Constructing a God Type Table

[Dontaskme]

Really? How do you know?

I know because I don't.

.

[uwot]

Really? How do you know?

I know because I don't.

Really? How don't you know?

[Reflex]

No replies? Do we prefer the uncertainty of not knowing which god any given person is referring to and duking it out?

Don’t’ forget the God of materialism (see number 7)...

1. Anthropomorphic deity
2. Deist prime mover
3. Panentheism
4. Pantheism
5. Spinozan pantheism
6. The "ground of being"
7. Serendipity

...for it is obvious that materialists possess a faith in number 7 that would put to shame the most devout theists.
_______

You’re right about #7, that’s for damn sure!

[Sir-Sister-of-Suck]

There's the "ancient astronaut" type I guess, or any view where god is an advanced alien species.

[Greta]

Okay. Final bids for the God table!

Note that I will be using the agreed upon numbers from now on (and that silence is consent in this context).

1. Anthropomorphic deity
2. Deist prime mover
3. Panentheism
4. Pantheism
5. Spinozan pantheism
6. The "ground of being"
7. Everything
8. Nothing
9. A godlike more advances species

Going once ..........

[Greta]

No replies? Do we prefer the uncertainty of not knowing which god any given person is referring to and duking it out?

Don’t’ forget the God of materialism (see number 7)...

1. Anthropomorphic deity
2. Deist prime mover
3. Panentheism
4. Pantheism
5. Spinozan pantheism
6. The "ground of being"
7. Serendipity

...for it is obvious that materialists possess a faith in number 7 that would put to shame the most devout theists.
_______

You’re right about #7, that’s for damn sure!

Use your brains, please.

If someone makes a claim about God in a conversation they are not going to be talking about "materialists believing in serendipity, that's for gosh darn sure!".

Usually it's #1, #3 or #6.

[Reflex]

Don’t’ forget the God of materialism (see number 7)...

1. Anthropomorphic deity
2. Deist prime mover
3. Panentheism
4. Pantheism
5. Spinozan pantheism
6. The "ground of being"
7. Serendipity

...for it is obvious that materialists possess a faith in number 7 that would put to shame the most devout theists.
_______

You’re right about #7, that’s for damn sure!

Use your brains, please.

If someone makes a claim about God in a conversation they are not going to be talking about "materialists believing in serendipity, that's for gosh darn sure!".

Usually it's #1, #3 or #6.

You make that claim all the time, Greta. Serendipity is your god.

[Greta]

Use your brains, please.

If someone makes a claim about God in a conversation they are not going to be talking about "materialists believing in serendipity, that's for gosh darn sure!".

Usually it's #1, #3 or #6.

You make that claim all the time, Greta. Serendipity is your god.

You forgot the "nyah nyah nyah". Detail is important.

Unlike you, I happily admit that I do not know the ultimate nature of reality. I make no claims for serendipity or anything else - because I don't know, and neither do you.

However, you need the psychological support of belief. It's a healthier crutch than cigarettes or heroin.

[seeds]

Don’t’ forget the God of materialism (see number 7)...

1. Anthropomorphic deity
2. Deist prime mover
3. Panentheism
4. Pantheism
5. Spinozan pantheism
6. The "ground of being"
7. Serendipity

...for it is obvious that materialists possess a faith in number 7 that would put to shame the most devout theists.
_______

You’re right about #7, that’s for damn sure!

Use your brains, please.

If someone makes a claim about God in a conversation they are not going to be talking about "materialists believing in serendipity, that's for gosh darn sure!".

Usually it's #1, #3 or #6.

However (and based on number “8” in your final list), are you comfortable in assuming that if someone makes a claim about God in a conversation, they are going to be talking about “nothing”???

For someone who is usually quite grounded and logical in their reasoning, you seem to be way off base on this one.

Furthermore, you never answered my earlier question - a question that I have now upgraded in light of the new addition to your list:

...how, pray tell, is the belief in the abstract and impersonal powers of “chance” as being the guiding force in the manifestation of the universe any different than the belief in the abstract and impersonal powers of “nothing,” for example, being its guiding force?

_______

[Reflex]

Use your brains, please.

If someone makes a claim about God in a conversation they are not going to be talking about "materialists believing in serendipity, that's for gosh darn sure!".

Usually it's #1, #3 or #6.

You make that claim all the time, Greta. Serendipity is your god.

You forgot the "nyah nyah nyah". Detail is important.

Unlike you, I happily admit that I do not know the ultimate nature of reality. I make no claims for serendipity or anything else - because I don't know, and neither do you.

However, you need the psychological support of belief. It's a healthier crutch than cigarettes or heroin.

You’re being intellectually dishonest, Greta. We all have beliefs about how the universe works. Even you. If you didn’t, you wouldn’t be able to formulate the first rational thought.

[Greta]

Don’t’ forget the God of materialism (see number 7)...

1. Anthropomorphic deity
2. Deist prime mover
3. Panentheism
4. Pantheism
5. Spinozan pantheism
6. The "ground of being"
7. Serendipity

...for it is obvious that materialists possess a faith in number 7 that would put to shame the most devout theists.
_______

You’re right about #7, that’s for damn sure!

Use your brains, please.

If someone makes a claim about God in a conversation they are not going to be talking about "materialists believing in serendipity, that's for gosh darn sure!".

Usually it's #1, #3 or #6.

However (and based on number “8” in your final list), are you comfortable in assuming that if someone makes a claim about God in a conversation, they are going to be talking about “nothing”???

Excellent - finally some proper feedback, even if grumpily delivered.

However, I've come across enough people who believe that The Void/nothingness is God that I'll keep it in there for now. Not many only posit #2, the prime mover either, so some are more common than others.

[Greta]

You make that claim all the time, Greta. Serendipity is your god.

You forgot the "nyah nyah nyah". Detail is important.

Unlike you, I happily admit that I do not know the ultimate nature of reality. I make no claims for serendipity or anything else - because I don't know, and neither do you.

However, you need the psychological support of belief. It's a healthier crutch than cigarettes or heroin.

You’re being intellectually dishonest, Greta. We all have beliefs about how the universe works. Even you. If you didn’t, you wouldn’t be able to formulate the first rational thought.

It's easy but unethical to throw around terms like "intellectually dishonest" when the truth is that you simply don't agree with me.

I provisionally believe in facts that have been acquired by the sacrifice and effort of brilliant minds down through history, that have been rigorously tested and retested and ultimately found to be reliable observations at this stage. I'd throw any of those ideas out in a heartbeat, though, if better evidence was clearly provided.

So, while I think the universe is an entirely living edifice, I don't believe it. I can't believe it because it's only an idea, not even a working hypothesis let alone a theory. It's just an idea that I like a lot and think might have legs in the future, but I would never argue it from a standpoint of certainty.

[henry quirk]

My suggestion is as reasonable as any other, so why is...

Memetic (possibly psychotronic) *parasite feeding on worship(ers).

...left off the list?









*call Orkin

[Greta]

My suggestion is as reasonable as any other, so why is...

Memetic (possibly psychotronic) *parasite feeding on worship(ers).

...left off the list?

I'm sorry for being so neglectful, Henry.

Alas, "memetic (possibly psychotronic) parasite feeding on worshippers" is a third party observation of religiosity rather than a self-declared assessment of one's belief.

------

"I believe in God."

"Which one?"

"I believe in #9 [the memetic (possibly psychotronic) parasite that feeds on worship]".

------

Doesn't work in context but no doubt it could be a worthy addition to a different list.

[seeds]

However (and based on number “8” in your final list), are you comfortable in assuming that if someone makes a claim about God in a conversation, they are going to be talking about “nothing”???

Excellent - finally some proper feedback, even if grumpily delivered.

Ah, I see, anyone who disagrees with you is a “grump.” - Noted.

(Is it possible that you’ve been arguing with Nick_A for so long that you can no longer discern friend from foe, or friendly philosophical discourse from inane drivel?)

However, I've come across enough people who believe that The Void/nothingness is God that I'll keep it in there for now. Not many only posit #2, the prime mover either, so some are more common than others.

Well then, you can now say that you have come across at least 2 people (me and reflex) who insist that “Serendipity” also appears to be a God (at least no less of a God than that of “Void” and “nothingness”).

I can’t help but notice that, once again, you have avoided my question:

...how, pray tell, is the belief in the abstract and impersonal powers of “chance” as being the guiding force in the manifestation of the universe any different than the belief in the abstract and impersonal powers of “nothing,” for example, being its guiding force?

It’s a sincere and valid question, Greta, or do you simply think that I am being grumpy by presenting it yet a third time?
_______