Theism and Moral Realism are separate concepts

[Immanuel Can]

Nobody but you has your conception of God.

If they have the Biblical conception of God, they do. And plenty do. Not just Christians, either. My conception of God is not extraordinary; but it isn't the only version of "god" that human beings have ever had.

how could you possibly know that somebody else's conception exactly matches yours in every single detail?

It doesn't have to. It simply has to have two characteristics: firstly, to get the broad strokes correct according to Scripture, and secondly, to be corrigible by the Word of God. My own view is the same. So anybody on that path is with me.

[FlashDangerpants]

If they have the Biblical conception of God, they do. And plenty do. Not just Christians, either. My conception of God is not extraordinary; but it isn't the only version of "god" that human beings have ever had.

how could you possibly know that somebody else's conception exactly matches yours in every single detail?

It doesn't have to. It simply has to have two characteristics: firstly, to get the broad strokes correct according to Scripture, and secondly, to be corrigible by the Word of God. My own view is the same. So anybody on that path is with me.

People only need to hold a broadly similar thing in mind to have the same concept as you now? Why did you change the rules all of a sudden?

[Immanuel Can]

how could you possibly know that somebody else's conception exactly matches yours in every single detail?

It doesn't have to. It simply has to have two characteristics: firstly, to get the broad strokes correct according to Scripture, and secondly, to be corrigible by the Word of God. My own view is the same. So anybody on that path is with me.

People only need to hold a broadly similar thing in mind to have the same concept as you now?

I didn't write that. Go back and look again, I guess.

[FlashDangerpants]

It doesn't have to. It simply has to have two characteristics: firstly, to get the broad strokes correct according to Scripture, and secondly, to be corrigible by the Word of God. My own view is the same. So anybody on that path is with me.

People only need to hold a broadly similar thing in mind to have the same concept as you now?

I didn't write that. Go back and look again, I guess.

People only need to share two characteristics with your view to match now, including a "broad stroke" and a willingness to be corrected... why did the rules suddenly change?

[Immanuel Can]

People only need to hold a broadly similar thing in mind to have the same concept as you now?

I didn't write that. Go back and look again, I guess.

People only need to share two characteristics...

Yeah, I didn't say that either. It's not just "two." It's all the broad strokes.

Y'know, we're going to get along a whole lot better if you say what I said, rather than saying what you wish I would say.

[FlashDangerpants]

I didn't write that. Go back and look again, I guess.

People only need to share two characteristics...

Yeah, I didn't say that either. It's not just "two." It's all the broad strokes.

Y'know, we're going to get along a whole lot better if you say what I said, rather than saying what you wish I would say.

"firstly, to get the broad strokes correct according to Scripture, and secondly, to be corrigible by the Word of God." You are suddenly allowing variance, why the rule change?


Never paraphrase my words again please. It would be unseemly to not live up to your own demands would it not?

[Alexiev]

Nobody but you has your conception of God.

If they have the Biblical conception of God, they do. And plenty do. Not just Christians, either. My conception of God is not extraordinary; but it isn't the only version of "god" that human beings have ever had.

Of course not. That's why it's elucidating to look at different conceptions of god and compare and contrast them. For example, Odin is routinely called "all seeing",. Yet we know this is hyperbole because he relies on those two ravens to bring him the news. Could this suggest that the Bible might engage in hyperbole as well? If one God called "all seeing" is not, might not others share the same fate? Isn't it reasonable to assess the different ways we humans have approached the divine without judging ourselves to be 100% right, and others 100% wrong?

[Immanuel Can]

"firstly, to get the broad strokes correct according to Scripture, and secondly, to be corrigible by the Word of God." You are suddenly allowing variance, why the rule change?

There's no variance. I just don't make my own current level of knowledge the benchmark of rightness. Like other people I've got lots still to learn. But the benchmark is the Word of God. And anybody who will convince me of something with reference to that benchmark is my friend, and will make me a better man. Somebody who wants to add something of their own invention would be quite different, of course.

[Immanuel Can]

That's why it's elucidating to look at different conceptions of god and compare and contrast them.

What would it "elucidate" to compile a list of the imaginings of the human mind?

It must be quite apparent to us all that none of us has special, divine epistemic privilege inherently. So if there is any reliable information concerning the nature of God, it is not going to come from our own fevered imaginings, but from the other direction completely. Unless God tells us about Himself, none of us is going to know anything, really.

[Alexiev]

That's why it's elucidating to look at different conceptions of god and compare and contrast them.

What would it "elucidate" to compile a list of the imaginings of the human mind?

It must be quite apparent to us all that none of us has special, divine epistemic privilege inherently. So if there is any reliable information concerning the nature of God, it is not going to come from our own fevered imaginings, but from the other direction completely. Unless God tells us about Himself, none of us is going to know anything, really.

C.S. Lewis disagrees. He thought all the stories about dying and riding gods may have been inspired by the true story to come. In any event, your "fevered imaginings" may not be SO superior to those of great thinkers of the past.

DIfferent conceptions of "god" are relevant to the meaning of the word.

[Immanuel Can]

That's why it's elucidating to look at different conceptions of god and compare and contrast them.

What would it "elucidate" to compile a list of the imaginings of the human mind?

It must be quite apparent to us all that none of us has special, divine epistemic privilege inherently. So if there is any reliable information concerning the nature of God, it is not going to come from our own fevered imaginings, but from the other direction completely. Unless God tells us about Himself, none of us is going to know anything, really.

C.S. Lewis disagrees.

Fair enough. But even C.S. Lewis couldn't know which stories are relevant and which are not, without reference to the master narrative. It is precisely because of the dying and rising Christ that he locates in those myths the echoes of truth. Had he not known the truth, the actual Grand Narrative to which those merely echo, he would not have been able to do that. He would have been as lost as anybody else.

In any event, different conceptions of "god" are relevant to the meaning of the word.

They're relevant only to what human beings have imagined might be "gods" or "God." But they don't tell us anything about the only God who actually exists.

[Alexiev]

They're relevant only to what human beings have imagined might be "gods" or "God." But they don't tell us anything about the only God who actually exists.

Our access to any God (whether He "really exists" or not) is limited by our imagination and by that of those who tell the tale. Who are you to say only you and your fellow travelers have access to revelation, inspiration, and truth? Isn't humility a Christian virtue?

[FlashDangerpants]

"firstly, to get the broad strokes correct according to Scripture, and secondly, to be corrigible by the Word of God." You are suddenly allowing variance, why the rule change?

There's no variance. I just don't make my own current level of knowledge the benchmark of rightness. Like other people I've got lots still to learn. But the benchmark is the Word of God. And anybody who will convince me of something with reference to that benchmark is my friend, and will make me a better man. Somebody who wants to add something of their own invention would be quite different, of course.

Previously you were speaking a different word if somebody else didn't have your particular beliefs about that word in mind. Now you are suddenly not speaking a diiferent word and open to discussions. That change reflects only your approval, not the meaning of anything.

[FlashDangerpants]

I think a nice searchable record of your contempt for re-wording other people's points and paraphrasing in general might come in handy one day.

Y'know, we're going to get along a whole lot better if you say what I said, rather than saying what you wish I would say.

I'm not making any new point about this, just storing it.

[FlashDangerpants]

On a seperate note, this is a video in which prof Jeffrey Kaplan discusses Frege's On Sense and Reference which explains why meaning is not a matter of ostensive definition, as assumed by Mister Can with his obsession for definitions but is split across sense and reference
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sDlFaOn71n8&t=121s