of Spinoza. This is the fault of the reader who brought its own pre-conceptions into the conversation.
"God" is a placeholder term. It does not, inherently, mean anything. One needs to engage the term and its meanings as they are understood within the conversation rather than bring other understandings into the conversation.
Also, Mikeman? Could you stop being a dismissive twat and be accomodating towards questions and provide answers when you have answers to provide? It would really behoove the conversation. Sure, you could reply "Have your read teh thread cocksdicksolol" when one asks a question. But it is far more beneficial and far less words to simply answer the damn question with a "yes" or "no".
It is kinda Spinoza's fault for using a word that already has a meaning, rather than inventing his own term. If I, in a philosophical discussion, were to start referring to something different from the standard meaning of whisky (an alcoholic beverage) as whisky then I must take some of the blame when people take their own preconceptions about what the word whisky means and apply that to what I'm saying.
If you do not believe in a God with a personality, you do not believe in God. Sorry.
I LOVE it when atheists make this move. Atheists deny the existance of God but then have very dogmatic understandings of what constitutes God. It's so cute.
My God does not have a personality either, Mikeman. But there is a God; That Than Which A Greater Cannot Be Thought. There is a God in the Spinozistic sense, I would contend. But this God has no personality, no intention.
Why do you claim that God must have a personality? Does the Universe have a personality? Does Being have a personality?
@WotanAnubis: "God" does not have a strict and rigid meaning. God for Christians, Spinozists, Platonists, Pagans, etc. all have different connotations. "God" can have a meaning within a particular context, but to say that Mormons, Spinozists, and the Greeks all mean the same thing when they say "God" is, said simply, moronic.
That is my claim. When Spinoza says "God" and when a Greek says "God" they mean vastly different things. It's the difference between Zeus and Jehova and Reality.
The problem is that the idea of a personality is so intrinsicly a part of what "God" means that this is like criticising someone for saying they don't believe in vampires when what they actually don't believe in are undead bloodsucking monsters. If you take away those properties you'd really be better off using another word to ease confusion.
We have a winner.
Not really. Perhaps "God" in a Christian society...but we are not talking about cultural understandings. We are talking about the thing in itself.
When one engages in philosophical conversation one must be open to the possibility that the terms used do not necessarily mean what one thinks they mean. If one reads Spinoza thinking of "God" as some man in the sky one will be fundamentally confused. This is not the fault of Spinoza. This is the fault of the reader who brought its own pre-conceptions into the conversation.
"God" is a placeholder term. It does not, inherently, mean anything. One needs to engage the term and its meanings as they are understood within the conversation rather than bring other understandings into the conversation.
This is untrue. "God" is a loaded word that brings all sorts of preconceptions to the table.
Also, Mikeman? Could you stop being a dismissive twat and be accomodating towards questions and provide answers when you have answers to provide? It would really behoove the conversation. Sure, you could reply "Have your read teh thread cocksdicksolol" when one asks a question. But it is far more beneficial and far less words to simply answer the damn question with a "yes" or "no".
I'm not being dismissive. Read the thread before you post in it.
It is kinda Spinoza's fault for using a word that already has a meaning, rather than inventing his own term. If I, in a philosophical discussion, were to start referring to something different from the standard meaning of whisky (an alcoholic beverage) as whisky then I must take some of the blame when people take their own preconceptions about what the word whisky means and apply that to what I'm saying.
Usually one says at the beginning of one's text "By 'God' I understand ________________" and, so, explains one's use of the term. Sure, one could be an asshole and say "But when I said 'whisky' I meant 'whales' and I just never told you, huyuck." But that is not what one does in civilized conversations.
Some philosophers do create new terms (Heidegger). But that usually ends up being more confusing. So, instead of that sort of confusion others opt to use terms such as "God" and then explain what they mean by that term.
FYI, when Spinoza says "God" he means "Nature". He explains this. So it is fine.
I sort of wonder, at this point, if Mikeman believes in nature. If so he could stop being an atheist if he just read Spinoza.
I'm not trying to be condescending. it is just very odd that an atheist would have so rigid a definition for God. If they do not believe...why would they care?
But you just said that atheism is restricted to not believing in a god with a personality. I do not believe in a good with a personality. That would mean that I am an atheist. Yet, nevertheless, I believe in God.
If you do not believe in a God with a personality, you do not believe in God. Sorry.
And yet nevertheless I believe in one God, father the almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all that is seen and unseen. I believe in a singular being that is omnipresent, omniscient, perfect, infinite, and wholly good.
What the hell do I believe in? Please, Mike, you seem to know my beliefs far better than I do. Tell me.
You believe those things for reasons of Faith, entirely unrelated to everything you've described in this thread. Your faith-based assumptions are neither here nor there. What they aren't is substantiated by anything resembling the Ontological argument. They are also tied up with the Judeo-Christian conception of God, which is one who has a personality. Being did not make anything. Being is not the father of anyone. Being is not omniscient because being does not have a mind with which to store knowledge. Being is perfect but that's not saying much, as Being is that which must be perfect from the definition of the words. Being is not "wholly good" in any meaningful sense of the words, because Being is expressed in as much (from a human perspective) horror, suffering, and evil than in things we see as good.
It is kinda Spinoza's fault for using a word that already has a meaning, rather than inventing his own term. If I, in a philosophical discussion, were to start referring to something different from the standard meaning of whisky (an alcoholic beverage) as whisky then I must take some of the blame when people take their own preconceptions about what the word whisky means and apply that to what I'm saying.
Usually one says at the beginning of one's text "By 'God' I understand ________________" and, so, explains one's use of the term. Sure, one could be an asshole and say "But when I said 'whisky' I meant 'whales' and I just never told you, huyuck." But that is not what one does in civilized conversations.
Some philosophers do create new terms (Heidegger). But that usually ends up being more confusing. So, instead of that sort of confusion others opt to use terms such as "God" and then explain what they mean by that term.
FYI, when Spinoza says "God" he means "Nature". He explains this. So it is fine.
I sort of wonder, at this point, if Mikeman believes in nature. If so he could stop being an atheist if he just read Spinoza.
I'm not trying to be condescending. it is just very odd that an atheist would have so rigid a definition for God. If they do not believe...why would they care?
I am an atheist in the only way that's important. I reject a deity with a personality. There goes modern religion out the window.
Any other type of deity, well then we're just talking about Spinozean concepts of nature and monism. And fundamentally I have no problem with that. Just like I have no problem with Einstein's God. It's just another way of describing the relationships that exist in the universe.
Such a being is not "God." "God" means a certain thing, and is loaded with preconceptions. Nature deserves no worship.
This is untrue. "God" is a loaded word that brings all sorts of preconceptions to the table.
I do not deny that there are preconceptions associated with certain terms. What I deny is that one is incapable of ridding one's self of those preconceptions.
And, sure, one could stop using the word "God" and rather talk about "X" where "X" is "that than which a greater cannot be thought" and "nature" and "the unmoved mover".
But I take it to be the case that we are intelligent enough to not have to resort to analytic bullshit of replacing words with variables in equations. I think we can have a conversation and be accomodating such that when one says "god" we can understand what they understand the term to use given that they have explained their self clearly.
I do not think that Poldy means Christian God. I do not think that I mean Christian God. So, what's the problem? We're talking about Being and That Than Which A Greater Cannot be Thought. No beards. No plagues.
What's the problem? Does God have to have a beard and plagues?
2) That than which a greater cannot be thought must necessarily exist.
3) For, if that than which a greater cannot be thought did not exist then it would be (by 1) that than which a greater CAN be thought, which is a contradiction.
So, than than which a greater cannot be thought necessarily exists.
If a person claims "that than which a greater cannot be thought does not exist" then their claim is "that than which a greater cannot be thought is that than which a greater can be thought".
No, that argument is circular. "The tallest dog in Manila must be tall" is true only if "the tallest dog in Manila" refers to something which can be tall. "That than which a greater cannot be thought must exist" is true only if "that than which a greater cannot be thought" refers to something which can exist. You can't use that as proof that it can exist.
Any other type of deity, well then we're just talking about Spinozean concepts of nature and monism. And fundamentally I have no problem with that. Just like I have no problem with Einstein's God. It's just another way of describing the relationships that exist in the universe.
Such a being is not "God." "God" means a certain thing, and is loaded with preconceptions. Nature deserves no worship.
I was ok with a few of your sentences, then you made me sad.
Neither of us want a God with a personality. That's fine. But then you go off on these weird tangents of "Unmoved movers without personality are not 'god'." And I would like to know why you make that claim.
This is untrue. "God" is a loaded word that brings all sorts of preconceptions to the table.
I do not deny that there are preconceptions associated with certain terms. What I deny is that one is incapable of ridding one's self of those preconceptions.
And, sure, one could stop using the word "God" and rather talk about "X" where "X" is "that than which a greater cannot be thought" and "nature" and "the unmoved mover".
But I take it to be the case that we are intelligent enough to not have to resort to analytic bullshit of replacing words with variables in equations. I think we can have a conversation and be accomodating such that when one says "god" we can understand what they understand the term to use given that they have explained their self clearly.
I do not think that Poldy means Christian God. I do not think that I mean Christian God. So, what's the problem? We're talking about Being and That Than Which A Greater Cannot be Thought. No beards. No plagues.
What's the problem? Does God have to have a beard and plagues?
Who said so?
You do not think he means the Christian God because you haven't read the thread.
Sorry man. If things were as simple as you're making them I wouldn't even be here. There's nothing to argue against if everyone's just singing kumbaya and talking about being one with the universe.
Pods specifically stated that the "Being" he is talking about is compatible with the Scholastic conception of God within the Judeo-Christian tradition.
Seriously. It'll only take you 10 minutes, depending on how fast a reader you are. Just please read before jumping in here like you have some grand point to make.
In all religions, God or gods display human characteristics. Even the theist god, which creates and then observes without interfering, embodies human characteristics - desire to create, curiosity, etc.
An aspect of nature and the universe that has lacks any anthropomorphic qualities is just that - an aspect of nature and the universe.
I am an a-theist because I do not believe in a deity with a personality. As I've said.
A billion times.
perhaps the billion and oneth time will be fruitful.
You do not believe in a deity with a personality. I am inclined to believe this as well. But is that what atheist means "I reject that a God with a personality exists?" Is atheism that restricted?
Yes.
Huh. I guess that means that I am an atheist who believes in God.
See, now it looks like the tables have turned. I shall argue that being an atheist means not believing in God. Your specific conception of atheism is so far removed from the atheism of 99% if atheists that you are being dishonest.
I think you are not conceiving of atheism, and more specifically the manner in which atheists arrive at their beliefs and base other beliefs upon them, properly.
The concept of Being is not inherently abhorrent to an atheist, although they may disagree with the metaphysics that lead to it, or metaphysics in general. Many atheists support an epistemology (knowingly or not) that conceives of very harsh limits on human understanding, specifically our capacity to meaningfully understand or interpret the universe on a "metaphysical" level, since we are part of it.
To them, a question like "what is existence?" is impossible to answer, because our means of investigating or conceiving of that question (or its answer) are limited as physical beings with specifically evolved brains which interact with "reality" in a severely mediated fashion.
Similarly, any conclusions reached from that question are empty because they operate on the assumption that we can have any kind of understanding of existence. They propose that we should try our best, but it's most likely (or will for a long time be) a brute fact, and we should get on with our lives.
But that's just one possible set of beliefs.
Looking specifically at the thread, there are two contentious issues:
1) Is Being a valid concept?
2) If so, does Being necessarily fulfill the definition of God?
We have already gone over number (1) several times, and I think it's at least possible that it is a valid concept; it's also at least an interesting one to discuss.
(2) however seems to remain unclear. Again, there are several issues within it:
a) Are the three omnis really applicable to Being?
Several posters, including me, have argued that they are not. It seems disingenuous to apply those terms to Being and say they make it into God, because the manner in which they are applied to God is very different. Here is a key point.
The manner in which the definition of God is applied to specific religious gods is the thing to which atheists object. This includes omnipotence as active, direct intervention; it includes knowledge and mind and personality as aspects of omniscience (which are themselves conflicting); it does not necessarily include omnipresence because one could argue that many things are potentially omnipresent even as a physicalist. Any God that is proposed to exist or "exist" in this fashion is rejected.
The manner in which the definition of God becomes applied to Being is different. You might argue this, but clearly it is the case for most people. That form of definition, if an atheist accepts Being as a valid concept, is not objectionable because it does not match the concept of God to which an atheist objects. It does not have the attributes of God in the way that God is conceived of having them. As such, you change the goalposts, and the atheist no longer objects based on his atheism. He may object based on his other ontological beliefs, of course.
b) Is God really only omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence?
A form of the same key issue: the way in which Being is defined as God is different from the way a god is defined as God.
This comes back to the question of mindfulness, which I raised earlier. Clearly, God does not have a mind in the traditional sense, in any religious conception; he is conceived of as existing outside of the physical universe in some fashion.
Perhaps a better word, then, is simply "life."
By your definition of Being, Being is not alive. It is no more alive than gravity. There is nothing to make anyone believe that it is alive.
Words obviously cannot properly convey whatever a God would possess in its "mind," but personality, intent, consciousness, thought - on some grand, incomprehensible scale, these are fundamentally necessary to God. To be a personal God, God must be a person. Perhaps that is the best word. God must be a person. Being is in no way a person.
Thus we come to
c) Religious, theistic claims beyond the philosophical ground upon which Being is proposed.
A Being which can act, which can intervene, which is alive, which is mindful, which is a person, which is personal - these things have no philosophical basis from which to argue. Being, at least, has some kind of philosophical tradition and logic behind it. The other qualities, which are essential to the concept of God, can only be supported by the same tired theistic arguments that have been spurted forth in religion threads immemorial.
If you remove those qualities, and if you define the qualities of Being in the way that you have instead of the more traditional way of seeing God, you no longer have God. You have a proposition about reality, one which has little or nothing to do with religion, and thus an atheist will examine it and take or leave it based on its merits in his own ontological framework; it no longer has anything to do with his atheism.
Evil Multifarious on
0
Options
Podlyyou unzipped me! it's all coming back! i don't like it!Registered Userregular
edited May 2009
Mike, I would urge you not to make asinine " have you even read the thread? and then make arguments for which I have already presented counter-arguments.
What they aren't is substantiated by anything resembling the Ontological argument.
Being is a perfect being, and, as absolute presence, is greater than anything else which can be thought. This is the definition of the metaphysical god of the ontological argument.
Being did not make anything.
Well now you are arguing about cause. That has not much at all to do with the ontological argument. There is no way to know whether or not Being itself could be the first cause. Being does seem to be prior to any being that could be, however, and could possibly be argued as a first cause.
Being is not omniscient because being does not have a mind with which to store knowledge.
As I've mentioned before, Being is not mindful, and yet nevertheless Being IS truth. Something is true only insofar that it is the being itself. I argue that our construction of omniscience is lacking and faulty.
Being is perfect but that's not saying much, as Being is that which must be perfect from the definition of the words.
Again, as I've argued before, Being could be imperfect, if you want to argue for a non-univocal Being. This would be something like the being of a real platonic simulacra.
Being is not "wholly good" in any meaningful sense of the words, because Being is expressed in as much (from a human perspective) horror, suffering, and evil than in things we see as good.
Good point. I would argue, however, that Being itself is none of those things.
Mike, I would urge you not to make asinine " have you even read the thread? and then make arguments for which I have already presented counter-arguments.
You have not provided any satisfactory counter-arguments.
Being is a perfect being, and, as absolute presence, is greater than anything else which can be thought. This is the definition of the metaphysical god of the ontological argument.
But it's not the definition of God you put forth just now. Sorry.
Well now you are arguing about cause. That has not much at all to do with the ontological argument. There is no way to know whether or not Being itself could be the first cause. Being does seem to be prior to any being that could be, however, and could possibly be argued as a first cause.
No, I'm saying it didn't "create" anything. That's not the same as saying it wasn't the first cause.
As I've mentioned before, Being is not mindful, and yet nevertheless Being IS truth. Something is true only insofar that it is the being itself. I argue that our construction of omniscience is lacking and faulty.
I rejected this argument before and I reject it again, now. This amounts to hand-waving and spiritual wankery.
Again, as I've argued before, Being could be imperfect, if you want to argue for a non-univocal Being. This would be something like the being of a real platonic simulacra.
You're not arguing that being is imperfect, so how does your previous argument relate?
Good point. I would argue, however, that Being itself is none of those things.
If you remove it from the expression of it, you are left with a completely impotent concept.
In all religions, God or gods display human characteristics. Even the theist god, which creates and then observes without interfering, embodies human characteristics - desire to create, curiosity, etc.
An aspect of nature and the universe that has lacks any anthropomorphic qualities is just that - an aspect of nature and the universe.
Except it can be the case that one maintains the position that Nature is God.
It is not the case that in "all religions" god or gods display human characteristics.
In all religions, God or gods display human characteristics. Even the theist god, which creates and then observes without interfering, embodies human characteristics - desire to create, curiosity, etc.
An aspect of nature and the universe that has lacks any anthropomorphic qualities is just that - an aspect of nature and the universe.
Except it can be the case that one maintains the position that Nature is God.
It is not the case that in "all religions" god or gods display human characteristics.
An atheist would have no objections to stating the existence of God, if Nature is God.
They would simply object to the definition or semantics of it, and say that "God" isn't a very good word for it. But they wouldn't be particularly incensed or concerned.
In all religions, God or gods display human characteristics. Even the theist god, which creates and then observes without interfering, embodies human characteristics - desire to create, curiosity, etc.
An aspect of nature and the universe that has lacks any anthropomorphic qualities is just that - an aspect of nature and the universe.
Except it can be the case that one maintains the position that Nature is God.
It is not the case that in "all religions" god or gods display human characteristics.
An atheist would have no objections to stating the existence of God, if Nature is God.
They would simply object to the definition or semantics of it, and say that "God" isn't a very good word for it. But they wouldn't be particularly incensed or concerned.
Why would an atheist care about the word used?
I can understand taking an aversion to a notion of a creator-being who is a very big person and so cares about the mundane aspects of one's life and offers eternal existance after death provided that one hate fags. What I do not understand is why one would feel compelled to say "Nature cannot be God!"
It makes sense to hate some things which do not behoove society. But why care about Spinozists or argue with them over semantics?
In all religions, God or gods display human characteristics. Even the theist god, which creates and then observes without interfering, embodies human characteristics - desire to create, curiosity, etc.
An aspect of nature and the universe that has lacks any anthropomorphic qualities is just that - an aspect of nature and the universe.
Except it can be the case that one maintains the position that Nature is God.
It is not the case that in "all religions" god or gods display human characteristics.
An atheist would have no objections to stating the existence of God, if Nature is God.
They would simply object to the definition or semantics of it, and say that "God" isn't a very good word for it. But they wouldn't be particularly incensed or concerned.
Why would an atheist care about the word used?
I can understand taking an aversion to a notion of a creator-being who is a very big person and so cares about the mundane aspects of one's life and offers eternal existance after death provided that one hate fags. What I do not understand is why one would feel compelled to say "Nature cannot be God!"
It makes sense to hate some things which do not behoove society. But why care about Spinozists or argue with them over semantics?
Because atheists, being human, carry conceptual baggage about words and terminology. God is a loaded term. As I said, most atheists will not fry into a frothing rage over word choice, but there are certain concepts attached to the word "God" - things like worship - which are innately unappealing.
Again, "god" also carries the insinuation of life/personhood/mindfulness very strongly, which Nature hopefully doesn't have. Otherwise we are living in a Lovecraftian nightmare.
In all religions, God or gods display human characteristics. Even the theist god, which creates and then observes without interfering, embodies human characteristics - desire to create, curiosity, etc.
An aspect of nature and the universe that has lacks any anthropomorphic qualities is just that - an aspect of nature and the universe.
Except it can be the case that one maintains the position that Nature is God.
It is not the case that in "all religions" god or gods display human characteristics.
An atheist would have no objections to stating the existence of God, if Nature is God.
They would simply object to the definition or semantics of it, and say that "God" isn't a very good word for it. But they wouldn't be particularly incensed or concerned.
An atheist would say, "It's weird that you need two words for 'Nature'."
Saying that your idea of "Being" is God is sort of like saying that the second law of thermodynamics is God: it might make consistent sense, but only if you redefine the terms of debate to the point where they would be unrecognizable to the majority of people who already use them.
Posts
But what Poldy has been trying to say, I think, and what I am saying is as follows:
"You deny all Gods because you do not believe in one particular type of God. That is problematic."
Think of it this way: There are a great many types of dog. Your statement, in terms of dogs, is "I do not like dogs because I do not like Golden Retrievers."
One's God need not have a personality. One's God need not be an invisible man in the sky.
"I do not believe in a deity with a personality."
Ok, cool. Do you believe in a deity which does not have a personality? Do you believe in Being? Do you believe in That Than Which A Greater Cannot Be Thought?
Possibly "the multiverse".
But Being would be the same in a multiverse, as I argued with CptH. Being would "presence" and sustain all beings in all possible universes.
That would be Spinoza's answer, yes.
That Than Which A Greater Cannot Be Thought would be That Than Which A Greater Cannot Be Thought. One has to understand the terms. If one hears "That Than Which A Greater Cannot Be Thought" and their question is, "Ok...so...is it purple?" I think one has fundamentally missed the point of the conversation.
We are not talking about the particular predicates applicable to the thing. We are discussing the ontological status of the thing. That Than Which A Greater Cannot Be Thought is the thing than which a greater cannot be thought; the greatest thing.
We're not talking about purpleness. We're not talking about its personality or lack thereof. We're not talking about its intentions. We're simply talking about THAT THAN WHICH A GREATER CANNOT BE THOUGHT.
Ignore predicates. Just talk about the ontological status of the thing.
The problem is that the idea of a personality is so intrinsicly a part of what "God" means that this is like criticising someone for saying they don't believe in vampires when what they actually don't believe in are undead bloodsucking monsters. If you take away those properties you'd really be better off using another word to ease confusion.
Huh. I guess that means that I am an atheist who believes in God.
See, now it looks like the tables have turned. I shall argue that being an atheist means not believing in God. Your specific conception of atheism is so far removed from the atheism of 99% if atheists that you are being dishonest.
If you believe in God you are not an atheist. End of story.
Not really. Perhaps "God" in a Christian society...but we are not talking about cultural understandings. We are talking about the thing in itself.
When one engages in philosophical conversation one must be open to the possibility that the terms used do not necessarily mean what one thinks they mean. If one reads Spinoza thinking of "God" as some man in the sky one will be fundamentally confused. This is not the fault of Spinoza. This is the fault of the reader who brought its own pre-conceptions into the conversation.
"God" is a placeholder term. It does not, inherently, mean anything. One needs to engage the term and its meanings as they are understood within the conversation rather than bring other understandings into the conversation.
Also, Mikeman? Could you stop being a dismissive twat and be accomodating towards questions and provide answers when you have answers to provide? It would really behoove the conversation. Sure, you could reply "Have your read teh thread cocksdicksolol" when one asks a question. But it is far more beneficial and far less words to simply answer the damn question with a "yes" or "no".
But you just said that atheism is restricted to not believing in a god with a personality. I do not believe in a good with a personality. That would mean that I am an atheist. Yet, nevertheless, I believe in God.
And yet nevertheless I believe in one God, father the almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all that is seen and unseen. I believe in a singular being that is omnipresent, omniscient, perfect, infinite, and wholly good.
What the hell do I believe in? Please, Mike, you seem to know my beliefs far better than I do. Tell me.
It is kinda Spinoza's fault for using a word that already has a meaning, rather than inventing his own term. If I, in a philosophical discussion, were to start referring to something different from the standard meaning of whisky (an alcoholic beverage) as whisky then I must take some of the blame when people take their own preconceptions about what the word whisky means and apply that to what I'm saying.
I LOVE it when atheists make this move. Atheists deny the existance of God but then have very dogmatic understandings of what constitutes God. It's so cute.
My God does not have a personality either, Mikeman. But there is a God; That Than Which A Greater Cannot Be Thought. There is a God in the Spinozistic sense, I would contend. But this God has no personality, no intention.
Why do you claim that God must have a personality? Does the Universe have a personality? Does Being have a personality?
@WotanAnubis: "God" does not have a strict and rigid meaning. God for Christians, Spinozists, Platonists, Pagans, etc. all have different connotations. "God" can have a meaning within a particular context, but to say that Mormons, Spinozists, and the Greeks all mean the same thing when they say "God" is, said simply, moronic.
That is my claim. When Spinoza says "God" and when a Greek says "God" they mean vastly different things. It's the difference between Zeus and Jehova and Reality.
I'm not being dismissive. Read the thread before you post in it.
Usually one says at the beginning of one's text "By 'God' I understand ________________" and, so, explains one's use of the term. Sure, one could be an asshole and say "But when I said 'whisky' I meant 'whales' and I just never told you, huyuck." But that is not what one does in civilized conversations.
Some philosophers do create new terms (Heidegger). But that usually ends up being more confusing. So, instead of that sort of confusion others opt to use terms such as "God" and then explain what they mean by that term.
FYI, when Spinoza says "God" he means "Nature". He explains this. So it is fine.
I sort of wonder, at this point, if Mikeman believes in nature. If so he could stop being an atheist if he just read Spinoza.
I'm not trying to be condescending. it is just very odd that an atheist would have so rigid a definition for God. If they do not believe...why would they care?
You believe in "God."
You do not believe in just "Being."
You are not an atheist.
Any other type of deity, well then we're just talking about Spinozean concepts of nature and monism. And fundamentally I have no problem with that. Just like I have no problem with Einstein's God. It's just another way of describing the relationships that exist in the universe.
Such a being is not "God." "God" means a certain thing, and is loaded with preconceptions. Nature deserves no worship.
I do not deny that there are preconceptions associated with certain terms. What I deny is that one is incapable of ridding one's self of those preconceptions.
And, sure, one could stop using the word "God" and rather talk about "X" where "X" is "that than which a greater cannot be thought" and "nature" and "the unmoved mover".
But I take it to be the case that we are intelligent enough to not have to resort to analytic bullshit of replacing words with variables in equations. I think we can have a conversation and be accomodating such that when one says "god" we can understand what they understand the term to use given that they have explained their self clearly.
I do not think that Poldy means Christian God. I do not think that I mean Christian God. So, what's the problem? We're talking about Being and That Than Which A Greater Cannot be Thought. No beards. No plagues.
What's the problem? Does God have to have a beard and plagues?
Who said so?
No, that argument is circular. "The tallest dog in Manila must be tall" is true only if "the tallest dog in Manila" refers to something which can be tall. "That than which a greater cannot be thought must exist" is true only if "that than which a greater cannot be thought" refers to something which can exist. You can't use that as proof that it can exist.
I was ok with a few of your sentences, then you made me sad.
Neither of us want a God with a personality. That's fine. But then you go off on these weird tangents of "Unmoved movers without personality are not 'god'." And I would like to know why you make that claim.
Sorry man. If things were as simple as you're making them I wouldn't even be here. There's nothing to argue against if everyone's just singing kumbaya and talking about being one with the universe.
Pods specifically stated that the "Being" he is talking about is compatible with the Scholastic conception of God within the Judeo-Christian tradition.
Seriously. It'll only take you 10 minutes, depending on how fast a reader you are. Just please read before jumping in here like you have some grand point to make.
An aspect of nature and the universe that has lacks any anthropomorphic qualities is just that - an aspect of nature and the universe.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
I think you are not conceiving of atheism, and more specifically the manner in which atheists arrive at their beliefs and base other beliefs upon them, properly.
The concept of Being is not inherently abhorrent to an atheist, although they may disagree with the metaphysics that lead to it, or metaphysics in general. Many atheists support an epistemology (knowingly or not) that conceives of very harsh limits on human understanding, specifically our capacity to meaningfully understand or interpret the universe on a "metaphysical" level, since we are part of it.
To them, a question like "what is existence?" is impossible to answer, because our means of investigating or conceiving of that question (or its answer) are limited as physical beings with specifically evolved brains which interact with "reality" in a severely mediated fashion.
Similarly, any conclusions reached from that question are empty because they operate on the assumption that we can have any kind of understanding of existence. They propose that we should try our best, but it's most likely (or will for a long time be) a brute fact, and we should get on with our lives.
But that's just one possible set of beliefs.
Looking specifically at the thread, there are two contentious issues:
1) Is Being a valid concept?
2) If so, does Being necessarily fulfill the definition of God?
We have already gone over number (1) several times, and I think it's at least possible that it is a valid concept; it's also at least an interesting one to discuss.
(2) however seems to remain unclear. Again, there are several issues within it:
a) Are the three omnis really applicable to Being?
Several posters, including me, have argued that they are not. It seems disingenuous to apply those terms to Being and say they make it into God, because the manner in which they are applied to God is very different. Here is a key point.
The manner in which the definition of God is applied to specific religious gods is the thing to which atheists object. This includes omnipotence as active, direct intervention; it includes knowledge and mind and personality as aspects of omniscience (which are themselves conflicting); it does not necessarily include omnipresence because one could argue that many things are potentially omnipresent even as a physicalist. Any God that is proposed to exist or "exist" in this fashion is rejected.
The manner in which the definition of God becomes applied to Being is different. You might argue this, but clearly it is the case for most people. That form of definition, if an atheist accepts Being as a valid concept, is not objectionable because it does not match the concept of God to which an atheist objects. It does not have the attributes of God in the way that God is conceived of having them. As such, you change the goalposts, and the atheist no longer objects based on his atheism. He may object based on his other ontological beliefs, of course.
b) Is God really only omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence?
A form of the same key issue: the way in which Being is defined as God is different from the way a god is defined as God.
This comes back to the question of mindfulness, which I raised earlier. Clearly, God does not have a mind in the traditional sense, in any religious conception; he is conceived of as existing outside of the physical universe in some fashion.
Perhaps a better word, then, is simply "life."
By your definition of Being, Being is not alive. It is no more alive than gravity. There is nothing to make anyone believe that it is alive.
Words obviously cannot properly convey whatever a God would possess in its "mind," but personality, intent, consciousness, thought - on some grand, incomprehensible scale, these are fundamentally necessary to God. To be a personal God, God must be a person. Perhaps that is the best word. God must be a person. Being is in no way a person.
Thus we come to
c) Religious, theistic claims beyond the philosophical ground upon which Being is proposed.
A Being which can act, which can intervene, which is alive, which is mindful, which is a person, which is personal - these things have no philosophical basis from which to argue. Being, at least, has some kind of philosophical tradition and logic behind it. The other qualities, which are essential to the concept of God, can only be supported by the same tired theistic arguments that have been spurted forth in religion threads immemorial.
If you remove those qualities, and if you define the qualities of Being in the way that you have instead of the more traditional way of seeing God, you no longer have God. You have a proposition about reality, one which has little or nothing to do with religion, and thus an atheist will examine it and take or leave it based on its merits in his own ontological framework; it no longer has anything to do with his atheism.
Being is a perfect being, and, as absolute presence, is greater than anything else which can be thought. This is the definition of the metaphysical god of the ontological argument.
Well now you are arguing about cause. That has not much at all to do with the ontological argument. There is no way to know whether or not Being itself could be the first cause. Being does seem to be prior to any being that could be, however, and could possibly be argued as a first cause.
As I've mentioned before, Being is not mindful, and yet nevertheless Being IS truth. Something is true only insofar that it is the being itself. I argue that our construction of omniscience is lacking and faulty.
Again, as I've argued before, Being could be imperfect, if you want to argue for a non-univocal Being. This would be something like the being of a real platonic simulacra.
Good point. I would argue, however, that Being itself is none of those things.
But it's not the definition of God you put forth just now. Sorry.
No, I'm saying it didn't "create" anything. That's not the same as saying it wasn't the first cause.
I rejected this argument before and I reject it again, now. This amounts to hand-waving and spiritual wankery.
You're not arguing that being is imperfect, so how does your previous argument relate?
If you remove it from the expression of it, you are left with a completely impotent concept.
Except it can be the case that one maintains the position that Nature is God.
It is not the case that in "all religions" god or gods display human characteristics.
An atheist would have no objections to stating the existence of God, if Nature is God.
They would simply object to the definition or semantics of it, and say that "God" isn't a very good word for it. But they wouldn't be particularly incensed or concerned.
Why would an atheist care about the word used?
I can understand taking an aversion to a notion of a creator-being who is a very big person and so cares about the mundane aspects of one's life and offers eternal existance after death provided that one hate fags. What I do not understand is why one would feel compelled to say "Nature cannot be God!"
It makes sense to hate some things which do not behoove society. But why care about Spinozists or argue with them over semantics?
Because atheists, being human, carry conceptual baggage about words and terminology. God is a loaded term. As I said, most atheists will not fry into a frothing rage over word choice, but there are certain concepts attached to the word "God" - things like worship - which are innately unappealing.
Again, "god" also carries the insinuation of life/personhood/mindfulness very strongly, which Nature hopefully doesn't have. Otherwise we are living in a Lovecraftian nightmare.
An atheist would say, "It's weird that you need two words for 'Nature'."
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
It helps with equivocation.
And that one of the words you're using already means something else to everybody else in the world.
Right, but their understanding is incorrect. So it helps in that sense.
"You can still talk about 'god', but know that you mean 'nature'."