h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Noggin asked:
"what word do you think she *should* be using?"

How am I supposed to know?

Unfortunately, I don't have supernatural powers


stoneageman

Noggin, clever, but you're arguing semantics. Sorry, I just realized that sounds haughty and condescending. Really... How can I rephrase...
You debate my words rather than my concept. I suppose is a mite better, but as words are all we have, how can we help ourselves?
God embodies contradiction because, as I've said, no mortal rules can apply to a god. Ergo, if God, for any reason, wished to be subject to rules and regulation, he would be. The monotheistic god's existence is wreathed in the impossible; we say all things need a beginning, but this God had none. We say, if there is nothing God cannot do, then there is something God cannot do; fail. Every absolute is paradoxical, and they all both apply and do not apply, in their paradox, to a God figure. God-figures may indeed be bound by *something.* This something is, however, not something we could ever have contact with. Furthermore, this *something* is mere conjecture; it may exist not at all.

I ought to separate this instant the Monotheistic GOD from naturalistic gods. Naturalistic gods are quite often limited, have beginnings, ends. So to my argument, they do not apply.
Naturalistic gods are like Vampires. Sure, we CAN destroy them, but it's damn hard, and they're quite a bit not at all like us.

I've heard people compare the Human-God relationship with an Ant-human relationship, though this fails to highlight such a vast chasm of inequality. We cannot be anything remotely like god, and the ant has more in common with us than we with IT. The ant will never understand us; we can be applied to no ant-recognized laws or behaviours. Accept this - it's true.
We can, however, measure the ways we are different from ants. There would be no measurements possible between humanity and GOD. The imbalance would be infinite, and thus, indefinable, unfathomable, except as a sort of vague, monstrously limited, incorrect notion.
Now, perhaps this is a holdover from my previous Irish-Catholic upbringing, perhaps others feel that they may actually *relate* to god, though to suggest such at the churches I once attended would have been considered blasphemous.

The Atheistic Apatheologian

Apatheologian

>>Naturalistic gods are like Vampires. Sure, we CAN destroy them, but it's damn hard, and they're quite a bit not at all like us. <<

Why do you use the idea of a vampire? or, sorry, a Vampire?

Why do you believe that we CAN destroy gods? I'd love to know how you see it being done?

Jez - the interested

Apatheologian

>>I've heard people compare the Human-God relationship with an Ant-human relationship, though this fails to highlight such a vast chasm of inequality. We cannot be anything remotely like god, and the ant has more in common with us than we with IT. The ant will never understand us; we can be applied to no ant-recognized laws or behaviours. Accept this - it's true.

We can, however, measure the ways we are different from ants. There would be no measurements possible between humanity and GOD. The imbalance would be infinite, and thus, indefinable, <<

But this would be the whole point - if your analogy - which I don't personally accept, see my comments upon the cat analogy earlier - were to be true, then you have yourself shown that the imbalance between us and your version of god is NOT infinite, any more than that which exists between us and ants.

The ants cannot measure the distance between ants and humans - but humans can.

If your anaolgy is going to hold, then although we cannot measure the distance between ourselves and gods, they can.

Jez the polytheist - who is intrigued at everyone's definitions of gods, and is wondering what they are thinking about it
--

heathen t-shirt slogan...

WWLD...

Apatheologian:
"We cannot be anything remotely like god"

I was under the impression that we are 'like' god. I.e., man was created in God's image. God sent down his seed to Earth, fertilised a woman, and the 'son of God' was born, who happened to appear to be like other men. So God is just like us, but with supernatural powers.


stoneageman

"I've heard people compare the Human-God relationship with an Ant-human relationship, though this fails to highlight such a vast chasm of inequality. We cannot be anything remotely like god, and the ant has more in common with us than we with IT. The ant will never understand us; we can be applied to no ant-recognized laws or behaviours. Accept this - it's true.
We can, however, measure the ways we are different from ants. There would be no measurements possible between humanity and GOD. The imbalance would be infinite, and thus, indefinable, unfathomable, except as a sort of vague, monstrously limited, incorrect notion.
Now, perhaps this is a holdover from my previous Irish-Catholic upbringing, perhaps others feel that they may actually *relate* to god, though to suggest such at the churches I once attended would have been considered blasphemous."

I'd have to agree.

Toxx thanks for the brief.

Here's a thought (braces for back lash)

Assume for a moment that you had undeniable proof that god does not exist. So good that even emiseries such as the pope agree that god does not exist.

Would you publish?

I wouldn't. I've seen the succour that beleif gives to the needy. Anything that gives them strength is ok by me.

C of E? Cynics of England? (I am C of E on my birth cert in case you were thinking of casting stones at other faiths).

I still maintain my faith in a godless existance.

Noggin.



I think it is at least debatable whether the ball is in my court. After all, you are multiplying entities; namely: adding properties to the concept of the universe.

Doesn't physics even show that the time in the universe consists of quanta of the Planck time in duration. In fact, the whole of physics is predicated on a temporal and spatial universe; and it doesn't appear to be doing too badly. I think the same applies to 'eternal'. The eternal surely can't also be temporal - it's a contradiction!

You say that the mind/matter distinction is purely perceptual. So you don't even accept the coherence of the concept of God as a person without a body. A mind independent of matter.

Yes, it is a *conceptual* distinction, not a *perceptual* one; and one doesn't have to be a full-blown dualist to understand it. There are features of both matter and mind that we perceive: bodies and behaviour. There are also features we have to infer: subatomic structures and the motivations of behaviour.

If I put the knife in too deep you will say that they can't possibly interact. However, this makes a pure mind such as God *more* plausible, although I might have some explaining to do. I think it's a question of looking for the missing link, the common member of the sets if you like - or perhaps, more generally, in knowing where to draw the line in making the distinction.

toxx

Hi, Rider. That is a very unlikely eventuality. I can't even prove that unicorns don't exist! As you know, it's notoriously difficult to prove a negative existential proposition like that; and so easy to disprove, by just finding one somewhere!

Nevertheless, if it could be done - I would publish. Peer review and the efforts of the community would be needed even to establish that the proof I claimed was correct or, indeed, a load of cobblers. The moment we start to deny or surpress the truth, we are on a slippery slope to intellectual chaos!

I think I'm Methodist on my birth certificate. However, I went to C of E junior school, grammar school and as closely as is possible - university. I sat most of my finals in the ecumenical chapel!

toxx

Jez. I've been Googling around a bit. It seems that the commonalities between Heathenry and Christianity have not gone unobserved:

"Sometimes there is real religious yearning, and indeed the heroes of these poems are partly medieval hermits and ascetics as well as quick-striking fighters; but for the most part the Christian Providence is really only the heathen Wyrd under another name, and God and Christ are viewed in much the same way as the Anglo-Saxon kings, the objects of feudal allegiance which is sincere but rather self-assertive and worldly than humble or consecrated." http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Wyrd

toxx

Stoney.



There is a whole course in philosophical analysis in Noggin's question. I recommend you to think why he asks it and, perhaps, what your answer should/would be. I hope I would have replied in a similar way to Noggin if I had not been asleep at the time of your post.

toxx

toxx

Unfortunately, the written sagas you are probably having quoted here are all written down in the era when Christianity has influenced literate thought.

It is harder to work out what people before then actually beleived, as these commentaries are largely Christian.

Those of us who are researching the pre-Christian aspects of our religion have to hunt through the sagas, histories and eddas to work out what underlies the stories as well as looking at the face value.

it's difficult, but it encourages a critical turn of mind that you may just have glimpsed in the postings of both the heathens and druids on this thread

Jezreell - historian, folklorist, heathen (sceptic) and witch.

Ok, an even break.

God exists (for the "hell" of it). Man writes about God. Most powerful man (eg king) tells top advisers (church) to write about God.

You're one of the men (Sexist? Yes. But that is how things were then) chosen to write this prose.

Would you dare disappoint the king/bishop?

Don't forget, that many joined the faith in order to live (hard times, famine, war, persecution etc..).

Bite the hand that feeds you? Unlikely.

The point being, even if there is a god much that is written was originated by men with alterior motives. At best, a distorted truth. At worst, a downright lie.

Noggin, they are probably not the only ones to habe voiced the dead opinion.

Toxx, still haven't fully read the link, bot two things of note:

1 Kalams literal meaning,

All early thoughts would be recorded in spoken word or song and probably distorted ala chinese whispers syndrome. Another problem to add to the previous post.

2 Infinity.

Everyone searches to prove or disprove infinity. That is seeking to prove or disprove perfection. Perfection is (in my view) alomost impossible. Perhaps we should consider redefining infinity in terms of a set of rules.

Using numbers as an example;

A number perceived to be so large that,
It cannot be added to itself (Hmmm,first snag).

The addition of any smaller number will make so little difference to the sum that it can be considered to make relatively no difference. (Aw, aw).

A number so large that we have yet to devise a means by which it can be measured (any number which is not infinite may be considered as infinite until we are able to measure it.

It seems that even imperfection can be difficult to measure!

I don't beleive in infinity either! I see it as a matter of perspective, and that's the same with god.

It is mankind writting down gods rules and thinking. Since mankind has yet to prove god, how conceited that he lays claim to knowledge of gods thoughts.

Fair enough, Jez. I was just indicating that I was taking an interest. I did quote the quote and cite the source.

I appreciate your comments, and your difficult task. I do, however, wonder whether there are progressive schools of Heathenism as opposed to those who wish to delve into tradition. Not that the latter is at all a bad thing in itself.

toxx

Hi toxxin,

<>

This is where I'll have to say, sadly, that this looks like Argument from Authority, which is not a valid way to argue. I know that I have quoted from many people in my postings, but I hope that I have only done so to be able to say "I agree with what they expressed more eloquently than I could". Just because someone is quite intelligent about some things does not mean they can't also be wrong about other things!

To be honest, I'm having the same troubles with all these threads I've been involved with as I do when arguing these sorts of points with people I know at work etc: It all ends up seeming rather futile. I can't prove there is no god, all I can do is try to point out the fallacies and misapprehensions and outright nonsense contained within people's claims that there is a god, or that certain things are evidence for his "hand" in "creation". But none of this actually disproves the existence of god. To me, it shows that if all the arguments are flawed or just totally wrong, then there's no reason to believe in god, but this isn't going to change the mind of lots of people, and so in the end it's all a bit of a waste of time.

If people want to believe in god because they just believe it, then fair enough (with my usual caveats about the belief not affecting other people, which is of course rather difficult to achieve); but if they want to start trying to invoke scientific arguments to back it up, then they;re asking for trouble. Or we all end up just saying "Yes, well, that's a tricky point isn't it, the beginning of time/space/existence", which is what a scientist would say anyway.

M.

Hi Heathen,

<>

Actually, I think my argument is more like:

If you keep claiming that apples exist, but I've never seen them, or pears, and every time you try to prove to me that apples exist, you use arguments that are full of contradictions, or arguments that are illogical, then I would say that there is no reason for me to believe that pears exist. In fact, given the reputation that you would have built up for yourself, I would be entitled to view anything you said about these things I'd not seen as suspect.

M.

AM. Why do you think I made explicit that my remark was an aside. It was to point out that I wasn't arguing there, just trying to relate the conversation to your interests as a physicist.

I'm not aware that you've unequivocally pointed out any fallacy in the kalam. Do remind me if you have and I've missed it.

toxx

Hi Jez,

<>

You see, I can understand this type of god. It's basically just like a king, and the relationship is more human. I've always thought that the Greeks had a good set of ideas. The world is visibly full of bad things happening to good people, and good things happening, and fortuitous things happening, so why not have a bunch of capricious, powerful human-like beings running things, with a bit of luck thrown in. Sounds nice to me. It's not demonstrably true, though, which is why I would say none of it is actually true. But at least one can get a handle on it.

M.

Hiya outrider:

<<(I am C of E on my birth cert in case you were thinking of casting stones at other faiths).>>

Your supposed birth religion is on your birth certificate?!

I'm shocked (no, really!).

I agree with Dawkins on this matter, who says that this sort of child-labelling is equivalent to saying "Fascist Child" or "Keynesian Child".

Labelling religions on birth certificates cannot surely be right?

M.