Philosophy Now Forum

mickthinks wrote:Hobby: What is "god"

For now, I just mean the entity (or entities) that priests and their followers believe in and call "God".
?

You already said that.
It don't mean shit.

It means what it means. It avoids taking the discussion down the rabbit hole you dearly want to deflect us into, and it leaves you in the spotlight.

You have claimed that the promises ascribed to God on which every religion is based are false and I think that is a knowledge claim. How do you know that without denying that God exists?

mickthinks wrote:It means what it means. It avoids taking the discussion down the rabbit hole you dearly want to deflect us into, and it leaves you in the spotlight.

You have claimed that the promises ascribed to God on which every religion is based are false and I think that is a knowledge claim. How do you know that without denying that God exists?

I don't know what you are talking about. You'll have to say what you mean by "god" for your statement to make any sense.

mickthinks wrote:Yes, I guess most theists believe that there is only one god and that other theists have the wrong idea about Him or Her. But the belief that an apparent conflict between doctrines is irreconcilable is itself sometimes an error in interpretation, and the capacity of humans for error is not sufficient reason to dismiss the possibility that some religious promises are God-given.

Actually, it is. If some religious promises are God-given, then all of them would have to be God-given. God would ensure that if he makes a promise or gives a message, it would be reproduced faithfully. Error in tranmission of God's message would indicate inefficiency and I am sure no one wants to accuse God of that. So if even a single one of those promises were the actual one God made, the rest of them would have to be too and we would be back to the single religion concept.

If some religious promises are God-given, then all of them would have to be God-given.
I disagree. I think some religions might be fake.

Hobby: I don't know what you are talking about.

I'm talking about what you are talking about when you claim the promises ascribed to God on which every religion is based are false, so it is what you are talking about that you don't know.

mickthinks wrote:Hobby: I don't know what you are talking about.

I'm talking about what you are talking about when you claim the promises ascribed to God on which every religion is based are false, so it is what you are talking about that you don't know.

What I actually said was:"So the religion is in no position to make those promises. Nivarna, Valhalla, Heaven, Elysium: since no one has come back to give witness the core of the religion is either knowingly or negligently making claims it cannot make."

mickthinks wrote:If some religious promises are God-given, then all of them would have to be God-given.
I disagree. I think some religions might be fake.

agreed. (Of course, I believe they are all fake). But assuming that anyone religion is the true religion, each an every promise and message ascribed to God must be true because if they are not all true it implies inefficiency on the part of God in the transmission of the message. Since God cannot be inefficient, each message and promise would necessarily have to be true without exception. So if you find a religion in which each and every promise and message of God is true, then they would be God's messages. If not, then it is obvious that they are man made.

mickthinks wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:So the religion is in no position to make those promises. Nivarna, Valhalla, Heaven, Elysium: since no one has come back to give witness the core of the religion is either knowingly or negligently making claims it cannot make.

In most (I can't speak of all) religions, the orthodox teaching is not that religious leaders have made promises, but that God has made promises. So your claim that the promises are false amounts to a claim that God is not in a position to make those promises. Now, when you say that, I think you are saying more than merely that you personally don't believe in God.

Else, how can you say God's promises are all false? How would you know that?

Does lack of proof show that a proposition is likely false?

I would say yes as it is to those who make a claim to show what truth or evidence they are basing it on.

Those who say God is real are thus lying.

Regards
DL

mickthinks wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:So the religion is in no position to make those promises. Nivarna, Valhalla, Heaven, Elysium: since no one has come back to give witness the core of the religion is either knowingly or negligently making claims it cannot make.

In most (I can't speak of all) religions, the orthodox teaching is not that religious leaders have made promises, but that God has made promises. So your claim that the promises are false amounts to a claim that God is not in a position to make those promises.

How absurd of you
How did you get from "religion" to "God"?

You are obviously not smart enough to be capable of knowing the DIFFERENCE between some blokes claiming to know what god is saying and what god himself might be saying (whatever "god" is today).
SO, no, nothing I am saying concerns what god says. I leave that up to priests and other idiots.
And since you have signally failed to even say what you mean by "god", then once again, your statement is devoid of meaning.

How absurd of you. How did you get from "religion" to "God"?

How absurd are you that you even ask the question!

religion
noun re·li·gion \ri-ˈli-jən\
: the belief in a god or in a group of gods

... nothing I am saying concerns what god says.

What you are saying is that religious promises are false. You cannot claim that without also claiming that God does not make those promises.

sthitapragya: Since God cannot be inefficient ...
True, but she can appear to be inefficient to us, I think.

... each message and promise would necessarily have to be true without exception.
I also think that God allows everyone, including her priests, to make mistakes.

mickthinks wrote:sthitapragya: Since God cannot be inefficient ...
True, but she can appear to be inefficient to us, I think.

... each message and promise would necessarily have to be true without exception.
I also think that God allows everyone, including her priests, to make mistakes.

Then she does not love well.

Would you let your children just go ahead and make mistakes that harm others?

Proverbs 3:12 For whom the Lord loveth he correcteth; even as a father the son in whom he delighteth.

Regards
DL

mickthinks wrote:How absurd of you. How did you get from "religion" to "God"?

How absurd are you that you even ask the question!

religion
noun re·li·gion \ri-ˈli-jən\
: the belief in a god or in a group of gods

... nothing I am saying concerns what god says.

What you are saying is that religious promises are false. You cannot claim that without also claiming that God does not make those promises.

Religions are evident, gods are not.

So a promise made by a religion is not a promise made by god: this is where you are going wrong.
Please try again!

Hobby: Religions are evident, gods are not. So a promise made by a religion is not a promise made by god
That doesn't follow, unless by "not evident" you mean "non-existent". Do you claim that God is non-existent?


this is where you are going wrong. Please try again!
LOL NO U!