humor and being ''WOKE''

[commonsense]

What shall we eliminate, and why?

Eliminate all that are contradictory within themselves, because they cannot be true.

Excellent strategy. And it fits within the Law of Non-Contradiction, again. So we can stay in the field of pure logic and deduction for the moment.

Gary's left for greener pastures, it seems.

I find that when one makes the logical argument, one gets to about this point, and one of two things happens: either the person says, "You're right -- relativism in this area makes no sense," or he says, "You're ugly and stupid, and I'm leaving." So maybe Gary will be back to continue, and maybe not: we'll have to see.

How about we consider the big three groups: Polytheism, Monotheism, and Atheism? Maybe we can take out a whole group or cluster of possibilities relatively quickly.

Which shall we begin with?

I would start by eliminating Polytheism because it is possible for it to be contradictory within itself. For example, if there were a god of rainfall, it could be claimed that it is raining (heavily). Simultaneously a god of lakes could produce the claim that the lake’s water level is declining.

[commonsense]

I think that statement 4 will always be true or false.

One could evaluate each of the 3 statements as 'neither true nor false' because there is insufficient information to make a true/false evaluation.

Since the information is insufficient for an evaluation, an evaluation should not be made. After all, an evaluation of either true or false is essentially saying that no evaluation is being made.

[phyllo]

Yes, but for the better. My water comes through purer from my filter. If the analogy were apt, then passing through a mind would make the facts purer, not introduce pollution.

Sure, you filter your water and die of a mineral deficiency.

What makes this an all-or-nothing proposition?

The fact that the filter is there is all or nothing.

The effect of the filter is not all or nothing.

[Immanuel Can]

Eliminate all that are contradictory within themselves, because they cannot be true.

Excellent strategy. And it fits within the Law of Non-Contradiction, again. So we can stay in the field of pure logic and deduction for the moment.

Gary's left for greener pastures, it seems.

I find that when one makes the logical argument, one gets to about this point, and one of two things happens: either the person says, "You're right -- relativism in this area makes no sense," or he says, "You're ugly and stupid, and I'm leaving." So maybe Gary will be back to continue, and maybe not: we'll have to see.

How about we consider the big three groups: Polytheism, Monotheism, and Atheism? Maybe we can take out a whole group or cluster of possibilities relatively quickly.

Which shall we begin with?

I would start by eliminating Polytheism because it is possible for it to be contradictory within itself. For example, if there were a god of rainfall, it could be claimed that it is raining (heavily). Simultaneously a god of lakes could produce the claim that the lake’s water level is declining.

I think that doesn't exactly defy logic. Maybe they don't always know what the gods are doing, and misinterpret it. In fact, that's why they have recourse to things like medicine men and gurus; they assume that most people, most of the time, don't know what the gods are up to, but the medicine man can find out. So maybe that's just a mistake, empirically speaking: they thought the rain god was doing something, but the lake god is the right explanation, or something like that.

[commonsense]

Excellent strategy. And it fits within the Law of Non-Contradiction, again. So we can stay in the field of pure logic and deduction for the moment.

Gary's left for greener pastures, it seems.

I find that when one makes the logical argument, one gets to about this point, and one of two things happens: either the person says, "You're right -- relativism in this area makes no sense," or he says, "You're ugly and stupid, and I'm leaving." So maybe Gary will be back to continue, and maybe not: we'll have to see.

How about we consider the big three groups: Polytheism, Monotheism, and Atheism? Maybe we can take out a whole group or cluster of possibilities relatively quickly.

Which shall we begin with?

I would start by eliminating Polytheism because it is possible for it to be contradictory within itself. For example, if there were a god of rainfall, it could be claimed that it is raining (heavily). Simultaneously a god of lakes could produce the claim that the lake’s water level is declining.

I think that doesn't exactly defy logic. Maybe they don't always know what the gods are doing, and misinterpret it. In fact, that's why they have recourse to things like medicine men and gurus; they assume that most people, most of the time, don't know what the gods are up to, but the medicine man can find out. So maybe that's just a mistake, empirically speaking: they thought the rain god was doing something, but the lake god is the right explanation, or something like that.

Yes, but it’s possible for the contradiction to exist, even if the supplicants are blind to the behavior of these gods.

[Immanuel Can]

I would start by eliminating Polytheism because it is possible for it to be contradictory within itself. For example, if there were a god of rainfall, it could be claimed that it is raining (heavily). Simultaneously a god of lakes could produce the claim that the lake’s water level is declining.

I think that doesn't exactly defy logic. Maybe they don't always know what the gods are doing, and misinterpret it. In fact, that's why they have recourse to things like medicine men and gurus; they assume that most people, most of the time, don't know what the gods are up to, but the medicine man can find out. So maybe that's just a mistake, empirically speaking: they thought the rain god was doing something, but the lake god is the right explanation, or something like that.

Yes, but it’s possible for the contradiction to exist, even if the supplicants are blind to the behavior of these gods.

Right. But I think we maybe can eliminate Polytheism by another route: that, definitionally, the term "god" means something quite different from what is meant by Monotheists, and probably from what most Atheists are speaking about, too.

In Polytheism, what is meant by "god" is a contingent being, not the Supreme Being. Most of these "gods" are not the creator of all things, but rather the temporary custodian of some subdivision of creation (like the rain or the lake). Moreover, in many traditions, such as the Greek or the Norse, they not only have origin stories, but death-of-the-gods legends, as well. In other words, they're really no more than a kind of alien/superhero, with limited power and knowledge, and with a beginning and and end.

There are other differences, too. Polytheism makes their gods out to be manipulable; find the right formula, and you can get the thunder god or the crop god to give you what you want. That's why one must consult the shaman, the witch doctor, or the priest; he's in the know where ordinary mortals are not, and can tell them how to get on the good side of the relevant god. In the Monotheist conception of God, nobody manipulates God; God Himself is in control of all situations, cannot be lied to or bribed, and He tells human beings what they must do, rather than taking any cue from them or from their gurus.

If that's fair, then the Polytheist isn't really speaking of the same thing as the other two are, at all. His is quite a different hypothesis from theirs. The Monotheist and the Atheist alike, I think, are primarily concerned with the Creator God, the Supreme Being, or the idea of an Original Uncaused Cause of all things; and the Polytheist is preoccupied with nothing like that. He's got a raft of little godlets to appease, usually for the mundane purpose of getting himself ahead.

So we could say that the Polytheist is not even in the same "game" as the Atheist and the Monotheist. Even to mention him in the same breath is to make an error of amphiboly, because analytically, his "god" concept isn't anything like what the other two are talking about.

What about that route?

[Gary Childress]

I think that doesn't exactly defy logic. Maybe they don't always know what the gods are doing, and misinterpret it. In fact, that's why they have recourse to things like medicine men and gurus; they assume that most people, most of the time, don't know what the gods are up to, but the medicine man can find out. So maybe that's just a mistake, empirically speaking: they thought the rain god was doing something, but the lake god is the right explanation, or something like that.

Yes, but it’s possible for the contradiction to exist, even if the supplicants are blind to the behavior of these gods.

Right. But I think we maybe can eliminate Polytheism by another route: that, definitionally, the term "god" means something quite different from what is meant by Monotheists, and probably from what most Atheists are speaking about, too.

In Polytheism, what is meant by "god" is a contingent being, not the Supreme Being. Most of these "gods" are not the creator of all things, but rather the temporary custodian of some subdivision of creation (like the rain or the lake). Moreover, in many traditions, such as the Greek or the Norse, they not only have origin stories, but death-of-the-gods legends, as well. In other words, they're really no more than a kind of alien/superhero, with limited power and knowledge, and with a beginning and and end.

There are other differences, too. Polytheism makes their gods out to be manipulable; find the right formula, and you can get the thunder god or the crop god to give you what you want. That's why one must consult the shaman, the witch doctor, or the priest; he's in the know where ordinary mortals are not, and can tell them how to get on the good side of the relevant god. In the Monotheist conception of God, nobody manipulates God; God Himself is in control of all situations, cannot be lied to or bribed, and He tells human beings what they must do, rather than taking any cue from them or from their gurus.

If that's fair, then the Polytheist isn't really speaking of the same thing as the other two are, at all. His is quite a different hypothesis from theirs. The Monotheist and the Atheist alike, I think, are primarily concerned with the Creator God, the Supreme Being, or the idea of an Original Uncaused Cause of all things; and the Polytheist is preoccupied with nothing like that. He's got a raft of little godlets to appease, usually for the mundane purpose of getting himself ahead.

So we could say that the Polytheist is not even in the same "game" as the Atheist and the Monotheist. Even to mention him in the same breath is to make an error of amphiboly, because analytically, his "god" concept isn't anything like what the other two are talking about.

What about that route?

Who's to say that the creator of the universe was just one entity--one which must be obeyed or else? Sounds like a recipe for autocracy. I mean, all a person has to do is convince people that they are the mouthpiece of the one true God, and s/he's suddenly got a whole society/flock of people who don't really think for themselves.

Athens was a cultural mecca in its heyday and was polytheistic. The "Rennaissance" and later "Enlightenment" in Europe were apparently great cultural revivals that questioned religious authority/the pope. We wouldn't have the constitution of the US without the "social contract" theorists of the Enlightenment. The early codifiers of the US Constitution saw fit to make the First Amendment read: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

So if a person thinks that there was more than one "God" who was the creator of everything, what would you say to that person? Would you say that their religion was "wrong"? And if so, what is your basis for proving that polytheism is wrong?

[commonsense]

What about that route?

2 questions arise:

Are we no longer able to recognize the correct premise by means of logic alone?

Since the monotheists and atheists may have similar concepts of God and the polytheists concept of gods is so different, does that lead to the conclusion that the polytheists are the ones with the correct claim?

[Gary Childress]

What about that route?

2 questions arise:

Are we no longer able to recognize the correct premise by means of logic alone?

Since the monotheists and atheists may have similar concepts of God and the polytheists concept of gods is so different, does that lead to the conclusion that the polytheists are the ones with the correct claim?

Why are you asking IC as though he's going to spoon-feed you? What do you think IC is going to tell you? I suggest thinking about it on your own when it comes to religion and allowing your own better judgment to lead the way. But that's me. What do I know? I'm just waiting for the anointing of the next Pope.

[commonsense]

What about that route?

2 questions arise:

Are we no longer able to recognize the correct premise by means of logic alone?

Since the monotheists and atheists may have similar concepts of God and the polytheists concept of gods is so different, does that lead to the conclusion that the polytheists are the ones with the correct claim?

Why are you asking IC as though he's going to spoon-feed you? What do you think IC is going to tell you? I suggest thinking about it on your own when it comes to religion and allowing your own better judgment to lead the way. But that's me. What do I know? I'm just waiting for the anointing of the next Pope.

I have my own tentative answers to these questions, but I am open to the possibility of being convinced otherwise if IC or anyone following this thread has ideas different from mine.

I haven’t revealed my answers not because I would set a trap but rather because I don’t want to unduly influence IC or anyone else who might respond.

And it is my own judgment that leads me to make conclusions about God, gods and religion, however I don’t want my judgment informed only by my necessarily limited thinking.

I would not be interested in having this discussion with IC and with you if I always drew conclusions based on faith, feelings or my gut.

Please continue to challenge IC at every possible opportunity, Gary.

[commonsense]

So if a person thinks that there was more than one "God" who was the creator of everything, what would you say to that person? Would you say that their religion was "wrong"? And if so, what is your basis for proving that polytheism is wrong?

Great questions. And furthermore, what would be the basis for proving that monotheism or atheism is wrong?

[Immanuel Can]

Who's to say that the creator of the universe was just one entity--one which must be obeyed or else?

Hi, Gary...I thought you were busy.

So if a person thinks that there was more than one "God" who was the creator of everything, what would you say to that person?

I'm just pointing out that their idea of "god" is not what is meant by modern Westerners and Monotheists when they say "God." Those are two concepts, not the same concept.

So we have to decide if we want to talk about gods, or God. It won't turn out to be reasonable to talk as if both concepts are the same. That would be an error of amphiboly.

This "basis" is logic, in particular, analytics.

That's what we've got so far.

[Immanuel Can]

What about that route?

2 questions arise:

Are we no longer able to recognize the correct premise by means of logic alone?

We're still using logic, but we're now into analytics, meaning making sure our terms are precise, so that we don't commit an error of amphiboly.

Since the monotheists and atheists may have similar concepts of God and the polytheists concept of gods is so different, does that lead to the conclusion that the polytheists are the ones with the correct claim?

It leads to the conclusion they're making a totally separate claim, not the same claim that the other two groups are engaging.

Which one is the best hypothesis to engage, well, you'll have to use further methods to discern that. And they will be empirical and probabilistic arguments, rather than pure logic.

[commonsense]

Which one is the best hypothesis to engage, well, you'll have to use further methods to discern that. And they will be empirical and probabilistic arguments, rather than pure logic.

So, empirically, if there are more monotheists than atheists, that would mean the monotheists have it right, and vv.?

Would it be more probable that the belief system with the larger number of followers is the correct one?

I don’t think this is what you mean by empirical and probabilistic methods, is it?

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Isn't there a christian thread (or a thousand) around here somewhere for this?