What should religion be based on?

Is there a God? If so, what is She like?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

raw_thought
Posts: 1636
Joined: Sat Mar 21, 2015 1:16 pm
Location: trapped inside a hominid skull

Re: What should religion be based on?

Post by raw_thought » Sun Dec 06, 2015 7:31 pm

Note that I said that IF ethical is part of your definition of God.

User avatar
Hobbes' Choice
Posts: 8363
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 11:45 am

Re: What should religion be based on?

Post by Hobbes' Choice » Sun Dec 06, 2015 9:13 pm

raw_thought wrote:Note that I said that IF ethical is part of your definition of God.

User avatar
Hobbes' Choice
Posts: 8363
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 11:45 am

Re: What should religion be based on?

Post by Hobbes' Choice » Sun Dec 06, 2015 9:14 pm

raw_thought wrote:Note that I said that IF ethical is part of your definition of God.
That's not relevant because I was pointing out YOUR confusion of ontology and epistemology.

raw_thought
Posts: 1636
Joined: Sat Mar 21, 2015 1:16 pm
Location: trapped inside a hominid skull

Re: What should religion be based on?

Post by raw_thought » Thu Dec 10, 2015 12:20 am

Hobbes' Choice wrote:
raw_thought wrote:I think we are confusing ontology with epistemology. There is no self contradiction in saying that God exists. * However,it is not resolved that God actually exists.
For example, if I say that unicorns have horns, I am not contradicting myself. If unicorns actually exist is an ontological question. It is easy to confuse epistemology with ontology.
* However, there is a contradiction if part of God's definition is to be ethical.Either God is not all powerful or God is not ethical. He cannot be both.
And here's where you are confusing the two. The contradiction between god not being ethical and god being all-powerful is an empirical observation based on the existence of evil and suffering.
However it is also a reflection on your personal understanding of what is not ethical. An all powerful god is perfectly capable of thinking evil and suffering is perfectly ethical.
And where do we disageee???
I said that only when one adopts a particular ethical system there is a contradiction.
You were the one confusing ontology with epistemology. To know if God exists or not is an ontological question. If we can presume certain ethical properties for God,is an epistemological question.

User avatar
Hobbes' Choice
Posts: 8363
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 11:45 am

Re: What should religion be based on?

Post by Hobbes' Choice » Thu Dec 10, 2015 1:04 am

raw_thought wrote:
Hobbes' Choice wrote:
raw_thought wrote:I think we are confusing ontology with epistemology. There is no self contradiction in saying that God exists. * However,it is not resolved that God actually exists.
For example, if I say that unicorns have horns, I am not contradicting myself. If unicorns actually exist is an ontological question. It is easy to confuse epistemology with ontology.
* However, there is a contradiction if part of God's definition is to be ethical.Either God is not all powerful or God is not ethical. He cannot be both.
And here's where you are confusing the two. The contradiction between god not being ethical and god being all-powerful is an empirical observation based on the existence of evil and suffering.
However it is also a reflection on your personal understanding of what is not ethical. An all powerful god is perfectly capable of thinking evil and suffering is perfectly ethical.
And where do we disageee???
I said that only when one adopts a particular ethical system there is a contradiction.
You were the one confusing ontology with epistemology. To know if God exists or not is an ontological question. If we can presume certain ethical properties for God,is an epistemological question.
No. You have this backwards.
Knowing if god exists or not is an empirical question and involves epistemology.
If you presume "god" exists it would be necessary to construct a set of qualities to play with that assertion and from there you can make statements about the resultant qualities. This would be a rational process, employing logic;
But you can play a game of ontology, but you might as well play a similar game about the Bugblatter beast of Trall.

I'll stick by my statement that god has no ontological status as god is not a 'being'; it is a fantasy. Epistemology is only obliquely relevant as we are not concerned with the details of the methods of knowledge. God is empirically absent; and the range of definitions used ontologically fail for rational reasons.
Last edited by Hobbes' Choice on Thu Dec 10, 2015 1:11 am, edited 1 time in total.

raw_thought
Posts: 1636
Joined: Sat Mar 21, 2015 1:16 pm
Location: trapped inside a hominid skull

Re: What should religion be based on?

Post by raw_thought » Thu Dec 10, 2015 1:08 am

Ontology studies what exists, and what does not exist. Therefore, if God exists is an ontological question. How we arrive at that knowledge * (or even if that knowledge is possible) is epistemology.
* If we arrive at that knowledge empirically is an epistemological question.

raw_thought
Posts: 1636
Joined: Sat Mar 21, 2015 1:16 pm
Location: trapped inside a hominid skull

Re: What should religion be based on?

Post by raw_thought » Thu Dec 10, 2015 1:11 am

I do not agree with the ontological argument for God's existence. However, that is superfluous. The point is that how we arrive at the knowledge that God exists or not is an epistemological question.

User avatar
Hobbes' Choice
Posts: 8363
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 11:45 am

Re: What should religion be based on?

Post by Hobbes' Choice » Thu Dec 10, 2015 1:13 am

raw_thought wrote:Ontology studies what exists, and what does not exist. Therefore, if God exists is an ontological question. How we arrive at that knowledge * (or even if that knowledge is possible) is epistemology.
* If we arrive at that knowledge empirically is an epistemological question.
No the existence of a thing is an empirical question. It's about evidence. Ontology is the way things exist; what is is to be. Epistemology is how we know.

raw_thought
Posts: 1636
Joined: Sat Mar 21, 2015 1:16 pm
Location: trapped inside a hominid skull

Re: What should religion be based on?

Post by raw_thought » Thu Dec 10, 2015 1:20 am

You just contradicted yourself!
Yes, Ontology is about what it means to exist. Epistemology is about how we collect evidence (empirically or otherwise).

User avatar
Hobbes' Choice
Posts: 8363
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 11:45 am

Re: What should religion be based on?

Post by Hobbes' Choice » Thu Dec 10, 2015 10:59 am

raw_thought wrote:You just contradicted yourself!.
SHow me where!

raw_thought
Posts: 1636
Joined: Sat Mar 21, 2015 1:16 pm
Location: trapped inside a hominid skull

Re: What should religion be based on?

Post by raw_thought » Fri Dec 11, 2015 4:12 pm

When one asks if a thing exists they are asking about its ontological status. If a person asks what can we know about that object they are asking an epistemological question.

raw_thought
Posts: 1636
Joined: Sat Mar 21, 2015 1:16 pm
Location: trapped inside a hominid skull

Re: What should religion be based on?

Post by raw_thought » Fri Dec 11, 2015 4:15 pm

“Ontology is the way things exist; what is[it]* is to be.”
Hobbes
In other words ( and your words) ontology is not about evidence or how we know something, it is about if something exists and what that means.

User avatar
Hobbes' Choice
Posts: 8363
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 11:45 am

Re: What should religion be based on?

Post by Hobbes' Choice » Fri Dec 11, 2015 6:25 pm

raw_thought wrote:“Ontology is the way things exist; what is[it]* is to be.”
Hobbes
In other words ( and your words) ontology is not about evidence or how we know something, it is about if something exists and what that means.
I really think you need to read and write more carefully.

raw_thought
Posts: 1636
Joined: Sat Mar 21, 2015 1:16 pm
Location: trapped inside a hominid skull

Re: What should religion be based on?

Post by raw_thought » Wed Dec 16, 2015 4:35 pm

You obviously have no reason to say that or you would have mentioned it.
When one states that Ontology is the way things exist, one is not describing how that knowledge can be obtained.

raw_thought
Posts: 1636
Joined: Sat Mar 21, 2015 1:16 pm
Location: trapped inside a hominid skull

Re: What should religion be based on?

Post by raw_thought » Wed Dec 16, 2015 5:07 pm

“Ontology is the philosophical study of the nature of being, becoming, existence, or reality, as well as the basic categories of being and their relations.’
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontology

[Epistemology]“It questions what knowledge is and how it can be acquired,”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology
I realize that you are concerned with semantics more than substance. But, I will occasionally let myself be bored when you are totally confused and participate in the conversation. You were wrong about “meaning” and “purpose” and you are now wrong about “epistemology” and “ontology”.
You confused the question “does God exist” with epistemology ( what evidence is legitimate etc) . In actual fact most theologians identify God with pure being http://www.ovrlnd.com/Apologetics/NatureOfGod.html
https://books.google.com/books?id=s7n7C ... ng&f=false
Anyway, I am not ( in this post) arguing for or against the existence of God or pure being. I am simply saying that the question “ does God exist” is ontological and definitely not empirical. Similarly, does existence exist, is not an empirical question.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests