Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Philosophy Club

[Sy Borg]

🤣 I use "God" because it's a generic word. 🤣 This allows me to avoid commenting specifically on the Jewish/Christian God. 👍
* — Other sacred books are available. 😉

By using the word "God" you refer specifically and only to Yahweh, the Christian God, whether you mean to do so or not. "God" with a capital G now has a very specific meaning. To be generic you would need to refer to "deities" or "gods".

I am not buying your explanation. Yahweh is NOT the Christian God; the Christian God is Christ -- AKA Jesus. What was known as Yahweh in the Old Testament is now referred to as "God the Father" -- ask a Christian (not a Yahweh an).

It is also very disrespectful to refer to all other "deities" as "gods" because by denying the capitalization in that word, we would be denying that the particular "god" is specific. It may not be specific to you, but I suspect that the "God" is very specific to it's worshipers.

Deities have been known as named Gods for tens and maybe hundreds of thousands of years, all over the globe, so to assume that in all that time that only Yahweh as earned the right to capitalization is unbelievably arrogant. IMO

I don't always agree with PC, but in this matter I fully agree.

Gee

Oh come on, Yahweh is obviously God, repackaged. Show me one point in the Bible where there is a distinct line between Yahweh and God. There is none. The deity of the Old Testament is the very same deity of the New Testament, simply updated.

Your claim that it's disrespectful to refer to deities as deities makes no sense, and I suspect you did not understand my post. "God" is a proper noun that refers to the Christian deity, nothing more. That is, God is a god, as are Allah and the others. I did not advocate referring to "God" as "god", just as I don't advocate calling you "gee". I was pointing to the fact that when people talk about whether God exists or not, they are referring to one single deity, as though it was the only deity that counted.

The underlying assumption - probably an unconscious axiom - is that the other deities are obviously false, so the question is simply whether God/ Yahweh* exists.


* I continue to refer to "Yahweh", because the incongruities of this unevenly bifurcated deity are too often swept under the carpet because it reveals God's origin as just one of the pantheon of deities, not the ultimate Giant Magic Man. I see God as being just one other deity, no more or less feasible than Allah, Zarathustra, Zeus, Odin or Jupiter.

[Pattern-chaser]

By using the word "God" you refer specifically and only to Yahweh, the Christian God, whether you mean to do so or not. "God" with a capital G now has a very specific meaning. To be generic you would need to refer to "deities" or "gods".

Really? Tell that to a Moslem, a Sikh, a Hindu...? I suspect they might all disagree with you? And maybe a few others too? After all, only one in three humans is Christian; that leaves twice as many others, and few of them (relatively speaking) are atheists, so...?

Is there any evidence that deities are physically real things in the universe and not just metaphorical and/or purely subjective?

As we all surely know, there is no evidence, in the sense that a scientist would use the word. None at all.

[Pattern-chaser]

Oh come on, Yahweh is obviously God, repackaged. Show me one point in the Bible where there is a distinct line between Yahweh and God. There is none. The deity of the Old Testament is the very same deity of the New Testament, simply updated.

Your claim that it's disrespectful to refer to deities as deities makes no sense, and I suspect you did not understand my post. "God" is a proper noun that refers to the Christian deity, nothing more. That is, God is a god, as are Allah and the others. I did not advocate referring to "God" as "god", just as I don't advocate calling you "gee". I was pointing to the fact that when people talk about whether God exists or not, they are referring to one single deity, as though it was the only deity that counted.

The underlying assumption - probably an unconscious axiom - is that the other deities are obviously false, so the question is simply whether God/ Yahweh* exists.


* I continue to refer to "Yahweh", because the incongruities of this unevenly bifurcated deity are too often swept under the carpet because it reveals God's origin as just one of the pantheon of deities, not the ultimate Giant Magic Man. I see God as being just one other deity, no more or less feasible than Allah, Zarathustra, Zeus, Odin or Jupiter.

Now I've seen it all! Here, we have an 'agnostic atheist' (?), asserting the primacy of the Christian God, using the Jewish name for God! [As Gee said, the Christians morphed "Yahweh" into "God the Father", and never use the name "Yahweh".]

You live in a Christian country, Sy, and your neighbours (excluding the Kiwis) tend to follow the Eastern religions, that are a lot less exclusive about God. The "unconscious axiom" you refer to is a feature of 'We are right, so all others must be wrong' attitude favoured by Western religion. Many Westerners do not consider Eastern religions to be 'proper' religions, but maybe this position is only a reaction to their more relaxed view?

Buddhists, Confucianists, and Taoists will often quote from each others' scriptures, and see no conflict in doing so. Hindus believe that all human-named 'gods' are just aspects of the one, ineffable, God. They accept "Jesus" as a name for God, just as they accept "Shiva".

I'm going to end with an assertion, something I usually try to avoid: "God" is not the exclusive property of Christians and Christianity. So no more Christian propaganda, please?

[Sy Borg]

Oh come on, Yahweh is obviously God, repackaged. Show me one point in the Bible where there is a distinct line between Yahweh and God. There is none. The deity of the Old Testament is the very same deity of the New Testament, simply updated.

Your claim that it's disrespectful to refer to deities as deities makes no sense, and I suspect you did not understand my post. "God" is a proper noun that refers to the Christian deity, nothing more. That is, God is a god, as are Allah and the others. I did not advocate referring to "God" as "god", just as I don't advocate calling you "gee". I was pointing to the fact that when people talk about whether God exists or not, they are referring to one single deity, as though it was the only deity that counted.

The underlying assumption - probably an unconscious axiom - is that the other deities are obviously false, so the question is simply whether God/ Yahweh* exists.


* I continue to refer to "Yahweh", because the incongruities of this unevenly bifurcated deity are too often swept under the carpet because it reveals God's origin as just one of the pantheon of deities, not the ultimate Giant Magic Man. I see God as being just one other deity, no more or less feasible than Allah, Zarathustra, Zeus, Odin or Jupiter.

Now I've seen it all! Here, we have an 'agnostic atheist' (?), asserting the primacy of the Christian God, using the Jewish name for God! [As Gee said, the Christians morphed "Yahweh" into "God the Father", and never use the name "Yahweh".]

You live in a Christian country, Sy, and your neighbours (excluding the Kiwis) tend to follow the Eastern religions, that are a lot less exclusive about God. The "unconscious axiom" you refer to is a feature of 'We are right, so all others must be wrong' attitude favoured by Western religion. Many Westerners do not consider Eastern religions to be 'proper' religions, but maybe this position is only a reaction to their more relaxed view?

Buddhists, Confucianists, and Taoists will often quote from each others' scriptures, and see no conflict in doing so. Hindus believe that all human-named 'gods' are just aspects of the one, ineffable, God. They accept "Jesus" as a name for God, just as they accept "Shiva".

I'm going to end with an assertion, something I usually try to avoid: "God" is not the exclusive property of Christians and Christianity. So no more Christian propaganda, please? 😋

Don't be disingenuous. The Brits once commandeered the right to not need to tag their postage stamps with their country's name. If a stamp had no national identifier, then it was British. Likewise, the Christians commandeered the generic name, "God", and if that name is mentioned it ALWAYS refers to the Christian God Yahweh (even if some are so embarrassed by the savage Yahweh of the OT that they won't admit that they deity is the same as "God" of the NT).

While you occasionally see different religions quoting from each other but that is a tiny, almost invisible minority compared with those who believe that their own religion is right and all others are a blasphemy or travesty. Hindu polytheism is similar to that of Rome, in that each had a pantheon of deities and other deities were welcome to join. So, of course God and Jesus are allowed in, as they were allowed into Rome. The difference is that, in Rome, Christianity took over and killed off all of the other Roman deities.

[Pattern-chaser]

Don't be disingenuous. The Brits once commandeered the right to not need to tag their postage stamps with their country's name. If a stamp had no national identifier, then it was British. Likewise, the Christians commandeered the generic name, "God"...

So the arrogance and conceit of we Brits, probably stupid and wrong in itself, justifies the Christians attempting the same 'coup'? I don't think so.

Two out of three humans are not Christian, and do not automatically understand "God" to mean the Christian God.

[Sy Borg]

Don't be disingenuous. The Brits once commandeered the right to not need to tag their postage stamps with their country's name. If a stamp had no national identifier, then it was British. Likewise, the Christians commandeered the generic name, "God"...

So the arrogance and conceit of we Brits, probably stupid and wrong in itself, justifies the Christians attempting the same 'coup'? I don't think so.

Two out of three humans are not Christian, and do not automatically understand "God" to mean the Christian God.

Are you claiming that that most Muslims, Hindus and Buddhists are so ignorant that they have no idea that a Christian deity called "God" exists? In fact, they aren't. Most would know exactly who/what God is supposed to be, as opposed to Allah, Brahma and Buddha.

[Pattern-chaser]

Are you claiming that that most Muslims, Hindus and Buddhists are so ignorant that they have no idea that a Christian deity called "God" exists?

No, I'm claiming that most/all religious people acknowledge the spiritual existence of a supreme entity they all call "God". That their individual understandings of "God" vary is another matter.

[Gee]

I use "God" because it's a generic word. This allows me to avoid commenting specifically on the Jewish/Christian God.
* — Other sacred books are available.

By using the word "God" you refer specifically and only to Yahweh, the Christian God, whether you mean to do so or not. "God" with a capital G now has a very specific meaning. To be generic you would need to refer to "deities" or "gods".

I am not buying your explanation. Yahweh is NOT the Christian God; the Christian God is Christ -- AKA Jesus. What was known as Yahweh in the Old Testament is now referred to as "God the Father" -- ask a Christian (not a Yahweh an).

It is also very disrespectful to refer to all other "deities" as "gods" because by denying the capitalization in that word, we would be denying that the particular "god" is specific. It may not be specific to you, but I suspect that the "God" is very specific to it's worshipers.

Deities have been known as named Gods for tens and maybe hundreds of thousands of years, all over the globe, so to assume that in all that time that only Yahweh as earned the right to capitalization is unbelievably arrogant. IMO

I don't always agree with PC, but in this matter I fully agree.

Gee

Oh come on, Yahweh is obviously God, repackaged. Show me one point in the Bible where there is a distinct line between Yahweh and God. There is none. The deity of the Old Testament is the very same deity of the New Testament, simply updated.

If this were the religion forum, you might have a point, but this is the science forum and it is a thread about logic, not the Bible. Your statement exhibits little logic.

Your claim that it's disrespectful to refer to deities as deities makes no sense, and I suspect you did not understand my post. "God" is a proper noun that refers to the Christian deity, nothing more.

In a Christian society, that would be correct, but this is the internet and it is international, so we can not assume that the reader will acknowledge the term, God, as referring to the Christian God. I suspect that you did not understand PC's post.

That is, God is a god, as are Allah and the others. I did not advocate referring to "God" as "god", just as I don't advocate calling you "gee". I was pointing to the fact that when people talk about whether God exists or not, they are referring to one single deity, as though it was the only deity that counted.

Agreed. But they have different names for and understandings of the "only deity that counted."

By the way, if you want to call me "gee" you can, but you have to use my whole name, "gee, gosh, oh golly"; or maybe "gee whiz".

The underlying assumption - probably an unconscious axiom - is that the other deities are obviously false, so the question is simply whether God/ Yahweh* exists.

This "underlying assumption" is the problem and the reason why PC used quotation marks around the word, God. Quotation marks are most often used to validate the words used, but not always. I tried to remember what it is called when quotation marks are used this way, but it has been too many decades since I was in class, so I looked in Wiki and found the following:

Signalling unusual usage
Quotation marks are also used to indicate that the writer realises that a word is not being used in its current commonly accepted sense:

People also use quotation marks in this way to distance the writer from the terminology in question so as not to be associated with it, for example to indicate that a quoted word is not official terminology, or that a quoted phrase presupposes things that the author does not necessarily agree with; or to indicate special terminology that should be identified for accuracy's sake as someone else's terminology, as when a term (particularly a controversial term) pre-dates the writer or represents the views of someone else, perhaps without judgement (contrast this neutrally distancing quoting to the negative use of scare quotes).

* I continue to refer to "Yahweh", because the incongruities of this unevenly bifurcated deity are too often swept under the carpet because it reveals God's origin as just one of the pantheon of deities, not the ultimate Giant Magic Man. I see God as being just one other deity, no more or less feasible than Allah, Zarathustra, Zeus, Odin or Jupiter.

I am not a fan of the "Giant Magic Man" either. (chuckle) It is my thought that your opinion in this matter is not that much different than PC's, which is probably why he likes the Gaia theory/hypothesis. Maybe we could agree that this subject is not worth arguing about, especially in this thread, and go back to the problem of logic.

Gee

[Sy Borg]

Are you claiming that that most Muslims, Hindus and Buddhists are so ignorant that they have no idea that a Christian deity called "God" exists?

No, I'm claiming that most/all religious people acknowledge the spiritual existence of a supreme entity they all call "God". That their individual understandings of "God" vary is another matter.

Most call it Allah, Brahma or the Tao (though it's a collection of forces rather than an entity). Most will understand God as the Christian deity, just as they know Allah is the Islamic one.

So the question as to whether "God" exists is generally understand to be a question about that particular deity. It does not refer to a universal entity that has almost nothing in common with the Abrahamic deities.

[Pattern-chaser]

This "underlying assumption" is the problem and the reason why PC used quotation marks around the word, God. Quotation marks are most often used to validate the words used, but not always. I tried to remember what it is called when quotation marks are used this way, but it has been too many decades since I was in class, so I looked in Wiki and found the following:

Signalling unusual usage
Quotation marks are also used to indicate that the writer realises that a word is not being used in its current commonly accepted sense:

People also use quotation marks in this way to distance the writer from the terminology in question so as not to be associated with it, for example to indicate that a quoted word is not official terminology, or that a quoted phrase presupposes things that the author does not necessarily agree with; or to indicate special terminology that should be identified for accuracy's sake as someone else's terminology, as when a term (particularly a controversial term) pre-dates the writer or represents the views of someone else, perhaps without judgement (contrast this neutrally distancing quoting to the negative use of scare quotes).

I think that refers to quotation marks as single quotes. Double quotes normally represent an actual quotation, while single quotes are used to signal dialogue, and also the "distance" that your quote describes.

But I also understand that usage of quotation marks, single and double, is not universal...

No serious criticism here; 'point of information' only.

[Pattern-chaser]

Are you claiming that that most Muslims, Hindus and Buddhists are so ignorant that they have no idea that a Christian deity called "God" exists?

No, I'm claiming that most/all religious people acknowledge the spiritual existence of a supreme entity they all call "God". That their individual understandings of "God" vary is another matter.

Most call it Allah, Brahma or the Tao (though it's a collection of forces rather than an entity). Most will understand God as the Christian deity, just as they know Allah is the Islamic one.

So the question as to whether "God" exists is generally understand to be a question about that particular deity. It does not refer to a universal entity that has almost nothing in common with the Abrahamic deities.

According to Nyāya, God is considered to be the efficient cause of creation, maintenance, and destruction of the universe. [...]

Taken from "Seven systems of Indian philosophy", chapter 3, page 98. This is only one example, and it's been translated too, adding an extra variable, but there are many examples, and most seem to disagree with you.

Why don't we do as Gee suggested, and move back toward logic, the topic of this topic, so to speak?

[Sy Borg]

P-C, the issue of the diversion comes down to you, not me.

You claimed that it was illogical and unjustifiable to dismiss claims that a Middle Eastern deity exists. I claimed that dismissing God was no different to dismissing Zeus or other ancient deities out of hand. You disagreed. Why? You claimed that God was different, more universal (despite it not not being formally accepted by Taoism or Buddhism, two of the largest religions in the world, and Islam has its own monotheistic conception that is very different again).

Also note how many non-monotheistic religions would have existed in Africa and the Americas that were destroyed by Christians conquerors. The usual claim is that they were primitive, false faiths - unlike the absurd fairy story we westerners were conditioned to believe.

Further, as stated, if a universal consciousness does exist, chances are that it does not even slightly resemble God (or Allah or Zeus) in any respect whatsoever. You want logic? Tell me the logic of why a lead-addled Roman emperor and a savage Judean tribe would be the ones to crack the nature of reality and not the many better informed observers since? Can people who do not even realise that the universe exists, who believed diseases to be evil spirits, tell us about the nature of reality?

What they can usefully tell us is how people thought and lived in those times, and this provides more information in assessing the human condition.

God is just another ancient deity and I see no logic in staying open minded towards obvious superstition. The real question is not "Is God real?" but what what are the metaphorical realities behind the myths? What did God represent in the minds of its Abrahamic creators?

It's logical to dismiss literal interpretations of mythology out of hand so as to better consider the deeper questions that those myths represent.

[Gee]

THIS *** IS *** NOT *** THE *** RELIGION *** FORUM.

If you were anyone other than the Site Administrator, I would report your post.

Gee

[Gee]

Attempting to return to this topic is obviously a waste of time.

[Sy Borg]

Gee, have you so much to do that you can't be bothered actually reading what is said rather than getting triggered on buzzwords?

The OP stated:

We now get to my problem "with logic". There are some philosophers, and others too, of course, who will casually dismiss an idea that doesn't conform to their views and beliefs, but which cannot be disproved, and thereby dismissed.

I raised an example of this with religious claims - WHICH IS DIRECTLY RELATED TO THE OP. However, you unilaterally, and illogically, decided that it's not an appropriate example.

The point is always the same - that there are degrees of plausibility. There are potentially an almost infinite number of possible claims that can be made about a wide range of subjects so one must prioritise. That sometimes means 'casually dismissing an idea that doesn't conform to [my] views'. The less plausible an idea, the more "casual" the dismissal.