-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
"All Notions of Deity are Necessarily False"
- Thread starter Sunstone
- Start date
Not necessarily. I mean "deity" to be an inclusive term, rather than limited to personal gods alone.
Out of curiosity, why?
I am no atheist.
Liu
Well-Known Member
I disagree as well. While most notions probably are false (if only because many contradict each other) I don't see any reason why not at least one may be correct. I don't know which one - I believe in the one which currently makes most sense to me.
The only argument for your thesis which I could think of would be to assume that divinity is incomprehensible anyway, which would make any try to have a notion of it futile. But that assumption doesn't seem proven to me. And even if it were the case that the divine is incomprehensible then nevertheless notions of it may at least hold true for aspects of it.
The only argument for your thesis which I could think of would be to assume that divinity is incomprehensible anyway, which would make any try to have a notion of it futile. But that assumption doesn't seem proven to me. And even if it were the case that the divine is incomprehensible then nevertheless notions of it may at least hold true for aspects of it.
No. Quite a few are unsuitable to classification as either true or false, as a matter of fact.
Liu
Well-Known Member
@LuisDantas: Just for the record, may you provide one such example you deem typical?
Another argument against the thesis of this thread: There are notions of deity that are true by definition. To take one not too far from reality: If I define as a deity a concept that I venerate, without there being a need for that concept to exist anywhere but in my own mind, then my notion of that deity/concept would be necessarily true as long as I have it and venerate it.
One could however argue that this definition of deity (and by extension also the concept related to it) could be considered false if there are actual deities outside of oneself. But then this is merely semantics.
Another argument against the thesis of this thread: There are notions of deity that are true by definition. To take one not too far from reality: If I define as a deity a concept that I venerate, without there being a need for that concept to exist anywhere but in my own mind, then my notion of that deity/concept would be necessarily true as long as I have it and venerate it.
One could however argue that this definition of deity (and by extension also the concept related to it) could be considered false if there are actual deities outside of oneself. But then this is merely semantics.
BSM1
What? Me worry?
If you can define a Deity then you haven't, imho.
It seems to me that there exists two options:
- There is no deity, therefore "all notions of deity are necessarily false".
- Otherwise, at the very least one can view deity as ineffable.
How could they be "necessarily false"?
Where's the proof?
Where's the proof?
I tend to expect pretty much all non-Abrahamic beliefs not to obsess about whether their deities are true or false.
As I understand typical religious practice, it is not nearly so much worth considering whether the deity is real as it is whether it has an use in one's personal practice. Any deities are by definition real for those who believe in them.
In the sense that the maps ("notions") humans come up with of the territory are not the territory, there is some truth to the statement, but to call the maps "necessarily false" is as misleading as mistaking the map for the territory.
Without knowing the argument, I necessarily disbelieve.
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
In order to view something like a dieity as being true, I'd certainly would like to see just exactly what it is that actually makes it true.
Otherwise all such notions most certainly are false without doubt until something happens that puts the matter to rest.
Otherwise all such notions most certainly are false without doubt until something happens that puts the matter to rest.
There's no argument. I'm tossing the proposition out for discussion without necessarily arguing for or against it. I'm curious what people make of it.
How would being a theist require one to believe at least some notions of deity are true? Is it possible to be a theist yet believe deity is ineffable?
Alright. Then without bringing what I believe into it, what I make of it is more about its author than about it. So I'll refrain.
Can't a deity be ineffable and true?
Edit: I suppose this might be off-topic, as it turns toward what "true" is (i.e. not necessarily an "eff.") So nevermind.