the epistemology of god

[Advocate]

[quote=Iwannaplato post_id=625787 time=1677076013 user_id=3619]
[quote=Advocate post_id=625779 time=1677073822 user_id=15238]
Religious dieties tend to be personal gods so you can feel a relationship to them,[/quote]Ok, a personal god. To me that has different connotations than a god that is a person. People are homo sapians.

[quote] but something like "god is love" or "god is everything" or "god is physics" also exist, and those and impersonal forces. Or literally god is The Force.[/quote]If, for example, God is everything then God is not just a force or forces, God is also things. (If you want to go into qm and say that all matter is really forces, you wouldn't be thinking of the deity like believers do, except those that do. I think one could argue that some Hindus have a kind of forces model, but there are also experiential states for those versions of Vishnu, say). We generally do not think of forces as experiencers. Love is not (just) a force, but also a feeling and an attitude. I don't know many theists who say God is physics, but then God might be also math (for mathematical Platonists, which includes some percentage of physicists and many (significant mathematicians). and fields and particles and waves, which are not just forces.
[/quote]

You've given a perfect example of theology being about explaining the impossible in terms of the incredible.

[Iwannaplato]

You've given a perfect example of theology being about explaining the impossible in terms of the incredible.

No. You've given an example of avoiding the points made. You're categories were confused.
You just engaged in a red herring.

I wasn't explaining the impossible. I was explaining how people view their gods. And that is not impossible, in fact, it was you who produced th e list. IOW you're being either obtuse (conveniently) or disingenous. Neither a good trait for the best philosopher in the world. Nor ones that could be traits of such an entity.

And earlier you ignored the main focus of my post.

You wanna represent as a member of Team Rational against the irrational barbarians, you might want to actually be rational, instead of playing games. I don't know how much you're aware of these games, but they're right there in the thread.

[Advocate]

[quote=Iwannaplato post_id=625853 time=1677094927 user_id=3619]
[quote=Advocate post_id=625816 time=1677085998 user_id=15238]
You've given a perfect example of theology being about explaining the impossible in terms of the incredible.
[/quote]No. You've given an example of avoiding the points made. You're categories were confused.
You just engaged in a red herring.

I wasn't explaining the impossible. I was explaining how people view their gods. And that is not impossible, in fact, it was you who produced th e list. IOW you're being either obtuse (conveniently) or disingenous. Neither a good trait for the best philosopher in the world. Nor ones that could be traits of such an entity.

And earlier you ignored the main focus of my post.

You wanna represent as a member of Team Rational against the irrational barbarians, you might want to actually be rational, instead of playing games. I don't know how much you're aware of these games, but they're right there in the thread.
[/quote]

I need not engage the idea of god at all to be a better philosopher than anyone who does seriously. I offer an explanation that is consise, necessary, sufficient, and true. All versions of god Are either a person or a force, and a personal god is just an anthropomorphized force. It's always ineffable because if it weren't it could be known by replication. In short, get thee hence.

[Iwannaplato]

I need not engage the idea of god at all to be a better philosopher than anyone who does seriously

Irrelevant.

I offer an explanation that is consise, necessary, sufficient, and true.

I know you think your position is true. It's amazing when people label their arguments correct as if this is some new information.

All versions of god Are either a person or a force, and a personal god is just an anthropomorphized force. It's always ineffable because if it weren't it could be known by replication. In short, get thee hence.

and here you repeat points made already instead of responding to anything.

Back on ignore.

[Age]

>What is 'god', small 'g'?

The common attributes of all gods being an untestable force (or person) claimed to have real effects.

Okay, what is 'God', big 'G'?

>What is 'perfect certainty'?

That which is beyond potential refutation.

So, just 'that', which is irrefutable.

The closest we can get is the rules of logic which airways replicate.

I find it does not matter one iota what way we get to 'that', which is irrefutable. As long as 'it' is irrefutable, then, obviously, 'it' is irrefutable.

>Well LOL here is the FIRST MISTAKE.

There's no mistake. It only takes one exception to prove me wrong, and you haven't got any.

How would you KNOW if I have ANY or NONE?

Also, ANY and ALL exceptions prove you wrong.

Furthermore, are you under some illusion that you HAVE, or KNOW, of EVERY 'version' of 'god'?

LOOK, I will suggest to you that NOT ALL 'versions' of 'god' NOR of 'God' are either a force NOR a person.

Now, if you do NOT like to AGREE with this and ACCEPT this, then so be it. But, it will just be something ELSE that you are Wrong about here.

>If this is what you SAY and BELIEVE so, then 'this' IS what is true and right, correct?

I'm referencing evidence, or the lack thereof. You keep referencing personal opinion. These are not compatible conversation points.

What are you on about? I just asked you a VERY SIMPLE QUESTION. Look, I WILL ask 'it' AGAIN, If what you BELIEVE is true, then 'it' IS what is true and right, right?

Also, as for you referencing 'evidence', I USE ACTUAL IRREFUTABLE PROOF INSTEAD.

>are 'you' ABLE TO TELL us and EXPLAIN what this 'mind' 'thing' IS, EXACTLY, "advocate"?

Yes. Mind is a metaphor for the patterns in the brain. That is a necessary and sufficient definition for all use cases

But EVERY one I have asked has provided me with a DIFFERENT answer and/or response. So, which one of 'you' KNOWS, EXACTLY?

>And, can what is NOT YET PROVEN, for all intents and purposes, be INDISTINGUISHABLE from FICTION, for all intents and purposes, as well? Or, does this only work ONE WAY?

Until there is replicably evidence, Everything is indistinguishable from fiction.

I, AGAIN, much prefer to LOOK AT and USE ACTUAL PROOF, INSTEAD of just ANY old so-called 'evidence'.

For example, the sun revolves around the earth, as 'replicably evidenced' EVERY single day that a 'thing' has observed this phenomena. BUT, does the sun ACTUALLY revolve around the earth?

[Age]

The last two responses ignored the part about proof being sufficient for a given use-case. Proof sufficient for All actual purposes is available, not all potential purposes. Not all hypothetical imaginary purposes, just anything to do with reality. Proof is never ultimate certainty.

If 'proof', itself, is NEVER 'ultimate certainty', then what IS, EXACTLY? And, HOW IS so-called 'ultimate certainty' ACTUALLY OBTAINED or REACHED?

Nothing is ultimate certainty.

Is this an 'ultimate certainty'?

If yes, then WHY can what you CLAIM be an 'ultimate certainty'?

But, if no, then what you just CLAIMED here could be False, Wrong, and/or Incorrect, correct?

Knowledge is always and only sufficient for a given use case. However, the rules of logic always replicate so they can be indistinguishable from certainty.

[Age]

Religious dieties tend to be personal gods so you can feel a relationship to them,

Ok, a personal god. To me that has different connotations than a god that is a person. People are homo sapians.

but something like "god is love" or "god is everything" or "god is physics" also exist, and those and impersonal forces. Or literally god is The Force.

If, for example, God is everything then God is not just a force or forces, God is also things. (If you want to go into qm and say that all matter is really forces, you wouldn't be thinking of the deity like believers do, except those that do. I think one could argue that some Hindus have a kind of forces model, but there are also experiential states for those versions of Vishnu, say). We generally do not think of forces as experiencers. Love is not (just) a force, but also a feeling and an attitude. I don't know many theists who say God is physics, but then God might be also math (for mathematical Platonists, which includes some percentage of physicists and many (significant mathematicians). and fields and particles and waves, which are not just forces.

You've given a perfect example of theology being about explaining the impossible in terms of the incredible.

you were actually given perfect examples of OTHER 'version/s', which you 'tried to' CLAIM, previously, did NOT exist. Thus, my comment about your FIRST MISTAKE here STANDS. Also, the OTHER 'versions' provided here just now, which are examples of 'THE exceptions', proves, IRREFUTABLY, how and why you are/were Wrong here.

[Age]

You've given a perfect example of theology being about explaining the impossible in terms of the incredible.

No. You've given an example of avoiding the points made. You're categories were confused.
You just engaged in a red herring.

I wasn't explaining the impossible. I was explaining how people view their gods. And that is not impossible, in fact, it was you who produced th e list. IOW you're being either obtuse (conveniently) or disingenous. Neither a good trait for the best philosopher in the world. Nor ones that could be traits of such an entity.

And earlier you ignored the main focus of my post.

You wanna represent as a member of Team Rational against the irrational barbarians, you might want to actually be rational, instead of playing games. I don't know how much you're aware of these games, but they're right there in the thread.

I need not engage the idea of god at all to be a better philosopher than anyone who does seriously. I offer an explanation that is consise, necessary, sufficient, and true. All versions of god Are either a person or a force, and a personal god is just an anthropomorphized force. It's always ineffable because if it weren't it could be known by replication. In short, get thee hence.

But NOT ALL 'versions' of 'god' (nor 'God') are 'either a person or a force', and to ASSUME that ALL 'versions' are is just VERY SILLY, VERY IGNORANT, or just ANOTHER EXAMPLE of one when 'trying to' "justify" or 'validate' there already held position/belief.

[Iwannaplato]

Allahu Akbar!

I've always found that outcry and the similar ones from other religions very strange. Especially since it arose in completely religious environments. Like I sort of get it when one thinks one's religion is oppressed by some secular system or if you think people are forgetting God. Not saying I'd be shouting it, but I can sort of understand. But it seems so like screaming out that the local dictator is great. To show your are on board with their greatness.

Why in the world would a deity need to hear how great he is. It's virtue signaling.

[Age]

Allahu Akbar!

I've always found that outcry and the similar ones from other religions very strange. Especially since it arose in completely religious environments. Like I sort of get it when one thinks one's religion is oppressed by some secular system or if you think people are forgetting God. Not saying I'd be shouting it, but I can sort of understand. But it seems so like screaming out that the local dictator is great. To show your are on board with their greatness.

Why in the world would a deity need to hear how great he is. It's virtue signaling.

But WHY do some of 'you', human beings, think or even IMAGINE that a 'deity', like the one that sometimes God/Allah is said to be like, would, or even does, need to hear how great 'It' is?

Just because SOME people acknowledge SOME 'thing' in NO WAY infers that that 'thing' wants, let alone even needs, to hear what is being acknowledged by 'those', human beings.

[Agent Smith]

Allahu Akbar!

I've always found that outcry and the similar ones from other religions very strange. Especially since it arose in completely religious environments. Like I sort of get it when one thinks one's religion is oppressed by some secular system or if you think people are forgetting God. Not saying I'd be shouting it, but I can sort of understand. But it seems so like screaming out that the local dictator is great. To show your are on board with their greatness.

Why in the world would a deity need to hear how great he is. It's virtue signaling.

Very Hitchenesque. Good job! Requiescat in pace Christopher Hitchens (1944 - 2011) who wrote, in Engrabic/Arabiclish, Allahu Not Akbar!

[attofishpi]

Allahu Akbar!

I've always found that outcry and the similar ones from other religions very strange. Especially since it arose in completely religious environments. Like I sort of get it when one thinks one's religion is oppressed by some secular system or if you think people are forgetting God. Not saying I'd be shouting it, but I can sort of understand. But it seems so like screaming out that the local dictator is great. To show your are on board with their greatness.

Why in the world would a deity need to hear how great he is. It's virtue signaling.

Even some atheists scream a big Halleluja to God (when they climax)

[Iwannaplato]

Even some atheists scream a big Halleluja to God (when they climax)

And here's St. Teresa describing her religious ecstasy...

“I saw in his hand a long spear of gold, and at the iron’s point there seemed to be a little fire. He appeared to me to be thrusting it at times into my heart, and to pierce my very entrails; when he drew it out, he seemed to draw them out also, and to leave me all on fire with a great love of God. The pain was so great, that it made me moan; and yet so surpassing was the sweetness of this excessive pain, that I could not wish to be rid of it.”

[Advocate]

>Okay, what is 'God', big 'G'?

Same idea, beginning of sentence. There is no God.

>What is 'perfect certainty'?
>>That which is beyond potential refutation.
>>>So, just 'that', which is irrefutable.

Insofar as you have an effective epistemology, you can make meaningful predictions about whether refutation is possible. Any amount of certainty beyond that which is necessary for the use-case is indistinguishable from perfect.

>Furthermore, are you under some illusion that you HAVE, or KNOW, of EVERY 'version' of 'god'?

Exhaustively complete is not necessary for knowledge to be knowledge, but as mentioned, it only takes a single exception to prove me wrong, and there are none.

>>>are 'you' ABLE TO TELL us and EXPLAIN what this 'mind' 'thing' IS, EXACTLY, "advocate"?
>>Yes. Mind is a metaphor for the patterns in the brain. That is a necessary and sufficient definition for all use cases [/quote]
>But EVERY one I have asked has provided me with a DIFFERENT answer and/or response. So, which one of 'you' KNOWS, EXACTLY?

Try mine. If it ever fails to be adequate, dump it. But it never will.

[Advocate]

>Nothing is ultimate certainty.

>>Is this an 'ultimate certainty'?
>>If yes, then WHY can what you CLAIM be an 'ultimate certainty'?

It's certain enough for all intents and purposes. Nothing is ultimate in the way you, and most philosophers, try to approach. Knowledge is Always and Only sufficient for a certain use, and you can know That to be true because there's no Reason to gain additional information after there is sufficiency. Gaining information that isn't intended to be used would be epistemologically equivalent to arbitrary.