Logically rationalize God

[Subteigh]

I thought we already knew Buddha, Boudica, and William Shakespeare existed, while King Arthur and Robin Hood are definitely fictional. The rest of this is sensible.

We don't know for certain what century Buddha was born in or which century he died in (if you look at wikipedia for example, his suggested lifespan is about 80 years anywhere within a 163 year period.

With Boudica, we only know of her from Roman accounts: and even if she did exist, the Romans were not beyond inventing heroic enemies.

The view that William Shakespeare did not write his plays has been a notable view since his time, although I don't think people who think that tend to care argue that Bill himself never existed. But as has also been said, If William Shakespeare did not write his plays, then someone else named William Shakespeare did.

In the case of Buddha and Jesus (religious figures), it is simply meaningful to recognise that they have a philosophy and sayings attributed to them, many of which can be shown to have to have originated elsewhere (for example, Jesus in the New Testament has some lines that exist in Aesop's Fables, an earlier work). It is possible that the bones attributed to Buddha are actually his, and that splinters exist that the Christian Jesus was actually crucified on. But I see no way that this could be verified for certain.

With Boudica, I know to take the Roman accounts with a pinch of salt. With Shakespeare, I do not have any strong reason to doubt his existence.

When Joseph Smith claim to have a vision from the angel Moroni, and when Muhammad claimed to have a revelation from the angel Jibrīl, how truthful should we regard these accounts?

When Xenophon and Plato quote the sayings of Socrates, and refer to events in his life (e.g. fighting in a battle, or engaging in a symposium) to what extent can we be certain that Socrates actually existed? Xenophon and Plato have known inconsistencies, and some instances that are clear mythologising. Xenophon also writes that he was at the famous symposium, when he would have too young to have done so.

How easy is it for the Word to become flesh, for an ideal to later become a reality?

Consider for example in recent history, in the history of the United States the legends regarding Mother Goose, George "I cannot tell a lie" Washington, Paul Revere, Molly Pitcher, Betsy Ross, and Betty Crocker.

[Coeruleum Blue]

Just because issues aren't nearly-infinitely emotionally charged doesn't mean we can't find the truth about them. Religion is definitely something people get scared of simply thinking about, but a good God wouldn't and an infinite God couldn't punish people for correct reasoning so people shouldn't be scared. Shakespeare and Boudica are pretty close to religion in terms of how much people have emotionally invested in them since the meaning of life and eternal life don't mean much without more worldly experiences as a reference point.

Let's drink some anachronistic Shakespeare tea and carry on.

[Coeruleum Blue]

Xenophon also writes that he was at the famous symposium, when he would have too young to have done so.

TIL Socrates's Symposium was basically Woodstock for ancient Greeks.

[Subteigh]

Atheists believe that the the Universe exists because it exists and pass off this circular reasoning as being rational/logical while I as a Theist ( I can’t speak for all Theist or for deists) think it is foolishness and that they believe they are gambling with their life to not personally figure search out if they is a God.

I think instead of cherry picking history of a particular belief when both sides have no way of proving anything to one another, we should be tackling paradoxes that atheists think would arise if there was a God. I think this is a more productive conversation to have.

Personally, as an atheist, if I am being correct, I don't believe that "the Universe exists because it exists": it is better to say "the Universe exists; we don't know if the Universe had a cause or if it is eternal."

[Subteigh]

I thought we already knew Buddha, Boudica, and William Shakespeare existed, while King Arthur and Robin Hood are definitely fictional. The rest of this is sensible.

Also, in regards King Arthur: you cannot prove a negative (that he absolutely did not exist). Most likely, he was a mixture of two or more figures who may actually have existed, and may or may not have done the things attributed to them. (i.e. they themselves may have had historical and mythological aspects).

In the case of Robin Hood, regardless of his origin, he came to be adopted as a persona for various outlaws. (very much similar to the appropriation in recent times of Guy Fawkes via the use of masks by Anonymous people).

[Subteigh]

Like those rigged carnival games?

If I'm citing one of the greatest Roman historians, and you're denying that and citing bums like John Remsburg in response,

Like ya,

Fuck that shit I'm done lol, I just can't continue, this is a joke

Might as well quote Lord Voldemort or Dr. Evil from Austin Powers

You are attacking the man, but not the argument.

[Subteigh]

If something is widely agreed upon, has consequences, and has no reason to be put in dispute, it's probably true. The world is a globe, for example. Shakespeare existed and while there's a tiny chance he didn't write all his plays, the worst possible is someone else used him as a front to pitch their plays, which in light of his sonnets being recited by him in court seems impossible. Boudica is documented by Roman historians and her grave has been found. Are you really casting established history into doubt, Subteigh? Historical Jesus is much more contentious but he too was documented and seems to have said over half of what's attributed to him, though of course the many Christian sects have to mostly be wrong about him by default, and the Bible seems to be the work of Constantine.

Boudica's grave has not been found as far as I know, although there's a legend about her being buried at King's Cross.

[Coeruleum Blue]

Also, in regards King Arthur: you cannot prove a negative (that he absolutely did not exist).

I can prove he doesn't or does exist to the same extent grass isn't red, water isn't antifreeze, and I'm not a robot checking the boxes on sites. That's all extremely consequential information. Proving King Arthur's non/existence is a much more difficult task than checking my surroundings and not very consequential unless you're just obsessed with King Arthur or you have something at stake, but not impossible.

[Coeruleum Blue]

You are attacking the man, but not the argument.

Ethos is an important part of an argument, but he hasn't actually asserted the value of Roman historians and argued it's not a Roman legend so he can't attack "a bum" either. Being a bum still gives you a lot more ethos than fabricating entire Roman campaigns.

[Subteigh]

Just because issues aren't nearly-infinitely emotionally charged doesn't mean we can't find the truth about them. Religion is definitely something people get scared of simply thinking about, but a good God wouldn't and an infinite God couldn't punish people for correct reasoning so people shouldn't be scared. Shakespeare and Boudica are pretty close to religion in terms of how much people have emotionally invested in them since the meaning of life and eternal life don't mean much without more worldly experiences as a reference point.

Let's drink some anachronistic Shakespeare tea and carry on.

I mentioned Boudica and Shakepeare and a host of other such names because I thought it would help people appreciate that people will differ in which figures they regard as being surely historical (and in regard to what details e.g. "who wrote Shakespeare's plays?"), and which figures they regard as important.

There are various myths about how ravens have been kept at the Tower of London, and how this came about. They are one of most iconic images of the Tower and Ye Olde England itself - also with the myth that if ravens were ever to leave the Tower, the Kingdom would surely fall. However, as far as can be determined, these raven myths essentially date to the 19th century and most likely developed after the 1845 publication of The Raven by Edgar Allan Poe.

[Subteigh]

Ethos is an important part of an argument, but he hasn't actually asserted the value of Roman historians and argued it's not a Roman legend so he can't attack "a bum" either. Being a bum still gives you a lot more ethos than fabricating entire Roman campaigns.

The Greek historian Herodotus is known as the Father of History (also the Father of Lies), and while his account is very important for informing us about his time period, it has details in that certainly did not happen. For example, if I recall, when the Persians invaded Athens, Herodotus tells us that they were held back by the intervention of Athena and Artemis.

Tacitus similarly often invokes the supernatural in his accounts - being a good Roman of his time, I do not mean Yahweh. Do Herodotus and Tacitus qualify as historians professionally, or simply because they wrote about their times, often with details that they experienced themselves, but also the hearsay and opinions of others (in some cases, it is not possible to determine any distinction)?

[Subteigh]

Ultimately what determines a philosopher is a scientific question

Does the meaning of words have any relevance to physical reality?

[Investigator]

Personally, as an atheist, if I am being correct, I don't believe that "the Universe exists because it exists": it is better to say "the Universe exists; we don't know if the Universe had a cause or if it is eternal."

I feel as if you are conflating atheism with agnosticism. The ultimate cause is the definition of God.

[Coeruleum Blue]

The Greek historian Herodotus is known as the Father of History (also the Father of Lies), and while his account is very important for informing us about his time period, it has details in that certainly did not happen. For example, if I recall, when the Persians invaded Athens, Herodotus tells us that they were held back by the intervention of Athena and Artemis.

Tacitus similarly often invokes the supernatural in his accounts - being a good Roman of his time, I do not mean Yahweh. Do Herodotus and Tacitus qualify as historians professionally, or simply because they wrote about their times, often with details that they experienced themselves, but also the hearsay and opinions of others (in some cases, it is not possible to determine any distinction)?

I was saying that Roman historians and propagandists have less ethos than lazy public intellectuals for you.

Being held back by the intervention of gods might have some meaning if he means the Greeks had superior knowledge and were lurking in the woods by moonlight with the deer and owls, but if he means Athena and Artemis showed up with weapons and magical creatures, yeah no. I kind of think the ancients genuinely couldn't distinguish between goddesses showing up and abstract concepts even when they witnessed it themselves though based on, for example, ancient "augury" for predicting if someone is still going to be home from the color of their carpet and the time of day.

[Coeruleum Blue]

I feel as if you are conflating atheism with agnosticism. The ultimate cause is the definition of God.

1. That argument only proves a deist God if you don't also prove revealed religion. Christians and Muslims have both used the same argument too.
2. The Universe can't be assumed to be fundamentally causal.
3. Even if the Universe has an ultimate cause and this can be proved, the ultimate cause doesn't necessarily meet the definition of a deity. We could logically live in a polytheistic world where even the gods are subject to random chance, or even a world with one God who is subject to random chance, or have an idea of fate rather than chance. Those ideas seem unlikely based on experience though, however a God subjected to fate is basically an argument for why various Abrahamic versions of God can't actually convert everyone.

I believe in a God, I'm a skeptic, and I don't believe the Universe is fundamentally causal. That's a rather standard viewpoint but you can't even argue with me. I don't think defining God as the ultimate cause as an axiom is convincing at all since it would reduce everything to a causal chain with no higher purpose or put acausal events beyond God.

[hatchback176]

Does the meaning of words have any relevance to physical reality?

Yes, I think it's easy to make the case that the language faculty and verbal memory set the context for actions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Langua...e_(philosophy)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heideg...#Ready-to-hand

Word orders generally fall into some permutation of subject-verb-object agreement. This can be adapted for observations, instructions, sequencing visual associations, and all the other stuff you'd expect from a speech stream coordinating inter-hemispheric transfers in the human brain.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subjec...E2%80%93object

[Subteigh]

I feel as if you are conflating atheism with agnosticism. The ultimate cause is the definition of God.

That is one definition of god. Most gods in history were not creators of worlds.

[Subteigh]

I was saying that Roman historians and propagandists have less ethos than lazy public intellectuals for you.

Being held back by the intervention of gods might have some meaning if he means the Greeks had superior knowledge and were lurking in the woods by moonlight with the deer and owls, but if he means Athena and Artemis showed up with weapons and magical creatures, yeah no. I kind of think the ancients genuinely couldn't distinguish between goddesses showing up and abstract concepts even when they witnessed it themselves though based on, for example, ancient "augury" for predicting if someone is still going to be home from the color of their carpet and the time of day.

I believe there is good evidence to think that the "intellectuals" in Ancient Greece as time went on increasingly saw the various gods and goddesses of the pantheon as ultimately being aspects of one god, notably Zeus (or maybe Chaos), because it was obvious to them that something could not come from nothing without some agency.

[Subteigh]

Yes, I think it's easy to make the case that the language faculty and verbal memory set the context for actions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Langua...e_(philosophy)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heideg...#Ready-to-hand

Word orders generally fall into some permutation of subject-verb-object agreement. This can be adapted for observations, instructions, sequencing visual associations, and all the other stuff you'd expect from a speech stream coordinating inter-hemispheric transfers in the human brain.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subjec...E2%80%93object

But words themselves are not matters of fact - they're merely substitute for pictures.

[hatchback176]

But words themselves are not matters of fact - they're merely substitute for pictures.

“In the case of naming, a task intentional mechanism will a priori increase the baseline activity of the lexical system so that when the actual stimulus is presented, there is facilitated and privileged access to word representations in order to rapidly and efficiently produce speech.

In the case of semantic categorization, there is no need for top-down signals associated with task intention to enhance speech-related representations. Instead, goal-directed activity will ‘push’ the sensory-driven processing of the incoming stimulus toward those semantic features that are relevant for deciding to which category the input belongs to, allowing us to categorize objects independently from the lexical information associated with that object (…)

Put differently, the intention to speak would change the manner in which we ‘perceive’ an object A and a word very early on compared to the visuo-conceptual processing of the same stimuli when the perceptual and/or semantic goals are different from those required for a speech act.”

(Strijkers, Front Psychol, 2011)

The lexical (word) system doesn't really operate autonomously. The larger language faculty uses it as part of a context-setting mechanism.

[Coeruleum Blue]

Actually, SOV word orders like Japanese and Turkish are much more cross-linguistically common, even though the most-spoken languages like English and Chinese have SVO word orders. Latin had an SOV word order and most Romance languages and all North Germanic languages are mostly SVO, but then West Germanic languages besides English (German and Dutch, really) and French both SVO and SOV regularly. VSO is also somewhat common and appears in languages like Gaelic as well as most "head-marking" languages, then VOS is uncommon, then OVS and OSV are extremely rare.

[Subteigh]

(Strijkers, Front Psychol, 2011)

The lexical (word) system doesn't really operate autonomously. The larger language faculty uses it as part of a context-setting mechanism.

Are you saying that the abstract world is the same as reality?

[Coeruleum Blue]

Are you saying that the abstract world is the same as reality?

I think he's saying exactly that. Linguistics attracts a lot of cranks despite having already produced major gains for people (such as generative grammar, which does actually help practical things like learning and translation.) I do think consciousness relies on language but there's a lot wrong with extrapolating from that to descriptions of reality being ontologically the same as reality. For one, there would be no counterfactual statements, and two, there would have to be an actual external narrator saying everything at all times.

[Coeruleum Blue]

I also think language is part of the physical world rather than vice versa. I got into a long debate with Noam Chomsky over that since Chomsky thinks language exists inside the brain independently of any external stimuli so that, say, English exists somewhere ethereally as a mathematical and logical entity without any sounds or symbols of any kind, and is a permutation of an equally-abstract "universal grammar." No wonder Chomsky himself says he's bad at other languages besides English, since he doesn't even know what a language is in order to speak or read one.

[hatchback176]

I'm saying I'm not worried about keeping up with the symbolic operations from philosophers.

[Coeruleum Blue]

I'm saying I'm not worried about keeping up with the symbolic operations from philosophers.

How is that different from what you're doing? Formal logic is better than whatever this is.

[hatchback176]

Did I limit the conversation to one action context or school of thought? Miss me with your bullshit.

[Coeruleum Blue]

Did I limit the conversation to one action context or school of thought? Miss me with your bullshit.

Symbolic operations, whether you mean it or not, is a technical term (an operation using a symbol, such as in arithmetic or symbolic logic) and sadly, I didn't think that symbolic logic was the only type of logic you were dismissing for a moment. You wanted to dismiss all formal reasoning and just threw a dart and hit a real term.

[hatchback176]

Symbolic operations, whether you mean it or not, is a technical term (an operation using a symbol, such as in arithmetic or symbolic logic) and sadly, I didn't think that symbolic logic was the only type of logic you were dismissing for a moment. You wanted to dismiss all formal reasoning and just threw a dart and hit a real term.

I don't need a lesson on mathematical logic and formalized theories from you. You can ask for clarification instead of jumping to conclusions as if my competence is in question.

[Coeruleum Blue]

I don't need a lesson on mathematical logic and formalized theories from you. You can ask for clarification instead of jumping to conclusions as if my competence is in question.

Don't worry. Your competence or lack thereof is out of the question.

[hatchback176]

1: to keep adequately informed or up-to-date
keep up on international affairs

2: to continue without interruption
rain kept up all night

3: to maintain contact or relations with someone
keep up with old friends

You were being disingenous to say I meant "keeping up" in the 1st dismissive sense of not caring to stay up-to-date.

"I'm not worried about maintaining contact or relations with philosophers [just because I explain some of their activities using Neuroscience or Cognitive Linguistics]".

[Coeruleum Blue]

One doesn't typically maintain contact with symbolic operations.

[hatchback176]

One doesn't typically maintain contact with symbolic operations.

I'm not taking your word on that.

[Investigator]

That is one definition of god. Most gods in history were not creators of worlds.

Pluralising God goes contradictory to the definition of God. Mystical beings called Gods are not Gods by definition. Anything with unexplainable powers/attributes would have to given the temporary title of God.

1. That argument only proves a deist God if you don't also prove revealed religion.
Christians and Muslims have both used the same argument too.
2. The Universe can't be assumed to be fundamentally causal.
3. Even if the Universe has an ultimate cause and this can be proved, the ultimate cause doesn't necessarily meet the definition of a deity. We could logically live in a polytheistic world where even the gods are subject to random chance, or even a world with one God who is subject to random chance, or have an idea of fate rather than chance. Those ideas seem unlikely based on experience though, however a God subjected to fate is basically an argument for why various Abrahamic versions of God can't actually convert everyone.

I believe in a God, I'm a skeptic, and I don't believe the Universe is fundamentally causal. That's a rather standard viewpoint but you can't even argue with me. I don't think defining God as the ultimate cause as an axiom is convincing at all since it would reduce everything to a causal chain with no higher purpose or put acausal events beyond God.

If you don’t think the Universe is fundamentally causal, I am interested to hear what your belief is and the reason/s behind it. Maybe there is something we agree on.

[End]

I believe in a God, I'm a skeptic, and I don't believe the Universe is fundamentally causal. That's a rather standard viewpoint but you can't even argue with me. I don't think defining God as the ultimate cause as an axiom is convincing at all since it would reduce everything to a causal chain with no higher purpose or put acausal events beyond God.

Ok then, name that God my dude. Note: It need not actually be "named" in the way most usually think of (eg. Jesus, Allah, Odin, Vishnu). It can be a concept, a philosophy, an idea, etc. What's yours? Hell, I'll settle for anything from you at this point. Spell it out for us all that we may bask in the radiance of your revelation of the ultimate truth you seem to have discovered.

As for the universe not being Causal, can I inquire as to what you are smoking and where I can attain a sample of it because dear lord that's gotta be some really, really good shit .

[End]

I think the God I'm trying to develop a relationship with, in his compassion, will understand that I can't buy into the trinity or the importance of jesus because a large handful of people have shaken their fingers and stressed it's importance, for the same reason I can't join a political organization just because it's supporters look at me disapprovingly or buy something from an infomercial because the host says I need it. Maybe with enough time, openness and prayer, and exposure, I'll get to that point.

Once again, the damned puritans ruin everything. It was/is important that you accept Jesus and the trinity in the end, but only a fool crams it down your throat forcefully with glee and joy (I admit I may be a bit guilty of that in this thread but I make mistakes too. I could have worded things far better and been more "gentile" in guiding souls towards the truth instead of getting carried away).

Smart political organizations actually would look at you in a disapproving light at first though. Part of their strict vetting process. I mean, most people nowadays can't even handle an offhand insult issued vaguely in their general direction. Societies need people to be able to handle at least that. That most, sadly, cannot, speaks volumes as to how far we've fallen .

[Subteigh]

Pluralising God goes contradictory to the definition of God. Mystical beings called Gods are not Gods by definition. Anything with unexplainable powers/attributes would have to given the temporary title of God.

What rule says that there can only be one creator of a thing, and that the ultimate cause must be "God"? First, you should make an observation, then you can make a definition.

[Coeruleum Blue]

What rule says that there can only be one creator of a thing, and that the ultimate cause must be "God"? First, you should make an observation, then you can make a definition.

He means Allfather Odin killed Ymir and created the clouds from his blood and the earth from his body, obviously.

While I'm trolling, the cosmological argument is rather vague.

[Coeruleum Blue]

Ok then, name that God my dude. Note: It need not actually be "named" in the way most usually think of (eg. Jesus, Allah, Odin, Vishnu). It can be a concept, a philosophy, an idea, etc. What's yours? Hell, I'll settle for anything from you at this point. Spell it out for us all that we may bask in the radiance of your revelation of the ultimate truth you seem to have discovered.

As for the universe not being Causal, can I inquire as to what you are smoking and where I can attain a sample of it because dear lord that's gotta be some really, really good shit .

So, you who condemned Boethius to die now want to claim his teachings as yours. Got it.

Or, you know, modern physics. I wouldn't recommend smoking pages of Warped Passages when you can just read them though.

[Subteigh]

If you don’t think the Universe is fundamentally causal, I am interested to hear what your belief is and the reason/s behind it. Maybe there is something we agree on.

For a start, there is no evidence that the universe is fundamentally causal. For me, I see no reason to make a conclusion about something which is indeterminable.