How can you deny the possibility of God's existence until..

[Breathe]

So in other words, you are redefining something as "divine" and then using it as an argument for the existence of the divine.

Nope, this is a very common belief regarding the nature of God. The "Divine-mundane" dualism is not something found everywhere. It is you who is limiting what is Divine to something that is solely beyond the mundane instead of being both mundane and supramundane.

By this logic, I can prove that Smurfs are real, provided I redefine Smurf to include my television.

See, now you're just being plain old silly. What use is a reductio ad absurdum here, really?

Smurfs are already clearly defined. The same is not true when it comes to Divinity, except for in your opinion where the Divine is something utterly transcendent, dualist, and supramundane.
Secondly, there is no "redefining" being done here, this is just another view of God.

 

[Tiberius]

Nope, this is a very common belief regarding the nature of God. The "Divine-mundane" dualism is not something found everywhere. It is you who is limiting what is Divine to something that is solely beyond the mundane instead of being both mundane and supramundane.

The fact that lots of people decide that the divine is in nature does not make it so.

See, now you're just being plain old silly. What use is a reductio ad absurdum here, really?

Smurfs are already clearly defined. The same is not true when it comes to Divinity, except for in your opinion where the Divine is something utterly transcendent, dualist, and supramundane.

So it only works when the thing you are talking about is so vague and undefined as to be meaningless.

Secondly, there is no "redefining" being done here, this is just another view of God.

Yes there is redefining. You are taking something for which there is already a perfectly adequate word and then saying that it is now described by a new word.

 

[Breathe]

The fact that lots of people decide that the divine is in nature does not make it so.

And neither does that idea of lots of people deciding that the Divine is not in nature mean it is not.

Yes there is redefining. You are taking something for which there is already a perfectly adequate word and then saying that it is now described by a new word.

I'm so very sorry that my, and much of the world's (this being a standard belief in multiple religions), opinion on what God is does not match into your narrow-minded pigeonhole and caricature of the Divine. I really am. It must really suck for you.

 

[Quintessence]

I'm so very sorry that my, and much of the world's (this being a standard belief in multiple religions), opinion on what God is does not match into your narrow-minded pigeonhole and caricature of the Divine. I really am. It must really suck for you.

Oh, come on. The only correct god-concept is classical monotheism. All the rest of them are false gods. There's only one true god! Didn't you get that memo? Our silly heathen views are nonsensical, idolatrous, and irrelevant, so why should sir Tiberius take it seriously? It's rubbish!



Oh hey, your diagrams are cute by the way. Where are they from?

 

[The Sum of Awe]

OK, I make a clam that how can you deny the possibility of God's existence until you/science may search each tiny part of this universe ?

Even still would I not be satisfied enough to say God's existence is obsolete. We may explore every atom-sized area of the universe and still wouldn't find God until we see the universe as a whole and recognize there are no separations.

 

[Breathe]

Oh, come on. The only correct god-concept is classical monotheism. All the rest of them are false gods. There's only one true god! Didn't you get that memo? Our silly heathen views are nonsensical, idolatrous, and irrelevant, so why should sir Tiberius take it seriously? It's rubbish!

Of course, how could I forget that our views are irrelevant? :cover:

The sad thing is, if I'd read this anywhere else, without the facepalm, I could easily think it was a serious post. Poe's law is valid once more.
I don't know whether to laugh or cry at that.

Also, I feel as though it has been misinterpreted despite the diagram, too.

Oh hey, your diagrams are cute by the way. Where are they from?

Thanks; I don't know the guy but I like his diagram. He has made a few, which can be found here:
Neutral Monism

I found it a while ago, whilst trying to explain it to a person from abroad whose English wasn't great. How I ended up in a discussion of my conception of Divinity in that situation, I can't remember, other than they brought it up.

 

[averageJOE]

OK, I make a clam that how can you deny the possibility of God's existence until you/science may search each tiny part of this universe ?

Why would we have to search the entire universe for an omnipresent god? Unless god isn't omnipresent...

 

[chinu]

Why would we have to search the entire universe for an omnipresent god? Unless god isn't omnipresent...

Firstly search, than declare "He" is omnipresent or not.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Firstly search, than declare "He" is omnipresent or not.

Wouldn't you have to search everywhere before you could say that God is omnipresent? Maybe there's some corner of the uyou haven't checked where he isn't present.

 

[chinu]

Wouldn't you have to search everywhere before you could say that God is omnipresent? Maybe there's some corner of the uyou haven't checked where he isn't present.

In order to know the quantity of blood inside the body, doctor's need not take out the whole blood from the body, Just a drop is enough. isn't it ?
Similarly there's no need to search the whole universe and know "His" omnipresent-ness after searching where exactly "He" is

 

[The Neo Nerd]

In order to know the quantity of blood inside the body, doctor's need not take out the whole blood from the body, Just a drop is enough. isn't it ?

No it is not.

That would be like measuring the amount of water in the pacific ocean by taking only a bucketful.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

OK, I make a clam that how can you deny the possibility of God's existence until you/science may search each tiny part of this universe ?

I don't need to search each tiny part of this universe to understand that all human-imagined concepts of "god" are sufficiently and reasonably explained as a result of the vagaries of human psychology and sociology.

If I leave a 3-year old in a room with a bucket of ice cream, and come back 10 minutes later to find his face covered in ice cream, this is sufficiently explained by the rational assumption that the 3-year old got into the ice cream while you were away.

I may claim that aliens appeared in the room while you were gone, opened the ice cream, and spread it on the 3 year old's face. Do you think you'd need to search each tiny part of the universe to ensure that said aliens do not exist before accepting the explanation that the 3 year old got into the ice cream himself?

 

[Tiberius]

And neither does that idea of lots of people deciding that the Divine is not in nature mean it is not.

This is circular logic. You arbitrarily state that nature is divine, allowing you to claim that it is divine. Nature is important, yes, but there's absolutely zero evidence that there is some magical supernatural quality to it.

But I am willing to accept that I am wrong. Could you please define "divine" and show me how this definition of "divine" fits into some natural thing?

I'm so very sorry that my, and much of the world's (this being a standard belief in multiple religions), opinion on what God is does not match into your narrow-minded pigeonhole and caricature of the Divine. I really am. It must really suck for you.

Well, as I said, perhaps if you could provide a definition for "divine" it would make things easier.

 

[Quintessence]

This is circular logic. You arbitrarily state that nature is divine, allowing you to claim that it is divine. Nature is important, yes, but there's absolutely zero evidence that there is some magical supernatural quality to it.

I suggest you disentangle the idea of the supernatural from the idea of gods and deity because I think that may be what is causing some confusion here. God-concepts do not need to be supernatural. At its root, god-concepts are that which a person or culture deems worthy of worship. Typically, something is deemed worthy of worship because it is sacred, important, holy, valuable, awe-inspiring, sublime, and/or grand to the beholder. These qualities make that thing worthy celebration of honor; worthy of thankfulness; sometimes worthy of emulation. The specific qualities of the objects of worship vary wildly amongst the world's religions.

So let's understand this: classical monotheism is not theism. Not all gods are supernatural, not all gods are omnipresent, not all gods are omnibenevolent, not all gods are omniscient, not all gods are eternal, not all gods are transcendent, or whatever other qualities that tend to get associated with classical monotheism. I get that Western culture has been conditioned into thinking the one-god is the only thing worthy of worship and therefore the only thing that can be properly called a god, but locking yourself into a classical monotheist mindset of "god MUST be this, this and this" is a byproduct of monotheism's ideological dominance coupled with an ethnocentric mindset. I don't know about you, but I can't bring myself to pretend that other theisms don't exist or are invalid. If for no other reason, because it's painfully boring to limit discussion to classical monotheism. Painfully.

 

[Breathe]

But I am willing to accept that I am wrong. Could you please define "divine" and show me how this definition of "divine" fits into some natural thing?

I'll do it today when I'm back home as I must head out. Quint has put it pretty well though.

 

[Breathe]

Alright, I'm back now.

Nature is important, yes, but there's absolutely zero evidence that there is some magical supernatural quality to it.

This is your first issue; why does something that is divine require a magical, supernatural quality? This is a view is one that is only found in religions where God is wholly transcendent.

But I am willing to accept that I am wrong. Could you please define "divine"

道可道，
非常道。
名可名，
非常名。​

This should help.

and show me how this definition of "divine" fits into some natural thing?

See the previously mentioned part.

Your mistake is thinking that God requires a "supernatural" idea, or that God is some kind of wholly transcendent force, or that the "supernatural" or "divine" and the natural are somehow at odds with one another -- making a dualism between the mundane and the supernatural, the sacred and the profane. This is from an understanding of religion from a wholly "classic theist" lens. For many of us, there is no such thing.

God is not required to be wholly independent of creation and reality. God is not required to be a concept that is found only outside of the universe. Many religions believe God to be immanent and transcendent.

Your question of "define the divine" shows that your understanding of God is influenced by a more modern interpretation of what the divine is and caricatures of it that are used either to ridicule or to simplify a concept. In short, myth is being overlooked.

For many of us, God is not something that can be defined. It is something that can be experienced, but when one puts it to words, then they have made it something it is not.

 

[Tiberius]

Alright, I'm back now.

This is your first issue; why does something that is divine require a magical, supernatural quality? This is a view is one that is only found in religions where God is wholly transcendent.

A God who is not magical and/or supernatural doesn't really fit the standard definition of God though, does it?

道可道，
非常道。
名可名，
非常名。​

This should help.

Yeah, that tells me nothing.

Your mistake is thinking that God requires a "supernatural" idea, or that God is some kind of wholly transcendent force, or that the "supernatural" or "divine" and the natural are somehow at odds with one another -- making a dualism between the mundane and the supernatural, the sacred and the profane. This is from an understanding of religion from a wholly "classic theist" lens. For many of us, there is no such thing.

Then, my television fits the definition of a god. If you disagree, could you explain how my television could not possibly fit the definition of a god?

God is not required to be wholly independent of creation and reality. God is not required to be a concept that is found only outside of the universe. Many religions believe God to be immanent and transcendent.

Technobabble. To declare something as "transcendent" when that thing has not even been demonstrated to exist is meaningless.

Besides, didn't you just say that thinking of god as "some kind of wholly transcendent force" is a mistake? You certainly said it was a mistake when I said it, and yet now you are claiming that many religions believe this about God as a way to support your point?

Your question of "define the divine" shows that your understanding of God is influenced by a more modern interpretation of what the divine is and caricatures of it that are used either to ridicule or to simplify a concept. In short, myth is being overlooked.

And why should I consider mythology as a valid source of information about the real world?

For many of us, God is not something that can be defined. It is something that can be experienced, but when one puts it to words, then they have made it something it is not.

And the joy I get from watching TV similarly makes it a God. Makes it divine.

 

[McBell]

道可道，
非常道。
名可名，
非常名。​

Where you able to find the name of the road?
Or perhaps you give it your own name?

 

[Tiberius]

Where you able to find the name of the road?
Or perhaps you give it your own name?

I assume this is a translation...

 

[Quintessence]

A God who is not magical and/or supernatural doesn't really fit the standard definition of God though, does it?

I apologize, but what the $#@% is a "standard" definition of the gods?

Wait! Don't tell me!

*drum roll*

CLAAAAASICAL MONOTHEISM!



Someone bring me a fan... the ethnocentric aroma is stinking up the place something awful. I need to clear the air. While we're at it, can someone bring me a smudge stick or some incense too?