You say that there is a god...

[ppp]

Authority, definition: §2a, §2b and §4
Link: Authority Definition & Meaning | Britannica Dictionary

I assume you have read those definitions and their examples. They all lean a bit too heavily on the indivisual, rather than the process. What I trust is the reliability of the process.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I assume you have read those definitions and their examples. They all lean a bit too heavily on the indivisual, rather than the process. What I trust is the reliability of the process.

You should know that what science is, is a human cultural word itself and thus is not just one version. So how to understand science and all the related words in not an objective given, but rather different cultural constructs.

 

[Hermit Philosopher]

I assume you have read those definitions and their examples.

Yes. §2 §4 is the definition of the term authority that I use in my first and second comments to you - provided here, at your requested.

What I trust is the reliability of the process.

Correct: you “trust the reliability of the process” used in scientific research.

I promise; I have not misunderstood you and am not too sure why you think that I have.


Humbly,
Hermit

 

[ppp]

I promise; I have not misunderstood you and am not too sure why you think that I have.

As neither of your last two post have been substantively responsive, I suspect that you understand me all too well.

 

[Hermit Philosopher]

As neither of your last two post have been substantively responsive, I suspect that you understand me all too well.

Haha, I’m traveling at the moment and have not always had access, but I do here, so I promise to look through your comments and address what I may have missed.

Humbly,
Hermit

 

[nPeace]

For the Abrahamic God, I’m certain you would, but the God of Abraham is one of many gods.


Sure, but I’m not sure how this is relevant to what we’re discussing.

You don't?
So, somone asks what is a god, or what does god mean, and explaining that the term god is used in reference to things considered mighty... including men, is not relevant?
Help me with that please. I'm not making sense of it, sorry.

 

[nPeace]

No, those are different names for different tribal gods that may be vaguely similar.

Please provide a reference for that please.

 

[SalixIncendium]

You don't?
So, somone asks what is a god, or what does god mean, and explaining that the term god is used in reference to things considered mighty... including men, is not relevant?
Help me with that please. I'm not making sense of it, sorry.

I do not. The omnipotence of God is an Abrahamic/monotheistic concept that does not necessarily apply to gods of other religions, and in particular the one I identify with. For many non-Abrahamic religions, gods are guides, teachers, and benefactors, not almighty beings.

 

[nPeace]

I do not. The omnipotence of God is an Abrahamic/monotheistic concept that does not necessarily apply to gods of other religions, and in particular the one I identify with. For many non-Abrahamic religions, gods are guides, teachers, and benefactors, not almighty beings.

Are you saying humans were not called gods due to their extraordinary might?
PS. There is a difference between mighty and almighty.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Are you saying humans were not called gods due to their extraordinary might?

No.

 

[Exaltist Ethan]

I am not doing homework.

Certainly not if you are going to take such a presumptuve and haughty tone about it.

I rest my case.

However, I will attempt to define the theologies I believe in, in order to be closer to my own beliefs, and to explain them to you.

Panentheism is the belief that God is both the Universe and whatever is outside of it. My more specific view of this panentheism is my belief of The Omniverse, the idea that there is one central being that contains all of existence. Syntheism is the belief that humans create God. Process theology is the belief that all substances are constantly going through different processes, and that these processes are innately divine. If I were to combine all three theologies into one expression, it would imply that The Omniverse is God, and that both humans and other processes alike are creating unique and different aspects of God, and cumulate God's divinity. This belief, the idea of creating the divine, is also called theopoiesis.

The religions that align the best to these types of views are most likely Earthseed and Unity, as I am influenced by them.

 

[Hermit Philosopher]

Which brings us to your question about why we believe/don’t believe in what others say that they “know”. The answer is silly but nonetheless so: because we want/ don’t want to.

What? You seem to be saying that whether I accept or reject a proposition is a function of what I desire to be true. Am I reading this correctly?

That is part of what I said, yes.

Well, then you are wrong. There are propositions that I accept as true, but dont like.. And propositions that I reject as true, but do like. This is trivially obvious. Which is why I asked to make sure that I was not misunderstanding you.

From the example that you give at the end, I’d say that you may have misunderstood me a little regardless.

What I meant is that when we come across something claiming to be scientific, that harmonises with our general way of thinking (whether we “like” what’s said or not, is irrelevant) we may at best do some basic checks as to where the information was taken from - though often, we won’t even do that.

If we come across sources that we generally trust -they needn’t necessarily be academic; many on RF like Wikipedia- we’ll probably stop there.

Even if the sources that we come across are unknown to us -especially when the claim in question fits into our general way of thinking- we’ll seldom trace statements back to original studies. Instead, if a claim appears “reasonable” to us (again; nothing to do with “liking”), we’ll choose to trust its sources - because we want to.

When we come across something claiming to be scientific, that does not go well with our way of thinking, even if we may take the time to trace such a statement back slightly further than one that seems reasonable to us, we still rarely go all the way back to the studies claiming to lay behind it.

Lack of time, resources, etc. results in us judging claims (and their initial sources, if previously unknown to us) by how reasonable we believe the statements presented to us to be.

That is the “silly-but-nonetheless-so” point I attempted to get across: in our everyday, general lives, we may want to think ourselves as relying on science and scientific facts, but mainly we are relying on trust (in others …claiming to be relying on science; in papers …being reviewed correctly; in researchers …following protocol; etc.)

Acknowledging and remembering this, keeps us grounded.

Humbly,
Hermit

 

[ppp]

I rest my case.

You haven't made one. A case starts with a mutually agreed upon set of premises followed by series of statements connected nonfallaciously, culminating in a conclusion. You have made no effort to support your conclusions. The only thing that I have gotten is a bunch of baled assertions and stuff that you imagine about me.

Panentheism is the belief that God is both the Universe and whatever is outside of it. My more specific view of this panentheism is my belief of The Omniverse, the idea that there is one central being that contains all of existence. Syntheism is the belief that humans create God. Process theology is the belief that all substances are constantly going through different processes, and that these processes are innately divine. If I were to combine all three theologies into one expression, it would imply that The Omniverse is God, and that both humans and other processes alike are creating unique and different aspects of God, and cumulate God's divinity. This belief, the idea of creating the divine, is also called theopoiesis.

I was already aware of those definitions, but I cannot throw too much guff on someone providing the definitions for what they awant to talk about.
However.
And this is a big however.

Do you understand what you have provided -- in thst post as well as your previous -- is only a recitation of what you believe?

There is no meat on your bones. No ligaments. No blood. No tendons. No vital support.

A case starts with a mutually agreed upon set of premises followed by series of statements connected nonfallaciously, culminating in a conclusion.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...

A case starts with a mutually agreed upon set of premises followed by series of statements connected nonfallaciously, culminating in a conclusion.

That is not possible in practice because of limited cogntive, moral and cultural relativism and that includes what you state in effect as a non-objective norm.

 

[ppp]

What I meant is that when we come across something claiming to be scientific, that harmonises with our general way of thinking (whether we “like” what’s said or not, is irrelevant) we may at best do some basic checks as to where the information was taken from - though often, we won’t even do that.

Ahh. That is more clear. And I accept your premise. Though I will comment that this is not a binary. If someone says they have started pottery as a hobby, I don't sneak in to check their sink for clay. If they tell me that they have discovered soft tissue on dinosaur bones I am not going yo accept them at their word. ANd there is a whole gamut in between. And yes, harmony with my current state of understanding has a lot to do with what I accept, and how convinced I am by the claim and the evidence.

That is the “silly-but-nonetheless-so” point I attempted to get across: in our everyday, general lives, we may want to think ourselves as relying on science and scientific facts, but mainly we are relying on trust (in others …claiming to be relying on science; in papers …being reviewed correctly; in researchers …following protocol; etc.)

Which aligns with me saying that I generally trust the process. So, I think we are in accord there.

Acknowledging and remembering this, keeps us grounded.

Absolutely! On several occasions I have been walking along when sum long-running sub-process in my brain kicks out an error message about something that I have accepted wihout the proper amount of scrutiny. The most notable time being 12 years later. So embarrasing.

 

[Exaltist Ethan]

You haven't made one. A case starts with a mutually agreed upon set of premises followed by series of statements connected nonfallaciously, culminating in a conclusion. You have made no effort to support your conclusions. The only thing that I have gotten is a bunch of baled assertions and stuff that you imagine about me.

The case I was presenting wasn't the one you are presuming that I meant. In any case, I can already tell from your defensive tone that talking about this with you is probably a waste of time, and will only further the divisions we have regarding this topic.

I was already aware of those definitions, but I cannot throw too much guff on someone providing the definitions for what they awant to talk about.

Most people aren't aware of those definitions. I wasn't aware of many of these concepts until recently. I can't even spell the word theopoiesis correctly without doing Google auto-correct.

Do you understand what you have provided -- in thst post as well as your previous -- is only a recitation of what you believe?

There is no meat on your bones. No ligaments. No blood. No tendons. No vital support.

A case starts with a mutually agreed upon set of premises followed by series of statements connected nonfallaciously, culminating in a conclusion.

Things change. They become different. They separate and have different thoughts about these topics. Differences between beings and how they develop explains much of why I centrally hold these beliefs. You are going to reject that, and tell me that I still have no argument, but my belief is there because I can experience change. And since process theology exists on the very premise of change, and change is self-evident to me, I don't really need to explain myself further.

 

[ppp]

The case I was presenting wasn't the one you are presuming that I meant. In any case, I can already tell from your defensive tone that talking about this with you is probably a waste of time, and will only further the divisions we have regarding this topic.

Hmm. Your position is that you know what you are talking about. My position is that you have yet to present a cohernet thesis, and are completely unaware of that lack. Can there ve a greater divide than that?

Things change..

Accepted.

They become different.

You just said that.

They separate and have different thoughts about these topics.

Rejected.

 

[Exaltist Ethan]

Hmm. Your position is that you know what you are talking about. My position is that you have yet to present a cohernet thesis, and are completely unaware of that lack. Can there ve a greater divide than that?

What I mentioned had nothing to do about that. It had to do with the fact that you aren't interested in either listening to or understanding my arguments. I offered more than enough evidence in many other threads where we discuss this and you refuse to do what you call "homework". I'm done with this discussion. If you want to reply back to this, go ahead and keep trying to defame my position. But I'm not interested in this conversation anymore. I have spent 1/10th of the time answering you than I do with @Truthseeker because he actually listens to me and is polite in our discourse. I literally spend hours composing discussions with him, and he has proven to me that he is someone worth talking to. You, on the other hand, have not. I have as much difference in opinion with him as I have with you, but the way he approaches these differences is different. You are completely dismissive of me and I'm not wasting any more of my time talking with you.

 

[Twilight Hue]

The term 'god' means 'mighty one', basically.

I heard a rumor it's actually the almighty!

 

[ppp]

What I mentioned had nothing to do about that. It had to do with the fact that you aren't interested in either listening to or understanding my arguments.

A coherent thesis is literally a collection of arguments in support of a position. You aren't presenting arguments. You are presenting your conclusions and falsely calling them arguments.

I'm done with this discussion.

Ciao.